Actually Stalingrad was first on War Thunder CDK files
Nah, it is accurate for ingame Mutsu as 21.5 seconds is after modernization. 24.5 seconds was best for Nagato class before modernization.
Still mystery why Gaijin puts on Mutsu before modernization version while there are IJN Amagi and IJN Tosa.
Another good fresh, chunky meat with barbette explosion!
2 Likes
Ah, fair enough then.
Personally I would have waited, introduced the Tennessee, Dunk, Stras, QE, R, Franc caracciolo and then introduced Tosa and Amagi and not introduced Nagato class until we were ready for their refits.
But according to Navweaps the 35 sec is including the elevation and spalsh spotting.
In 1924 the typical firing cycle was 31 seconds for a 15 degree elevation. The firing cycle consisted of lowering the gun to the loading position in 5 seconds, loading in 12 seconds, elevating the gun back up in 5 seconds and then waiting 9 seconds for the director to align and fire the guns. Once the correct range and bearing was achieved, waiting time could be reduced by not spotting shell splashes.
And I am quite certain that Gaijin ignores this in other ships regardless.
1 Like
Was Ordnance Pamphlet 309 14-inch triple gun turrets found online or sourced in any way?
It should likely have the firing cycle regulation in there and could provide the answear what the regulation speed was in actuallity.
But I wasn´t able to find it anywhere online so I am not sure. But it might be helpfull when composing new bug report.
That document is from 1917 so it would be of no help, since rn the debate is on whether these mount can sustain a higher RoF after removal of ready racks in the turret. TLDR you would have to find a document dated after the modernisation for bug report.
10km seems to be a point at which the accuracy decreases for me too but the salvos still hit. I got ammoracks up to 14km too
I find past 10/11km it’s more luck than skill.
A preview of Tennessee’s survivability against 127mm HE:
5 Likes
Lmao
The fact that this has been reported for months and still unfixed…
My hype for Tennessee is dead now xd, unless solid damage model fixes come with the update.
Naval in general has the “127mm HE one-hit kills ship” issue. Damage models are a mess. I experience the same in Baden, which has additional reports that have been “acknowledged” for several months as well.
1 Like
Honestly, I’m fed up with Naval.
The HE bug affects so many Battleships- this Bayern was one-hit killed by an AI’s single 152mm HE…
Gaijin keeps acting like just throwing new shiny toys will save this mode, meanwhile this bug and many other damage model-related bugs have existed for YEARS by now and they do nothing to solve it.
This is a disaster.
EDIT: now, a Scharnhorst being ammoracked… by a 76mm HE. I think this is the most humillating example possible.
1 Like
I still find every single reason they gave for declining the Standards a faster RoF utter BS. First they quote its for ‘realism’. Then in the next bug report, they say its for balance reasons!
They cant even make up their minds on the excuses at this point.
3 Likes
The “balance reasons” part is the funniest one.
“It is vital for balance that the ships that blow up as soon as they are glanced at also take twice as long to reload compared to stronger and more survivable ships with bigger guns and heavier shells.”
Ever since I got Scharnhorst yesterday, I simply club on American BBs. They just kinda die when I look at them.
So… yeah, unless this is fixed, my hype for Tennessee is as dead as every American BB when they are shot once xD.
1 Like
Developers had never made such statement. This is entirely a community assumption. The only reason why these guns are still stick with 40 sec reload is that there’s no direct historical evidence so far to show these guns can sustain a higher RoF after the removal of ready racks inside the turret during the modernisation.
3 Likes
Im pretty I’ve read a bug report that declined New Mexicos RoF increase for balance reasons. Give me a couple of minutes to find it.
Ah found it. To quote “Just in case, I remind you that the reload time is a balance value.”
Quite a head scratcher response, especially when one considers the lackluster performance of ingame Standards.
2 Likes
TrickZZter is not the game developer just to say, and he was answering more in a general sense (in ground forces RoF was more often used as balancing factor). I have been keeping my eyes on US battleship RoF reports for over two years and I had various conversations with developers on this topic so I am very sure it was not a case of “balancing”.
BTW, developer’s original response on the report you linked was that they would not accept reports with that reference which is dated before the modernisation of standard battleships.
1 Like
Ah, gotcha. Still, I find this insistence puzzling especially when everyone elses reload is based on testing conditions that cant be acheived in combat.
There is nothing special about the Standards firepower to neccisate it.
1 Like
