Tanks rate of fire.

[dandare9]

A few months ago I commented on the rate of fire for tanks. My arguments got taken down a blind alley because I mentioned radio communications. This was just a comment about crew numbers and responsibilities. The S35 was the main target of my post where realistic rates of fire need to be enacted. It has become very clear that the rates of fire for all allied tanks now beat those of the axis. I can't comment on many of the vehicles but one I do know about is the S35 and I just cut this from Wikipedia (but have also seen several documentaries and also included a visit to Bovington tank museum!). 

Bear in mind axis tank training was second to none at the start of WW2... here is the wikipedia section I cut :

The hull and turret were castings with a maximum thickness of 47 mm and 40 mm respectively — the former of four sections, bolted together: two longitudinal plates formed the bottom; the superstructure was divided in a front and back section.^[3] The turret was a variant of the APX 1 as used on the Char B1: the APX 1 CE (chemin élargi) with a larger (1,130 mm (44 in) as against 1,022 mm (40.2 in)) turret ring, allowing the radio operator to assist the commander in loading the gun from an ammunition stock of 118 shells (90 AP, 28 HE) and 2,250 machine gun rounds. Still, as with the B1, the commander was expected to direct the tank while also aiming, loading and firing the 47 mm SA 35 main gun — although at least the radio duty could be left to another crew member. Radios were planned to be part of the standard equipment of S35s. In practice the platoon commander had an ER (émetteur-récepteur) 29 set for communications with a higher command level, but a shortage of the short range ER28 sets for communication within the platoon meant that the other four tanks were never fitted with any form of radio, although in some units all tanks had antennas: the programme to fit the sets themselves was postponed until the summer of 1940 and thus overtaken by events.^[4] " courtesy of wikipedia.

The number of crew required to drive; command;operate the radio; load, aim and fire ordenance  should be, at the very least, a reasonable guide to rates of fire.

This is highly unlikely to kill off the 'fun' factor in the tanking game and is likely to enhance the 'realism' factor. I think it's a shame that we have lost Raydr, who was a regular and committed player, because he felt the tanking game for him had become 'biased'. I have never ranted about armour before because I understood that at the start of the war 1939-1941, axis tanks were largely outclassed. That is enough to make it challenging to be an axis tanker but having the rates of fire across all tank types in the axis arsenal reduced is a lot to swallow.

Dandare9

[Scking]

reload times were audited last year.. @HATCH would be the one you would need to speak to regarding that.. 

 

Its a shame that people are mislead or in their own biased think that bias is anywhere in our thoughts when things are done. While I won’t say mistakes (or something not fully thought through) have never happened, they never once  involved any bias. We aren’t into working on this game to make it bias, there is no advantage in that for development. 

[Augetout]

I don't wish to step too deeply into this, and for the record I also think it's a shame that Raydr has been lost, but:  wikipedia is not a great source for this level of necessary information.  For broad strokes of information it is fine, but in the end, it typically is nowhere near the status of scholarly source.

The radio operator in an S-35, for example, could and did double as a loader, in the Somuas.

 

[delems]

Are the ROFs for weapons posted anywhere? (ROF numbers that are used in game)

My quick search found 15 to 20 rounds per minute for the 47mm, or 3 to 4 seconds for reload.

A short test offline got me 8 rounds in 30 seconds, or 16 per minute.  So, seems inline from what I know.

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by delems

[dandare9]

It's a shame people don't read what I have posted fully. I cannot post documentaries here, nor can I take lectures from one of Europe's pre eminent Tank museums!

If you even assume that all tanks have dedicated loaders and gunners, the rates of fire should be similar anyway but they are not. 

Dandare9

[delems]

*** If you even assume that all tanks have dedicated loaders and gunners, the rates of fire should be similar anyway but they are not. 

Guess I don't understand your point.

All tanks don't have dedicated loaders.

Some should be slower for other reasons too, size of shell?  Where/how the shell is stored in tank, ease of actual loading for that gun, etc.

 

Are you saying allied tanks all fire faster than axis?

The one allied tank I tested and axis panzer showed the opposite, the panzer was a bit faster.

 

Guess I'm confused, if there is a specific issue or tank or panzer, call it out.

 

[Jsilec]

I read that raydr left and thats a shame i like shooting him in his big butt

Edited July 15, 2019 by Jsilec

[HATCH]

Working with Scotsman, we put an extensive effort into firing rates, turret speeds, and AP/APHE/HE performance last year. I don't have the data that Scotsman provided for the firing rates at hand just now, but I felt his research (and therefore the numbers we used), was well vetted from professional military historical sources and extensively cross-referenced by him before he submitted them to us for use.

I can't help but shake my head in wonder at the bias insinuations as I don't know of anyone that works harder not to be biased, and that strives to be more accurate in weapon performance than we do. It's a serious amount of work with all the research, cross-referencing, and testing before we release that kind of stuff.

Anyway, thats all I currently have on the subject. I'm in the middle of a bunch of tickets for this months release, so I am unable to spend the time rehashing Scotsmans work on that before the end of the month even if I did think it a productive endeavor after all the work put into it during the audit...

That said, maybe he has the time to respond (I know he has the sources while I mostly have the results of his research filed away somewhere in my data library) and help assuage your concerns before I am able.

 

[enemytank]

4 hours ago, dandare9 said:

A few months ago I commented on the rate of fire for tanks. My arguments got taken down a blind alley because I mentioned radio communications. This was just a comment about crew numbers and responsibilities. The S35 was the main target of my post where realistic rates of fire need to be enacted. It has become very clear that the rates of fire for all allied tanks now beat those of the axis. I can't comment on many of the vehicles but one I do know about is the S35 and I just cut this from Wikipedia (but have also seen several documentaries and also included a visit to Bovington tank museum!). 

Bear in mind axis tank training was second to none at the start of WW2... here is the wikipedia section I cut :

The hull and turret were castings with a maximum thickness of 47 mm and 40 mm respectively — the former of four sections, bolted together: two longitudinal plates formed the bottom; the superstructure was divided in a front and back section.^[3] The turret was a variant of the APX 1 as used on the Char B1: the APX 1 CE (chemin élargi) with a larger (1,130 mm (44 in) as against 1,022 mm (40.2 in)) turret ring, allowing the radio operator to assist the commander in loading the gun from an ammunition stock of 118 shells (90 AP, 28 HE) and 2,250 machine gun rounds. Still, as with the B1, the commander was expected to direct the tank while also aiming, loading and firing the 47 mm SA 35 main gun — although at least the radio duty could be left to another crew member. Radios were planned to be part of the standard equipment of S35s. In practice the platoon commander had an ER (émetteur-récepteur) 29 set for communications with a higher command level, but a shortage of the short range ER28 sets for communication within the platoon meant that the other four tanks were never fitted with any form of radio, although in some units all tanks had antennas: the programme to fit the sets themselves was postponed until the summer of 1940 and thus overtaken by events.^[4] " courtesy of wikipedia.

The number of crew required to drive; command;operate the radio; load, aim and fire ordenance  should be, at the very least, a reasonable guide to rates of fire.

This is highly unlikely to kill off the 'fun' factor in the tanking game and is likely to enhance the 'realism' factor. I think it's a shame that we have lost Raydr, who was a regular and committed player, because he felt the tanking game for him had become 'biased'. I have never ranted about armour before because I understood that at the start of the war 1939-1941, axis tanks were largely outclassed. That is enough to make it challenging to be an axis tanker but having the rates of fire across all tank types in the axis arsenal reduced is a lot to swallow.

Dandare9

i agree..

I asked the HATCH to make public the result of the audit (AP / APHE / HE).
They did not.

PS: kareca/enemytank

 

I stopped playing because of that too dandare9.

i love this game.. but..

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by enemytank

[HATCH]

 

7 hours ago, enemytank said:

I asked the HATCH to make public the result of the audit (AP / APHE / HE).
They did not.

Actually I did.

And here it is again...

Have fun!

(For the top 5, Google is your friend!)

TM 9-1985 2 German Explosive Ordnance (Bombs, Fuzes, Rockets, Land Mines, Grenades, and igniters)
TM 9-1985-3 German Explosive Ordnance (Projectiles and Projectile Fuzes) 1953
TM 9-1985-6 Italian and French Explosive Ordnance, 1953
OP 1665, British Explosive Ordnance
OP 1666, German Explosive Ordnance, Volumes 1&2
Dokumentation W 127: Datenblätter für Heeres-Waffen, Fahrzeuge, Gerät
WWII Ballistics Armor and Gunnery
ww2pen3.pdf (conglomeration of several good sources)
Catalogue of Enemy Ordnance Materiel Vol 1
German Artillery of World War Two by Ian V. Hogg
British & American Artillery of World War Two by Ian V. Hogg

(Scotsman has the frag count for all the ordnance in his data, but the performance, ballistics, explosive content, total shrapnel mass, etc can be found in the above)

Note: You'll probably be wanting THIS to get a start on working out the R.E. equivalents in TNT for the number of various explosive compounds you will find in those sources, and then you'll need a good conversion calculator for turning the R.E. in TNT into Joules (which is what the game uses)...

[drkmouse]

Thanks hatch but were r the sheep stats???????

[HATCH]

9 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

Thanks hatch but were r the sheep stats???????

Lol! That's a completely different library!

And unfortunately that's all the time I can spare for the moment and have to get back to working on the game!

[Jsilec]

Wow kareca dandare and raydr in same thread thats like half my career kills yippeee...jk get back ingame ffs 

[sorella]

5 hours ago, enemytank said:

 

 

 

i love this game.. but..

 

you love this game but....  you missed the first posting of the source documentation for the audit and  you stopped playing because of that?  and you're too busy now to read through it and comment now that Hatch has posted it again? 

I guess we'll all just have to wait on your insights and analysis of audit sources...but...? 

[enemytank]

10 hours ago, HATCH said:

 

Actually I did.

And here it is again...

Have fun!

(For the top 5, Google is your friend!)

TM 9-1985 2 German Explosive Ordnance (Bombs, Fuzes, Rockets, Land Mines, Grenades, and igniters)
TM 9-1985-3 German Explosive Ordnance (Projectiles and Projectile Fuzes) 1953
TM 9-1985-6 Italian and French Explosive Ordnance, 1953
OP 1665, British Explosive Ordnance
OP 1666, German Explosive Ordnance, Volumes 1&2
Dokumentation W 127: Datenblätter für Heeres-Waffen, Fahrzeuge, Gerät
WWII Ballistics Armor and Gunnery
ww2pen3.pdf (conglomeration of several good sources)
Catalogue of Enemy Ordnance Materiel Vol 1
German Artillery of World War Two by Ian V. Hogg
British & American Artillery of World War Two by Ian V. Hogg

(Scotsman has the frag count for all the ordnance in his data, but the performance, ballistics, explosive content, total shrapnel mass, etc can be found in the above)

Note: You'll probably be wanting THIS to get a start on working out the R.E. equivalents in TNT for the number of various explosive compounds you will find in those sources, and then you'll need a good conversion calculator for turning the R.E. in TNT into Joules (which is what the game uses)...

What we need is to know what was actually done in the game.
What was changed and how it was.
There is no use in this information if it is not used correctly.

 

[enemytank]

5 hours ago, sorella said:

you love this game but....  you missed the first posting of the source documentation for the audit and  you stopped playing because of that?  and you're too busy now to read through it and comment now that Hatch has posted it again? 

I guess we'll all just have to wait on your insights and analysis of audit sources...but...? 

I can fill this information post, technical data and more.
But what was done? I have not seen yet.

What was disclosed is NOT the result of the audit.
They are a lot and execelent sources of technical information only

Beautiful documentation, but what was done?

Was it done correctly?

Edited July 16, 2019 by enemytank

[Scking]

1 minute ago, enemytank said:

What we need is to know what was actually done in the game.
What was changed and how it was.
There is no use in this information if it is not used correctly.

 

so the data is not enough, you want the code as well.. ballsy.. 

[sorella]

1 hour ago, enemytank said:

 

Beautiful documentation, but what was done?

Was it done correctly?

this implies you already know the 'correct' rate of fire for all tanks in game. why not enlighten the world right here and now? or volunteer to help like so many others?

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by sorella

[Jsilec]

Not for nothing but i feel like the s35 rate of fire has slowed since i been back...i went away from game in march 2016 and it does feel slower then before but thats just my opinion...brits feel similar to before and its been so long i wont even try to remember axis rates

[HATCH]

10 hours ago, enemytank said:

I can fill this information post, technical data and more.
But what was done? I have not seen yet.

What was disclosed is NOT the result of the audit.
They are a lot and execelent sources of technical information only

Beautiful documentation, but what was done?

Was it done correctly?

We already shared with you what was done. It's right there in front of you. You have already seen the youtube videos about how our ordnance works...

You put in the proper data, the shells fly how they are supposed to fly, they either penetrate or not as they are supposed too, if they are explosive, they fuze and blow up with the appropriate amount of energy as they are supposed too, slinging the appropriate amount of shrapnel and with the appropriate amount of concussive effect as determined by the explosive charge, all specified in those very references I shared above. (And verified by production and then QA testing prior to release)

You want to know at what range an 88 can still poke a hole in 80mm of armor? There it is. Want to know how much energy and shrapnel is thrown in the game? Its all available. Go look up the round, find its total weight, cross reference the explosive compound to get the RE equivalence in TNT and go convert that for the explosive energy. Then subtract the weight of the explosive filler from the total weight of the projectile, and there is the combined weight of your shrapnel pieces. That is what was done.

The entire point of the audit was to make the game match the historical references. That was the job, and that's what we did. Why else do it at all? You want to know what a given round will do in game, well there it is. The goal is to make the ordnance perform as close to those references as possible and let the chips fall where they may... I'm not claiming perfection, as no binary code ever is, especially when attempting to represent an analog world, but I promise you that as far as these guns and armor go, we have a pretty darn close digital facsimile.

And the best thing about this paradigm is that sticking to the historical data for both sides makes sure that bias in the ordnance performance cannot exist. You might disagree with TOE numbers, and that can be taken up with game management, but as far as the vehicles and ordnance interacting (specifically post audit) there is no ambiguity there. It is what it is. If you have a problem with a round and think something isn't working correctly, compare it against those references (or your own as long as its valid and not anecdotal) and share your findings. If it is found that something isn't matching with the data and needs fixing, it will be as soon as we can get to it. Thats the way it works.

 

[enemytank]

Very well.
I hope you are right and keep this game alive.
GL

PS. I am not a payer, I have no right to bother you.
sry.

 

[sorella]

27 minutes ago, enemytank said:

Very well.
I hope you are right and keep this game alive.
GL

PS. I am not a payer, I have no right to bother you.
sry.

 

I think everyone would hope that you would become a payer and bother everyone all the time. Money and hard questions keep the game alive and evolving to be better.  

[jwilly]

The thread-question seems to be, not are the KE/ballistics/fragment count numbers correct, but rather what are the game-factors in RoF and how are they managed in the code.

It was explained in the early days that the code then was not detailed enough to take into account some of the relevant factors in one- and two-man-turret-crewed tanks, including (for instance, in a real life one man crewed turret) being able to observe the tank's surroundings or aim/fire a single weapon or reload a single weapon or (in a hand cranked turret) fast-turn that turret...one action at a time. That game inability to apply real life limitations to one- or two-man-turret-crewed tanks was at the time an unavoidable limitation on realism, and could be interpreted to sometimes give such a tank an unrealistically fast RoF because the person who would be doing the reloading is simultaneously allowed to perform other tasks.

There's been some discussion over the years that some of that code has been expanded or would be expanded to take some of those factors into account. That would seem to mean limitations on simultaneous actions in less-than-three-man-turret-crewed tanks.

 

[ZEBBEEE]

Altough we all support authentic data and facts, From a business development point of view, and because of limited ressources, there are some many more urgent priorities to be looked at than re-auditing audits...

[HATCH]

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

The thread-question seems to be, not are the KE/ballistics/fragment count numbers correct, but rather what are the game-factors in RoF and how are they managed in the code.

<snip>

I am aware of that jwilly.

The point being made, and I was using the AP/APHE/HE data as an example because I don't have Scotsmans ROF and turret speed data on hand, is the lengths, and extent of research and cross-referencing we go to in search of the strongest supporting data to implement. In the case of the ROF, and turret speeds, Scotsman took those factors that you mention into consideration. While I cannot share his sources, only his results which are in game, I specifically remember discussing those very issues with him during that audit.