Is this historical? I haven’t read a lot about this, but it really sounds so stupid. Anyone got proof on this slow as F reloading?
Because IRL the reloading system was its speed. Slightly faster than in-game as all ships are, but more accurate than not.
Faster reloads occurred on later battleships and battlecruisers.
@Topfbonsai
The above explanation is the correct one, yours is not.
Because they purposefully nerfed them. Why? Beats me, not like they would be meta ships even with a realistic reload of ~30 seconds.
I seriously don’t see why they shouldn’t get a faster reload, they continously repeat that reload is a balancing measure, and then they pull this off, as if US ships aren’t turbo nerfed with their armor layout and being way too high above the waterline.
Here’s two very detailed bug reports about the reload being WAY too slow:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/rZUu8y6txOsb
3 Likes
Like Kongo-class and Fuso-class? I guess 1913 is later than 1916 in some worlds.
Almost all post WW1 battleships and battlecruisers in this game got their fastest reloading as 2 per minute. however, it’s 1.5 for American 14 inch. What is this difference based on?
Oh I just see EL377GH0ST’s post. So this difference is purely based on “balance”. And the issue has been accepted. I guess you are talking nonsense again.
1 Like
Somehow they accepted it but did not make the change. Guess typing numbers is too difficult for gaijin.
@Renamed83048
Reloads are not chosen purely based on balance. Source: Gaijin staff.
But of course, you and Ghost have no sources… because your posts deal in lies.
It seems it’s too difficult for you to click the link and check the issue, after which you’ll see that the sourse is already in it, and the issue has been accepted by Gaijin. Guess I made too many demands on you, didn’t I?
Still, I gotta say that I’m not surprised at all. Just average AlvisWisla, as always.
Number of barrels per turret affects reload rate far more than calibre or age of gun.
US ships did have some teething problems with reload rate iirc.
But HMS Barham should have 25 second reloads for example
2 Likes
@Renamed83048
Unless it’s an AMX-13 automatic reloading system, Gaijin makes reloading slightly slower than maximum reload rate for all vehicles in WT to account for something, most likely gunnery time. Though breathing room for if they need to buff a reload is another potential avenue.
I gotta say, it seems Gaijin just don’t bother to pay any attention to naval battle. I was shocked when I noticed that a dozen of different battleships share the exact same reloading speed of 2 per minute.
Finally, while the developers have been presented the document on multiple previous occasions, the 1924-25 Short Range Battle Practice(https://catalog.archives.gov/id/112581847?objectPage=160) provides good reference for exactly what rates of fire must have been exceeded in 1935-36 for that exercise to “exceed all past performance”. Maximum average rate of fire achieved by a ship of each battleship class with guns 14" or larger in that exercise are as follows:
New York Class: 2.01(USS New York)
Nevada Class: 2.18(USS Oklahoma)
Pennsylvania Class: 2.51(USS Pennsylvania)
New Mexico Class: 2.09(USS New Mexico)
Tennessee Class: 2.20(USS Tennessee)
Colorado Class(Not in game): 1.98(USS Maryland)
Quote from the issue.
Feel free to claim that the 1924-25 Short Range Battle Practice is wrong, AlvisWisla. Pretty sure you know these ships more than US Navy do.
Why should I prove it wrong? You really confused me.
In case you have not noticed. Morvran claimed that irl Queen Elizabeth class had 2.4 per minute reloadibg speed and in game it’s 2 per minute. However, for Pennsylvania class in 1924-25 it’s 2.51 per minute, with the 1935-36 test exceeding this reloading speed. And yet it’s 1.5 in game. I don’t see anything that could support you.
1 Like
Somehow just start to wonder what was Amagi class and Nagato class’s reload irl, now that they are given 24 second reloads as 1920s version in game…
My statements were 3 parts:
1- Reloading is not purely based on balance. A fact backed up by every Gaijin statement.
If it was purely based on balance, AMX-13 would have a reload speed longer than 6 seconds, and Leclerc would’ve never gotten a 6 or 5 second reload speed and would’ve instead been ~0.5 seconds longer similar to how T-80Us are treated.
2- Reloads are slower on average to real-life vehicles.
3- There are bug reports for every vehicle in the game, and if and when Gaijin deems it they will act.
I apologize if my posts confused you, it wasn’t my intention for them to do so.
That confused me more. According to the test, the Americans had their 16 inch twin cannon turret with 1.98 ROF in the 1924-25 test(Colorado class) , while the 14 inch triple cannon turret on Pennsylvania class had 2.51 ROF(1.5 maxium in game).
And yet, the 16 inch twin cannon turret of IJN in game has 2.5 ROF on Nagato class in 1922. If it’s slower than real-life, than IJN should have 16 inch cannon with ROF probably more than 3!
I do have heard about stories of Colorado class born with design flaws, but this still seems a bit outrageous. It’s 16 inch cannon with ROF more than 3 in the year 1922 that we are talking about, not some 11 inch toys built in 1930s.
I do have to admit that I am not really a fan of Battleships, which is why I haven’t really read many books or files about them. I hope Morvran got historical files on the ROF of Nagato class (I’d simply forget about Amagi class. Its construction was halted).
Tell that to the myriad of triple barrel guns we have in game outperforming USN 2 barrel or equivalent triple barrel guns.
EG the Russian 180mm is using the single barrel test stand rate of fire, it is fully impossible for that gun to reach that rate of fire in it’s as mounted setup, gaijin states they will not change it for balance reasons.
IJN 203mm guns cannot cycle in the time need to reach 5 RPM, instead they are firing at the rate at which their elevators supply the guns, once again, selected per gaijin for “balance”.
Or lets go with Amagi’s 410s firing at their test stand rate as well.
And on and on and on, its all fully selective on gaijin’s part.
USN 14 inch guns are firing at their minimal as designed achievable ROF, same with USN early 203mm guns and late 203mm guns, no other nation uses the as designed minimum achievable ROF for their weapons.
1 Like
btw, do you have test results of IJN 14 inch guns? Fuso class and Kongo class, twin cannon turret. They have 2 ROF in game. I wonder what they are like irl. Are they really faster than Nevada class, New Mexico class and Pennsylvania class?
Yeah, it naval is in need of some major tlc
In turret no, but if I recall the max attained on a test stand was 2.5 and is what I have seen a lot of IJN documentation claim is the maximum theoretical rate of fire. I don’t have any data of the guns ever approaching or achieving said stated theoretical rate of fire in their actual mounts, like a majority of the IJN’s guns.
Such is very commonly the case from what I’ve found too, the IJN seemingly destroyed or just never kept many, if any of their actual mounted gunnery tests or achieved ROFs for trainings or engagements, with a myriad of sources on the guns themselves citing pre-war development findings (for Japanese sources) or the scraps that the US technical mission to Japan collected which are of mainly experimental / guessed values, with a number of TM values either contradicting actual tested weapon results from captured equipment in the US, or contradicting Japanese sources.
Similar documentation from the IJN also states that the 460s of the Yamatos could reach a rate of fire of 3 RPM, which is physically impossible if the guns are in their own turret as it takes a full 11 seconds for the guns to normally depress to their loading angle, meaning, in the time it takes the gun to depress and return to it’s firing elevation alone, the gun has already failed to reach 3 RPM, meaning this ROF is obviously a test stand rate of fire, yet, it is commonly cited as the actual ROF.
1 Like