Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sudden

Increase the bofors firing rate to match the spaa

12 posts in this topic

Uhm, no; pretty sure the bofors was 120 rounds per minute - it should stay that way.

And if the allied bofors SPAA is faster than that, then I'd say something is wrong.  At least from what I know.  It should only be 120 also.

 

The axis 7/2 had two different guns; flak 36/37 was 120, flak 43 was 160.   Not sure which version we have in game - or if maybe it changes as tiers go up.

The flak 18 was 80 rpm, but that was never put on a HT far as I know and was phased out quickly.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allied SPAA is a bofors L/60 on top of a Crusader
Axis SPAA is a Flak 37 3.7cm it is using a bofors art model temporarily as a stand in
 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The L/60 had a nominal firing rate of 120, but in practice was 80 to 100.

Practical ROF for the Flak 36/37 was 120, while theoretical was 250.

While the Flak 43 brought practical ROF up to 150.

 

So, no, the Bofors shouldn't be firing any faster than 120 ever, and 80 to 100 is probably more realistic.  Should maybe be set at 90?

Hence, the allied SPAA should also be no more than 120, and 80 to 100 more realistically.

 

The 7/2 should be firing at 120 ROF per merlins description of the gun, or 150 if it is the Flak 43.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, delems said:

The L/60 had a nominal firing rate of 120, but in practice was 80 to 100.

Practical ROF for the Flak 36/37 was 120, while theoretical was 250.

While the Flak 43 brought practical ROF up to 150.

 

So, no, the Bofors shouldn't be firing any faster than 120 ever, and 80 to 100 is probably more realistic.  Should maybe be set at 90?

Hence, the allied SPAA should also be no more than 120, and 80 to 100 more realistically.

 

The 7/2 should be firing at 120 ROF per merlins description of the gun, or 150 if it is the Flak 43.

"Nominal firing rate" is the cyclic rate. "Practical ROF" takes into account reloading, clearing feed-guide glitches (not chamber/extraction jams...those took the gun out of action, but were rare), crew coordination, cooling.

Gun models should always be modeled to cycle at their historical cyclic rate. If CRS then wants to model other relevant factors in their field use such as the above, the practical way to implement that is to extend the reload time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** should always be modeled to cycle at their historical cyclic rate

Hmm, funny, I would have done exactly opposite; should design for what was really happening in real life - not what it could do in perfect conditions.

But, I guess as long as they are consistent.

So, the Flak 36/37 going to be changed to 250 ROF now?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, delems said:

So, the Flak 36/37 going to be changed to 250 ROF now?

I would not think so?
That's a theoretical rate (which i think is actually higher than that?), like in a lab environment with all perfect hand loaded ammo, and lots of other things removed from the equation and we dont care if we melt the barrel, we just want to see how fast we can get the bolt to fly.

Thats more like T3/4 flak 43, bofors L/70 type of firing rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,

Sounds like maybe there are three ROFs we have to think about:  practical, nominal and theoretical.

How do we get each of these numbers for the weapons we have?

Then, if we go with nominal say (for all weapons in game), how can we check that the weapons are performing accurately?
Is this something that would be in the KE audit, or small arms update?

 

Finally, for the case of the 7/2; might we copy our 7/2 model we have, and change the name and ROF to 150 (or whatever the nominal rate was fort he Flak 43) for a tier 4 inclusion?

So, in tier 1-3 all 7/2 -36/37 while in tier 4 it would go to half 7/2 -36/37 and the other half 7/2 -43?

(hmm, just got to thinking, the ammo display would have to change to 8 with 25 reloads for the Flak 43 to)

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, delems said:

Finally, for the case of the 7/2; might we copy our 7/2 model we have, and change the name and ROF to 150 (or whatever the nominal rate was fort he Flak 43) for a tier 4 inclusion?

Flak 43, i would imagine  probably see differently than on an Sdkfz7 bed
Möbelwagen, Wirbelwind, or Ostwind made from PZIV chassis would seem more interesting?
That would be my pick anyways.

I know the 43 was mounted on Schwerer Wehrmachtschlepper ( 3.7cm FlaK 43 auf sWS ), but it's very slow, even compared to a Sdkfz 7
does not seem too exciting, it is a bit armored though.
flak_field_l.jpg

 

I mean, who doesn't love this?
Wirbelwind,_CFB_Borden,_1.jpg

ss5m7s.jpg

3,7_cm_Flakpanzer_IV_M%C3%B6belwagen_pic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wirbelwind had a much lower sustained ROF than the same gunset in an open mount, even though they had the same cyclic rate.

The open mount had two reloaders per side. The Wirbelwind armor only provided room for one reloader per side, which made the second and subsequent reload much slower.

The Wirbelwind armor also concentrated propellant fumes from breech leakage and ejected cartridges inside the armor enclosure. Those fumes are toxic to breathe and burn the eyes, so after the first few clips the gun crew had to hold their breath while doing their task (aiming and firing, or reloading), then extend their heads above the armor to breath fresh air, then repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, delems said:

Sounds like maybe there are three ROFs we have to think about:  practical, nominal and theoretical.

I think two...cyclic, which is set by the gun machinery, applies within a given clip, drum or belt, and has nothing to do with the crew; and sustained, which includes the non-firing time between clips, belts or drums. That non-firing time includes reloading, getting more ammo to the reloader, clearing away fired cartridge cases and belts/clips/drums, changing barrels or waiting for the gun to cool sufficiently to not jam (a major problem with the Krupp 20mm), plus aiming time, crew fatigue, environmental limits, and everything else that slowed down the crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.