Well, I’m saying about fire rate for valid source. Anyway, yes I agree with USS Tennessee to have full dispalcement draft or highest water line, but it should not be only USS Tennessee but also all other warships in War Thunder(Alaska, Barham, Hood, Renown, Battle class destroyers, Des Moines, etc)
2 Likes
Specifically, it’s the only document that discusses Rates of Fire. It also shows that even in the 1920s, the ships were firing faster than what appears in the game. That said, I have been hunting for more info and have even contacted a couple of the US Museumships for more information on that documentation. So far, I’ve managed to find Gunnery logs from Texas and Nevada, which are pretty helpful, as well as some further anecdotal evidence that Texas was averaging 27 seconds per salvo during her D-Day bombardment.
It is faster in 1920s because in those times, US 14-inch battleships have ready rack inside turret, which is very dangerous for survivability. It removed during 1930s following lessons of Jutland.
I would like to see the US standards at the very least get some sort of reload buff and correct displacement. However the currently available documents don’t support a buffed reload.
I am interested in what you have on Texas though as that could be useful, provided the Texas was not sending up charges immediately following the first charge being “delivered” as ingame reload cycle begins when the gun is fired.
But the TL:DR is that the ready rack used to exist in the turret, this allowed for the charges and such to be closer to the gun breach, they didnt have to be brought up from the magazines (which also doesn’t reflect great on the loader because theyre so close to gun breach and yet still only manage a relatively average reload). This was corrected as a detonation risk, however that increased reload logically.
Imagine an MBT with 4 second autoloader gets a human loader, you would be using autoloader documents to prove the speed of a manual loader in this analogy.
I had discussed that with the Curator of Battleship Texas. However, he was somewhat confused as to what I meant by it. He stated that there were never “ready racks” in the turrets. He said what is usually seen on the turret blueprints is spare ammunition, which was a standard part of turret operations, nothing special like a ready rack, which is very interesting.
Aye, I’m currently still in discussion with him about all that; I’ll keep you all appraised as I find stuff on it. I might also be contacting a few other curators, so we’ll see what that brings
6 Likes
I recently found that the shell storage inside the turret, regardless they are ready racks or spare ammo, had never been removed, as the damage report of the USS Arizona stated as follows:
(b) It is believed from conversations with personnel that was attached to the ship at that time, that the contents of the forward magazines prior to the attack on 7 December, 1941, were about as follows:
308 - 14" shells in each turret, Nos. 1 and 2, on turret shell decks and in handling rooms, 1st platform.
3 Likes
Hmm, its starting to look like that the ready-racks were just misconception. Espesially if Arizona still carried them all the way into the 40s.
Perhaps if we’re able to prove that these are not ready racks that would validate the 1920s close range battle practice report?
That aligns with what the Curator of Battleship Texas was stating. If we consider the ammunition in the turret was just a normal part of turret operations, then It’s quite likely that the 1920s report is accurate in terms of RoF even for the later refit ships
2 Likes
I guess that means we could actually get the sweet 27 second aced reload as I reporded?
Could you re-open and update my report, then?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9DrWx7mRDflG
6 Likes
No, because the game doesn’t take turret ready racks into account.
In order to prove higher RoF you would have to either:
- Provide sources stated that the shells in the turret are NOT ready racks and the short range practice applied regular loading methods
Or
- Provide post-1930 sources directly stated a higher RoF
2 Likes
I’m not sure I understand. If they aren’t taken into account, then why is one of the stated reasons that the firing rate was slower that the “ready racks were removed during the modernization?”
It sounds like it either has to be one or the other.
3 Likes
Now hold on a second, your statement on the matter was this as the reason for the citations being unusable.
The requirement was up to this point to prove that the ready racks existed post 1930, or prove they had not required for the 1920s ROFs, as, you yourself and other techmods and devs have said, were the only reason that such ROFs were possible, and you yourself now proved that they could exist after 1930, solving one of the two above mentioned requirements.
To that same end this
Does not matter per your prior statement that
There is no quantification of gun elevation or change in loading methods, you yourself state it is the theoretical fastest loading rate, 27 seconds is the fastest, theoretically achievable rate of fire for these guns on paper.
Why would this be needed, the only reason previously that there was a need for a post 1930 source is because the quote on quote “ready racks” were removed in 1930, you yourself now state this may not have occurred, thus invalidating the need for a post 1930 source since the primary reason for such a source never occurred.
^
3 Likes
Looks like someone is trying again. This time with a document directly from CINCUS as well as supporting evidence
Incorrect reload for all American 14" guns // Gaijin.net // Issues
8 Likes
Got forwarded almost immediately, seems the issue was as HK said, lack of appropriate sources that provided a full picture. Well done to whoever submitted this report. (Seems like he’s on PSN and often console players such as myself don’t actually lurk on the forums).
8 Likes
Oh and thanks for sending this by the way, I regularly miss bug reports which I wish I could get a personalised ‘feed’ for full of ones the game thinks i might find interesting.
3 Likes
Oh, God…
And thanks to @HK_Reporter for the quick forwarding!
This fix is now one of the potential changes I am looking forward to the most for a foreseeable future… even more so than new vehicles!
If American Battleships, specially USS Tennessee, get a competitive reload, it will be a huge improvement in capabilities… and if shell rooms are finally fixed like Smin teased, they may actually become GOOD!
3 Likes
Gotta admit, im concerned that it was only accepted as a suggestion. Usually Gaijin either sits on it or implements after a whole year.
1 Like
Yeah.
Maybe it’s just the wording, but I always felt like, when they deem something to be a “suggestion” instead of an actual issue, they just don’t do anything about it because the nature of “suggestions” is subjective.
So they may just hit us again with the “ok, fine, it should be 27 seconds, but we actually consider it to be balanced at 40 seconds, so F you” xD
1 Like
Considering Gaijin admitted that the round for the 105 Abrams was changed wrongly and after many months still haven’t fixed the issue. Yeah, hope is at an all time low for me.
2 Likes
What is worse is that draft is completely arbitrary an doesnt make any sense when you look ingame at sisters ship of the same class have different draft: Prinz Eugen has a deeper draft compared to Admiral Hipper despite both having the same tonnage ingame, and same occurs with Pola having deeper draft compared to Zara, despite Pola being almost 200tons lighter
(I guess a conspiranoic enough player could argue that this two cases are to get more sales out of those two premiums since they have better survivability due to the deeper draft hahahah)
2 Likes