This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Provably wrong as below.
Obviously Gaijin disagrees with you - this is a statement from a Technical moderator:
1 Like
That post you cited fully agrees with the statements I made.
“They aren’t purely based on documentation.” Which also means “They aren’t purely based on balanced.” as well.
After all, if they were purely based on balanced he’d say “They aren’t based on documentation.” leaving out the word “purely”.
Basic language class knowledge.
I suspect it might be because Navweaps lists early US guns as having around a 1.5rpm, 1.75rpm on the high end. However these equate to figures achieved in combat, while other nations tend to be allowed their trial figures. American trial figures were similarly high, ships approaching or exceeding 2.5rpm in SRBP are not unheard of and from primary sources this improved throughout the 30s, with a secondary source claiming ships had to be limited to that 2.5rpm figure for safety. To the best of my knowledge no battleship with guns 14” or larger ever achieved a sustained 2rpm in combat. The best I have seen personally is a 1.7rpm sustained over part of an engagement by a KGV, I forget which. More often than not battleships with guns of any size would fail to maintain even a 1rpm in combat for a variety of reasons. Those high numbers in excess of 1.5rpm were generally only achieved by ships with cutting edge fire control and often only at fairly close range. West Virginia maintaining a ~41sec salvo interval at ~20k yards was actually much better than most battleships ever managed, not worse as the game would have you believe. More impressive than what Washington managed at Guadalcanal even. I made the accepted but not implemented report on the 14” guns and will do the same for the 16” if the Colorados come with the same reload. Hopefully if this gains enough traction something will be done about it.
1 Like
Presuming a conclusion you want that isn’t actually supported by the words at all - there is nothing in that post that says historical times are used for anything at all - you are guilting of the logical fallacy Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
4 Likes
For the large part, US standards were gimped because of a quite frankly silly misunderstanding from the developers. They confused the spare rounds the Standards keep in their turrets for a ready rack, which was single handedly denying any hope of fixing US BBs reload time. The thinking was that since the USN removed them in the 1930s refit they cant shoot as fast as they were reported.
Then a forum poster here asked around in the Texas museum and they were very confused on what Gaijins means by ‘ready rack’. Those were merely spare ammunition and had no special part on the loading process. Additionally, it was found in the records for Arizonas battle damage that she still had those spare rounds in her turret, utterly invalidating the primary reason that Gaijin uses to deny a faster RoF.
Finally, Tallguy found a 1930s report about all the US battleships in short range practice. It directly reports that standards were shooting vastly above the 1.5 RPM that Gaijin insists. Theoretically, we’ve basically annihlated any and all reasons for Standards to be stuck with a 40 second reload, the problem is entirely Gaijin at this point.
6 Likes
This is evolving into a he said/she said conversion. Should US Battleships get a reload buff, yes or no?
1 Like