Tanks rate of fire.

[HATCH]

Ok. Thats all the time I can spare with this one for now. I'll check back later. Might be able to squeeze another ticket or two under the wire before Sniper starts the next QA build. I am pretty sure I'm holding him up again.

[Augetout]

30 minutes ago, HATCH said:

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.

[dandare9]

It was suggested that I post some sources that I came across. 

“Design of the Char B dates back to 1926 when three prototypes were built by a consortium of companies under the control of Atelier de Construction de Rueil. Subsequent developments saw the appearance of the Char B1 in 1935 and the Char B1 bis, an up-armoured version, about a year later. Although classed as a medium tank the Char B was clearly designed for infantry support. Its main armament, a 75mm howitzer, is located in the hull, alongside the driver who aims and fires it. The tank commander, in the turret, has to load and fire the 47mm gun and the 7.5mm machine-gun.

The Char B was issued to tank battalions in armoured divisions and saw extensive combat in the summer of 1940. There is some evidence to suggest that visibility from the tank was poor and, undoubtedly, the crew of four was over stretched. “

Bovington Tank Museum, UK.

‘The turret was the same as on the D2 but having only the commander to load and fire it.”

The Encyclopedia of Military Vehicles by Ian V.Hogg and John Weeks.

 

“The Char B was the best French heavy tank with which the so called DCR armoured divisions were chiefly equipped. Although the one man turret followed current defective practice, hampering fire by the useful 47mm gun, the hull mounted short 75mm close support gun had some merit.”

 

Tank versus tank by Kenneth Macksey

 

 

The S35

“When the war started and improved version was in the final stages of design but the one man turret remained.”  

The commander has to spot, communicate by radio, load the gun and aim and fire it. A lot of work for one person.

The Encyclopedia of Military Vehicles by Ian V.Hogg and John Weeks.

 

Both S35 and Char B1bis

“Against such an inflexible opponent, the Germans could maneuver at will and fluently controlled by radio at all levels. Moreover, they learnt how to do so with relative immunity from fire once it was noticed that no only were the French tanks shooting very slowly but, also, were hitting only occasionally. Repeatedly, the overburdened French commander/gunners failed to estimate range and aim-off against moving German targets.”

Tank versus tank by Kenneth Macksey

 

This may not be the 'technical' evidence that is needed but it certainly suggests that some tanks with one crew member doing the commanding, spotting, loading, aiming and firing can do it faster than a 2 man crew. The rate of fire HAS been changed despite what has been said. So which of the rates of fire have been used? The old ones where tanks fired at similar rates or the new ones where the axis crews seem to have problems loading and firing?

I hope this gets resolved at some stage. I don't want to see yet more dedicated axis players quit over this.

Dandare9

[Augetout]

World War II Online: Version 1.35.13.0 - May 2018

Bug Fixes

• Kinetic Energy (KE) values for multiple rounds have been updated to more closely reflect historic numbers (almost every unit is affected)
• High Explosive (HE) shrapnel for multiple rounds and bombs has been updated to more closely reflect historic numbers (almost every unit is affected)
• The Sapper in game tags seem to have reverted back to being Engineers, this is now fixed again
• Overmatch calculations have been added to the KE projectiles
• Turret speed and ammunition reload times have been adjusted to reflect historic numbers for a number of different tanks
• Bunker windows have been further closed up to prevent grenades from being thrown through them
• The Carcano rifle's audio has been updated to be more realistic
• Numerous unit names that appear on the despawn screen have been updated
• Both StuGs and the StuH should now change Level of Detail (LOD) at the same ranges
• The French and German FMBs now have the ability for infantry to ride on them by pressing "j" just as is with the British FMB

New Content

• The Axis get the StuH 42 (Assault Gun) for a Close Support (C/S) role
• The Allies get both the Crusader III C/S and Churchill V C/S tanks
• Smoke rounds have been added to the M4A2 Sherman and Churchill VII tanks
• The Granny library, which allows for infantry, for the PC client has been upgraded to the latest version
• Translations for the new units have been added
• The credits have been updated to reflect new changes to team members

3 hours ago, dandare9 said:

It was suggested that I post some sources that I came across. 

“Design of the Char B dates back to 1926 when three prototypes were built by a consortium of companies under the control of Atelier de Construction de Rueil. Subsequent developments saw the appearance of the Char B1 in 1935 and the Char B1 bis, an up-armoured version, about a year later. Although classed as a medium tank the Char B was clearly designed for infantry support. Its main armament, a 75mm howitzer, is located in the hull, alongside the driver who aims and fires it. The tank commander, in the turret, has to load and fire the 47mm gun and the 7.5mm machine-gun.

 

The Char B was issued to tank battalions in armoured divisions and saw extensive combat in the summer of 1940. There is some evidence to suggest that visibility from the tank was poor and, undoubtedly, the crew of four was over stretched. “

 

Bovington Tank Museum, UK.

 

‘The turret was the same as on the D2 but having only the commander to load and fire it.”

 

The Encyclopedia of Military Vehicles by Ian V.Hogg and John Weeks.

 

 

“The Char B was the best French heavy tank with which the so called DCR armoured divisions were chiefly equipped. Although the one man turret followed current defective practice, hampering fire by the useful 47mm gun, the hull mounted short 75mm close support gun had some merit.”

 

 

 

Tank versus tank by Kenneth Macksey

 

 

 

 

 

The S35

 

“When the war started and improved version was in the final stages of design but the one man turret remained.”  

 

The commander has to spot, communicate by radio, load the gun and aim and fire it. A lot of work for one person.

 

The Encyclopedia of Military Vehicles by Ian V.Hogg and John Weeks.

 

 

Both S35 and Char B1bis

 

“Against such an inflexible opponent, the Germans could maneuver at will and fluently controlled by radio at all levels. Moreover, they learnt how to do so with relative immunity from fire once it was noticed that no only were the French tanks shooting very slowly but, also, were hitting only occasionally. Repeatedly, the overburdened French commander/gunners failed to estimate range and aim-off against moving German targets.”

 

Tank versus tank by Kenneth Macksey

 

 

 

This may not be the 'technical' evidence that is needed but it certainly suggests that some tanks with one crew member doing the commanding, spotting, loading, aiming and firing can do it faster than a 2 man crew. The rate of fire HAS been changed despite what has been said. So which of the rates of fire have been used? The old ones where tanks fired at similar rates or the new ones where the axis crews seem to have problems loading and firing?

I hope this gets resolved at some stage. I don't want to see yet more dedicated axis players quit over this.

Dandare9

Meaning no offense, and at the risk of being corrected by CRS due to the standards of research having gone down, no, it is not the 'technical evidence that is needed.

The turret speed and ROF for tanks was last changed in May of '18.  This suggests that your feelings on the subject of it having been changed recently are not based on facts. 

The ROF research, according to the patch notes:  "Turret speed and ammunition reload times have been adjusted to reflect historic numbers for a number of different tanks"     This would suggest that if panzer re-load time was slowed, or if Allied re-load times were sped up, or both, that it is due to the audit having found modeling errors, which I believe was at least part of the purpose of conducting the audit. 

If the valid, scholarly evidence as exampled by Hatch is accurate, and there is no valid evidence to prove otherwise, then instead of the german side have been 'recently screwed', it would seem that they may have enjoyed a significant a-historical advantage in tank ROF for who knows how long before the audit caught the error.  One wonders how many 'dedicated Allies players' were lost in the (years??) the inaccurate tank ROF were in place before being fixed by the audit that was finished in May of '18...

There are people who tank far more often than I do, but I have yet to experience a tank battle where I am firing more rounds in a quicker fashion than the panzers I am facing off against.  In my experience, unless I get the first shot in, and that first shot does serious damage, (or if I am lucky enough to meet up with a noob tanker) I am in serious trouble.  That, however, is anecdotal evidence, and is no more valid than the sources you have posted above.  I mean no offense. 

I can only say that my idea of what constitutes a scholarly level of research has evolved significantly since I joined the community in '01.  In order for me to participate in early discussions about equipment modeling I had to do mountains of research.  By the same token, the reason I tend NOT to enter these types of discussions these days is specifically due to having lost my library of reference materials in my first divorce (I'm sure she used it as kindling in some sort of ceremony).  I do know that if Hatch had changed something regarding ROF after May of '18, he'd be only too happy to tell you he had done so, and to give you/us the reasons behind doing so.

 

[Kilemall]

I am MUCh more concerned about the guns and ammo being audited without concurrent armor modeling audits and fixes.  What you get with just gun/ammo is a different kind of wrong then what people are used to.  Plus FHA, shattergap and all that.

[delems]

*** I am MUCh more concerned about the guns and ammo being audited without concurrent armor modeling audits and fixes

Not I.

I understand your concern, but better to have half the system right than none of it.

Granted, need to keep moving forward with the armor audit and small arms audit; not to mention the air audits.

 

[Kilemall]

6 minutes ago, delems said:

*** I am MUCh more concerned about the guns and ammo being audited without concurrent armor modeling audits and fixes

Not I.

I understand your concern, but better to have half the system right than none of it.

Granted, need to keep moving forward with the armor audit and small arms audit; not to mention the air audits.

 

Firing 4 seconds earlier then you should means nothing if it bounces when it shouldn't and twice as egregious if it penetrates and shouldn't.

[enemytank]

2 hours ago, Augetout said:

World War II Online: Version 1.35.13.0 - May 2018

Bug Fixes

• Kinetic Energy (KE) values for multiple rounds have been updated to more closely reflect historic numbers (almost every unit is affected)
• High Explosive (HE) shrapnel for multiple rounds and bombs has been updated to more closely reflect historic numbers (almost every unit is affected)
• The Sapper in game tags seem to have reverted back to being Engineers, this is now fixed again
• Overmatch calculations have been added to the KE projectiles
• Turret speed and ammunition reload times have been adjusted to reflect historic numbers for a number of different tanks
• Bunker windows have been further closed up to prevent grenades from being thrown through them
• The Carcano rifle's audio has been updated to be more realistic
• Numerous unit names that appear on the despawn screen have been updated
• Both StuGs and the StuH should now change Level of Detail (LOD) at the same ranges
• The French and German FMBs now have the ability for infantry to ride on them by pressing "j" just as is with the British FMB

New Content

• The Axis get the StuH 42 (Assault Gun) for a Close Support (C/S) role
• The Allies get both the Crusader III C/S and Churchill V C/S tanks
• Smoke rounds have been added to the M4A2 Sherman and Churchill VII tanks
• The Granny library, which allows for infantry, for the PC client has been upgraded to the latest version
• Translations for the new units have been added
• The credits have been updated to reflect new changes to team members

Meaning no offense, and at the risk of being corrected by CRS due to the standards of research having gone down, no, it is not the 'technical evidence that is needed.

The turret speed and ROF for tanks was last changed in May of '18.  This suggests that your feelings on the subject of it having been changed recently are not based on facts. 

The ROF research, according to the patch notes:  "Turret speed and ammunition reload times have been adjusted to reflect historic numbers for a number of different tanks"     This would suggest that if panzer re-load time was slowed, or if Allied re-load times were sped up, or both, that it is due to the audit having found modeling errors, which I believe was at least part of the purpose of conducting the audit. 

If the valid, scholarly evidence as exampled by Hatch is accurate, and there is no valid evidence to prove otherwise, then instead of the german side have been 'recently screwed', it would seem that they may have enjoyed a significant a-historical advantage in tank ROF for who knows how long before the audit caught the error.  One wonders how many 'dedicated Allies players' were lost in the (years??) the inaccurate tank ROF were in place before being fixed by the audit that was finished in May of '18...

There are people who tank far more often than I do, but I have yet to experience a tank battle where I am firing more rounds in a quicker fashion than the panzers I am facing off against.  In my experience, unless I get the first shot in, and that first shot does serious damage, (or if I am lucky enough to meet up with a noob tanker) I am in serious trouble.  That, however, is anecdotal evidence, and is no more valid than the sources you have posted above.  I mean no offense. 

I can only say that my idea of what constitutes a scholarly level of research has evolved significantly since I joined the community in '01.  In order for me to participate in early discussions about equipment modeling I had to do mountains of research.  By the same token, the reason I tend NOT to enter these types of discussions these days is specifically due to having lost my library of reference materials in my first divorce (I'm sure she used it as kindling in some sort of ceremony).  I do know that if Hatch had changed something regarding ROF after May of '18, he'd be only too happy to tell you he had done so, and to give you/us the reasons behind doing so.

 

I've been complaining about it ever since that time
CRS ignored
I have asked for transparency in the change but always said: "Nothing in the tanks has changed."
obvious,   what was changed was the firepower...
Check how much I'm out of the game because of this
Apparently only the axis tank munitions were modified.

I have long noticed the changes (I always played tank and I know what I'm saying)...

I promise I will not post anything else. lol
tks and GL.

kareca/enemytank

 kareca

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by enemytank

[Kilemall]

If things were modeled completely accurately Kareca, I think you would be pleased and displeased.  Both sides have gotten benefits and losses from the original and current state of the models. 

I expect you are seeing the difference in the guns and technically no the tanks have not been changed, just the guns and ammo.  This would affect what happens when you fire and hit while making the statement 'tank models haven't changed' technically true.

 

What people on the CRS side seem to forget that is that moving the dog bowl upsets the dog even if it's better for the dog, so don't move dog bowls very often.

Particularly if your spawnlist system won't reflect changes in modeling in the valuation, which I'm gathering it won't in most cases.

 

[delems]

Been thinking, while I totally like the historical slant, and accurate weapons.

Might want to step back and ask, how come so many axis panzer players are gone?

 

[Augetout]

2 minutes ago, delems said:

Been thinking, while I totally like the historical slant, and accurate weapons.

Might want to step back and ask, how come so many axis panzer players are gone?

 

I think you might want to take it a step back further, and ask:  Why did so many Allied tankers disappear long before this audit took place?

Here's what I think:  ROF, turret speed, etc were not accurately modeled, and that issue lasted for years.  Folks on the axis side got used to how things worked, and Allied tankers left the game.  The audit fixed the inaccurate models, and now those axis players who got used to the inaccurate modeling are peeved.  I have no evidence that this is the case, other than Hatch and the readme notes clearly stating that ROF and turret speeds were corrected to more accurate models.  It's pretty compelling evidence, though, and as I wonder where literally dozens of my former Lafayette Federation tankers have disappeared to, despite a steady stream of emails to return, that things have been squared away, etc., I find it almost loathsome that those who enjoyed a false advantage for who knows how long are now angry that they no longer get it.

[bus0]

10 hours ago, enemytank said:

Apparently only the axis tank munitions were modified.

I have long noticed the changes (I always played tank and I know what I'm saying)...

I promise I will not post anything else. lol
tks and GL.

kareca/enemytank

 kareca

 

Kareca -> 46 Allied sorties

Enemytank -> 6 Allied sorties

Mind telling me what you know about Allied armor.

[Jsilec]

1 hour ago, bus0 said:

Kareca -> 46 Allied sorties

Enemytank -> 6 Allied sorties

Mind telling me what you know about Allied armor.

Sounds like him and few other guys  are just sticking their fingers in their ears and saying lalalalalalalala when someone posts any different info then what they believe to be true

[Kilemall]

7 hours ago, Augetout said:

I think you might want to take it a step back further, and ask:  Why did so many Allied tankers disappear long before this audit took place?

Here's what I think:  ROF, turret speed, etc were not accurately modeled, and that issue lasted for years.  Folks on the axis side got used to how things worked, and Allied tankers left the game.  The audit fixed the inaccurate models, and now those axis players who got used to the inaccurate modeling are peeved.  I have no evidence that this is the case, other than Hatch and the readme notes clearly stating that ROF and turret speeds were corrected to more accurate models.  It's pretty compelling evidence, though, and as I wonder where literally dozens of my former Lafayette Federation tankers have disappeared to, despite a steady stream of emails to return, that things have been squared away, etc., I find it almost loathsome that those who enjoyed a false advantage for who knows how long are now angry that they no longer get it.

Might wanna watch yourself there.  Truly accurate ammo/ARMOR modeling will peeve off some Allied tankers too.  Interactions like FHA capped/noncapped, shattergap, etc. will make for some Axis tanks that are suddenly have a greater range of survival.  I would expect grey panzers to die horribly under any T0+ guns (toughened exteriors but brittle), and those double-spaced Brit tanks will be tougher too, so the pain gets spread around and makes for different handling/combat power.

[enemytank]

3 hours ago, bus0 said:

Kareca -> 46 Allied sorties

Enemytank -> 6 Allied sorties

Mind telling me what you know about Allied armor.

I never said I know allied armor.
I (kareca) never played with an allied tank.
I do not even know how to start the engine (I think it's the E key)
I know the axis tanks.

 bus0, like you.

PS: I tried playing sometime (intermission) in an allied tank..
Simply horrible to play.
arghghhh...   lol

Edited July 17, 2019 by enemytank

[bus0]

26 minutes ago, enemytank said:

I never said I know allied armor.
I (kareca) never played with an allied tank.
I do not even know how to start the engine (I think it's the E key)
I know the axis tanks.

 bus0, like you.

PS: I tried playing sometime (intermission) in an allied tank..
Simply horrible to play.
arghghhh...   lol

I've played both

I still prefer Axis armor over Allied armor, especially if you've got teammates giving you marks...

Getting a faster turning turret or a faster rate of fire 'will not help you as much as you think'.

DM79 in Axis armor was terrible, nightmare stuff. Aggressive but withing reason.

Same for Canukplf, a real [censored] to confront on the Allied side.

No Axis today even comes close to DM's skills in an Axis Tank.

Come Allied, join us on Discord and you'll see how different the game is when folks actually help you get kills.

Except Rans, he'll use you as bait.

 

[Augetout]

3 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Might wanna watch yourself there.  Truly accurate ammo/ARMOR modeling will peeve off some Allied tankers too.  Interactions like FHA capped/noncapped, shattergap, etc. will make for some Axis tanks that are suddenly have a greater range of survival.  I would expect grey panzers to die horribly under any T0+ guns (toughened exteriors but brittle), and those double-spaced Brit tanks will be tougher too, so the pain gets spread around and makes for different handling/combat power.

You know better, Kilemall, in that you are well aware that I am all for accurate performance modeling, and have been for 18 years, regardless of whether doing so 'helps the Allies' or not. 

I do not believe that Allied tankers, who presumably have been taking it in the shorts for who knows how long before the May of '18 audit, will react poorly.  Not to mention it might entice some of the Allied tankers who left during the 'take it in the shorts' period of time when the performance modeling was less accurate, to come back.

[dandare9]

Jeez, I am getting a bit ticked off now. 

Augetout, I have presented a 'tip of the iceberg' evidence for you yet to fall back on the same old story that the evidence that CRS has is perfect! I have no doubt that they are applying good ballistics/type of shot etc. BUT the rate of fire has been one of the biggest issues the French forces had IN REAL LIFE AT THE TIME! 

I am not disputing armour, ballistics or shot but how the f..k do you believe, STILL, despite the fact that it was widely publicised that a 1 man commander, radio operator, spotter, loader, aimer and gunner CANNOT fire faster than a dedicated loader, and a dedicated gunner receiving instructions over a radio by a commander where the target is. FFS this is getting stupid. USE YOUR BRAIN AND READ SOMETHING instead of relying on word of mouth assurances that all is well!

DD9

BY THE WAY, dm79 was always well supported by the axis with resupply (16 heat rounds on a stug dont last long) and almost always accompanied by a couple of inf to protect him. He was an ambusher. When he switched over he still had fantastic stats. 

There are good tankers and bad ones but what I am talking about is RATE OF FIRE ONLY! IT IS WRONG FOR 2 TYPES OF TANK ONLY!

 

[Augetout]

I can appreciate you 'getting a bit ticked off', and hope you can relate to the hundreds of Allied tankers who dealt with inaccurate performance modeling in the area of ROF and turret speed for who knows how long, who left before the audit fixed the issues found, (in ROF and turret speed).  I hope you can wrap your brain around the concept that the ROF and turret speed changes that were made were based on reems of research, and that you have presented nothing to refute that.  Your 'tip of the iceberg' evidence is not compelling, imho.  Thus I am left with 3 choices:  Accept that the audit that took months and months and months was based on good research, accept your at best incomplete evidence, or dive back down the rabbit hole myself and do my own research.  Currently, and with no anger towards you, I am going to go with the first one, as it fits more in line with what my own, previous research (that I can no longer cite directly, having lost my library in the divorce years ago and having not reconstituted it as yet), found---which allowed for the conclusion that the Somua's ROF was not as adversely affected by the turret situation as some have concluded, as the radio operator could double as loader, thus bringing the task-load down to a point where it didn't significantly affect the Somua's ROF.  There was research showing that French tank crews, having not been under fire before, had some issues in maintaining their bearing during their baptism to enemy fire, which did have an adverse effect on ROF---although that cannot and should not be modeled into the game, as it is not a performance measure.

If/when presented wtih compelling evidence that even with the radio operator doubling as loader the Somua's ROF was significantly slower than what is modeled, I will accept the evidence, and whatever changes that need to be made to rectify it.  I will not threaten to leave, and I will not stomp my feet.  I will be a bit bummed out, no doubt, but I have been and will remain dedicated to the principle that this game should:  Give us what was there, in historically accurate spawn ratios, with accurate performance modeling.

Please note that I am not speaking of the Char, because I didn't do a lot of research on the Char.

[ian77]

57 minutes ago, Augetout said:

 Not to mention it might entice some of the Allied tankers who left during the 'take it in the shorts' period of time when the performance modeling was less accurate, to come back.

Just like all the allied infantry players we were assured left due to the uber axis lmg and would return when that was fixed?

All I see is players unsubbing not very many resubbing.

Ian 

[ian77]

32 minutes ago, Augetout said:

 

If/when presented wtih compelling evidence that even with the radio operator doubling as loader the Somua's ROF was significantly slower than what is modeled, I will accept the evidence, 

 

The loader, gunner, spotter/commander were the same guy - there is not a dedicated loader - IF it had a radio then that is another job for the same ONE SINGLE guy to fulfill. 

[jwilly]

1 hour ago, Augetout said:

...the conclusion that the Somua's ROF was not as adversely affected by the turret situation as some have concluded, as the radio operator could double as loader, thus bringing the task-load down to a point where it didn't significantly affect the Somua's ROF.  

The radio operator sat in the hull. His task as "loading helper" was to withdraw from the in-hull ammo storage the round type the commander directed, then hold that round upward in the agreed location so that the commander could grasp it without having to visually identify where it was.

The radio operator also performed the secondary loader task of picking up the previously fired shell case, automatically ejected when the breech opened after firing, and placing that case in a location where it wouldn't be stepped on by the crew.

The radio operator could not insert the new shell into the open breech...at least, not with reasonable efficiency. The breech was well above his head, in a one man turret containing the commander, and the breech opening could not be seen from below because of the breech geometry. 

The larger turret of the S40, scheduled for first production in early fall 1940, was intended to allow room for the radio operator to insert the shell, i.e. fully act as loader, albeit likely with less efficiency than in a two or three man turret. 

[Jsilec]

Tiger turret speed is fantasyland yes?...so lets not delve too much into historic positions and the jobs they had to do ...i been killing you axis tankers mostly with flanked panhards and wacky laffys since u guys were lil kids so rof aint got nothing to do with it

[jwilly]

55 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

Tiger turret speed is fantasyland yes?...so lets not delve too much into historic positions and the jobs they had to do ...i been killing you axis tankers mostly with flanked panhards and wacky laffys since u guys were lil kids so rof aint got nothing to do with it

Bad answer. Instead CRS should work, as resources are available and to the extent possible, to achieve improved realism on all of these identified issues.

RoF properly should take crewing into account. When one action at a time was a limitation in real life, it should be in-game, too.

The Tiger's turret rotation rate should be engine RPM dependent. No doubt that'd take new code. I'll bet CRS could figure out how to do it, though.

[major0noob]

18 hours ago, delems said:

Might want to step back and ask, how come so many axis panzer players are gone?

 

18 hours ago, Augetout said:

Why did so many Allied tankers disappear long before this audit took place?

RPATS...