View Full Version : The RUB Mod Deck Gun

01-02-2006, 09:41 PM
I just got one question. I am really happy with the RUB MOD. All I want to change is the deck gun reloading time. Does anyone have any suggestions?

01-02-2006, 10:05 PM
i guess the fastest way would be to install sh3 commander...it's a standalone mod..very user friendly and a great mod... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

01-03-2006, 12:29 AM
I´ll borrow this thread for a second.

How long did it actually take to reload the deckgun? With RUB 1.45 it feels like a eternity.

Otherwise it´s a excellent mod.

01-03-2006, 06:51 AM
rwise it´s a excellent
It's takes 60 sec per shot to reload

01-03-2006, 11:13 AM
Here's a recap distilled from past discussions:

The first 20 rounds were stored under the deck plates in a ready-use storage locker. These were fired off rather quickly. After these rounds were exhausted, the remaining rounds were handled one at a time by the crew from internal storage. The crew could rig a chute from the conning tower to slide rounds down to the gun. So, the initial rate of fire could be several rounds per minute, slowing down to about one round per minute as the rounds were brought up from internal storage. Some forum members believe that the rate of fire could be quicker than one round per minute using internallly stored shells. The Real U-boat one round per minute rate of fire is to simulate the handling of internal ammo. Rate of fire is also affected by crew fatigue level.

01-03-2006, 10:20 PM
"The first 20 rounds were stored under the deck plates in a ready-use storage locker. These were fired off rather quickly. After these rounds were exhausted, the remaining rounds were handled one at a time by the crew from internal storage."

Oh my God I am so sick of that lame argument. Don't you people who voice that have any common sense?

Why would you have spare hands idly standing by below decks while you used up all of your immediate rounds on deck. What did the captain yell out "Hold on boys! You know the drill, you have to let us use up each one of these rounds first before you can even begin thinking about prying out the internal storage!!!" Hell no.

What you do is have the crew get those rounds out of storage, *from the get go*, and have them passing them up at the same time the gun is being prepared. You don't fire a round, then wait an eternity for the next round to come your way. You have them being passed on a human chain from below decks, at the same time you are accessing on-deck rounds, that way, the loader has 2 or 3 men standing behind him with rounds in their hands ready to give them up. By the time he has taken the 3rd round, others have already moved up the chain.

I mean seriously, it is such an easy idea yet no one seems to wrap their minds around it. That's what I don't get about the typical sim player: they might know tons of minutae about a certain machine or combat system, but they seem to lose their common sense in the process.

Putting it simply, the gunner had more than enough ammo at his immediate disposal to where the reloading time was limited only by his ability to lay the gun and aim for the next shot, no one was standing around for 60 seconds waiting for the one, solitary shell to make its way up the chain.

If you don't believe me, 1.) ask any officer with a brain how they would approach the situation, and 2.) look at the historical references we have.

For example, the "U-boat Commander's Handbook," issued to captains throughout the war, and compiled by returning captains sharing operations experience states:

"278.) Hints concerning the use of gunnery.
a.)Before the submarine surfaces for the artillery attack, the gun crew must assemble in the control room ready for action, with all equipment (ammunition cases open, ammunition feed prepared), so as to get the gun ready to fire in the shortest possible time after surfacing."

Additionally, there is some footage from teh war of deck guns in action illustrating exactly this, with the loader grabbing rounds from the men behind him. Not only are shells being passed up, they are *backing up*, i.e. the gun can't fire fast enough to use up the shells being held by the several men behind the loader on deck.

Some of this footage even shows the same crew jacking round after round into the gun and firing at a merchant at a fast rate (the merchant also happens to be armed and is shooting back).

While it is entirely true that the deck gun was not the prime weapon for the U-boat, there is no way it took as long as it does in RuB to reload, and anyone who says it does has to stop being so anal and think realistically.

01-04-2006, 12:19 AM
Last night I picked out a 'BBC - Secret War video' from the library. An old video on the Battle of the Atlantic with a lot of U-Boat footage and commentary. I think this will be the reality of the UBoat war with regard to Deck Guns.

- They used the Deck-gun whenever they could, to save torpedoes.
- There were more men than the gun crew around the gun holding shells - the shells looked very big.
- A lot of the time these guys on deck were waist deep in sea water.
- It didn't show the rate of fire, but with guys standing around with shells, I think it should be a couple of shell per minute.

01-04-2006, 12:49 AM
bore.105/4.1 calibre 45 muzzle velicity845/2,575 weight of projectile 14.75 rounds per minute 8 range10.000/10.940 bore 88.35 calibre45 muzzle velocity 850/2,592 weight of projectile 9.5/21.75 rounds per minute 8 range14.200/15.530

01-04-2006, 01:30 AM
So, what rate per minute should I put in?

01-04-2006, 01:50 AM
With SH3 Commander, I just set it to SH3 default of 4 seconds, although to ensure full realism, you might want to make it like 5 or 6.

With a sliding breech, and a man holding a ready round for you directly behind, you cold easily shove a new one in a close the breech within 5 seconds.

Like I said there is this excellent footage from a documentary series called "The Grey Wolves" on DVD showing a gun crew firing at an *armed* merchant, and they are doing it at a rate of about 1 round every 3 seconds. A well drilled and cool-headed crew should be able to sustain a high rate of fire provided they are not taking losses/damage and the seas are relatively calm.

I think the arguing over the fire rate in this forum stems from two preconceptions, 1.) that the gun crew were the only people involved in the process (not taking into account several ammo bearers directly behind the loader), and 2.) that men would just pass one shell at a time, and for some odd reason, just squat for 60 seconds and then grab another round. Instead of thinking about passing rounds like 'one at a time', think of how you would pass buckets of water to put out a fire.

01-04-2006, 02:48 AM
I think also that this argument about the reload time for the deck gun is getting very old I agree with pcisbest and vanjast that the U boat crew could fire about 15-20 RPM and after all there are at least 40 man abord the Uboat like in the "Das Boot" whem they are on the botton of sea and have to move the water to the control room by passing buckets by all the man so with the DC rounds would be the same I think that 6 sec is very realistic for the reloading time.

01-04-2006, 05:52 AM
Is there a way to change this value in a .cfg?

*Never mind, I found a solution here: Ravenspire1: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9091085392/m/7541028633

01-04-2006, 11:07 AM
Pcisbest, did you even read my post before you proceeded to tear it down?: "Oh my God I am so sick of that lame argument. Don't you people who voice that have any common sense?"

I didn't say that I was advocating this opinion. Here is my first line of that post: "Here's a recap distilled from past discussions:"

This issue was debated back and forth many times. What I posted above was the reasoning used by the Real U-boat mod designer[s] for the slow rate of fire in that mod. I didn't say that I agreed with it.

I use SH3 Commander to set a faster rate of fire for my boats: Type 7's - 4 rounds per minute; Type IX's - 3 rounds per minute. People should feel free to set it at whatever they think best. Yes, there were times when crews could get off a round every few seconds; the question is how accurately and for how long could they sustain this rate of fire? I could also cite accounts of U-boat gunnery actions that went on for more than an hour. Clearly they could not sustain a rate of fire of about 12-15 rounds per minute for over an hour, as they would have run out of shells. Other factors could also influence the rate of fire, such as surface conditions and crew experience. This game is not sophisticated enough to model such factors, so any set rate of fire is a compromise. The designers of Real U-boat stated that their decision of one round per minute is a compromise. Fortunately, we have the facility to disagree by using SH3 Commander to assign our own rate of fire.

01-04-2006, 07:19 PM
Pcisbest, did you even read my post before you proceeded to tear it down?: "Oh my God I am so sick of that lame argument. Don't you people who voice that have any common sense?"

I didn't say that I was advocating this opinion. Here is my first line of that post: "Here's a recap distilled from past discussions:"

Yeah and Kaleun, where did I ever say that was your express opinion? I meant that whoever still abides by that false logic is being an idiot, not you personally.

SH3 indeed doesn't model all the nuances of deck gunnery, but that is precisely *why* RuB looks so ridiculous with regards to the long reload.

For example, people always bring up how SH3 doesn't take into account heavier wave conditions and how that would impact the gun rate...well SH3 also doesn't even let you operate the gun at all unless the sea is perfectly calm!

Thus, why would we have the crew firing as if they are in rough seas when we know by default that in SH3 the seas must be calm to even be using the gun in the first-place?

Same thing with crew experience. You don't need much experience to man-handle a shell from one guy to another. And if your experience is so lacking you can't quickly load the shell into the breech, then you have no business being qualified for the gun crew at all.

Finally, the reason for length of gunnery actions has a lot more to do with than the reload times. Gun actions could go over an hour due to repositioning, the time needed to allow crew to transfer to lifeboats, the time needed to board and inspect papers, etc. You can't assume that because a gunnery action took an hour or longer that that was due to a slow rate of fire.

I guess you have to excuse my irritation with this whole subject, but I just can't stand it when people defend completely absurd things when the whole ordeal could be settled by just thinking in real-world terms and not in anal-retentive ones.

Others see the RuB reload rate as a comprimise, I see it as something that started because the designer had this anal-retentive idea that "20 rounds were immediately available, and no more than 20," which is just complete rubbish. Personally, it seems funny after everyone started attacking the reload rate all this talk of "comnprimise" came about, not earlier. The fact is it was just a lot easier to defend the decision than to admit the reload rate was comically slow and correct it, for that would be admitting that it was "wrong" to begin with, and by and large people don't like to admit when they are wrong.

What became even more comical though was when some people jumped on the band wagon and started advocating this "comprimise" case, even though everything from the preconditions of using the gun in SH3 to historical data shows otherwise. Like I said, this footage shows perfectly, below decks, the men flinging the shells out of their storage containers. It isn't a big, elaborate process, it takes the guys on the film all of about half a second to drop the shell out of its storage tube and hand it to the next guy, who are all feverishly handing one shell after another up the chain.

Then out on deck, there are like 3 guys holdign the shells, ready to give them up to the loader, who is grabbing them as fast as he can. I don't see just two guys on the gun like in SH3, waiting around for 60 whole seconds for one, single shell to make its way alllll the way up the chain. I mean doesn't that just sound absurd when you lay it all out? But that is the problem. Too many people used the game as the bench mark. Just because there are two little animated figures in SH3 operating the gun, there must have been two in real life.

01-06-2006, 09:17 AM
Yes, I understand your frustration with the RUb gun. After listening to the reasons put forth for such a slow rate of fire, I felt no guilt in modifying the gun for a faster reload time via SH3 Commander. Many is the time where I have been in a situation where I have crippled a ship or closing in one from several thousand metres away, contemplating a gunnery action. You can be certain that in such a situation I would have had my men getting a lot of ammo ready for firing, beyond the 20 rounds up top.

I manually edit each sub's file and bump up the windspeed data, in order to have control over whether it is too rough to use the gun. How it is handled by the game is too arbitrary. I do like to make it realistic, so there is no gunnery if the deck gun is being hit with big waves. However, a little water over their ankles is not going to keep my men away from the gun. Same thing with the bridge AA guns. I see no reason why my men can't work the AA guns that are attached to the bridge because it is too rough for the deck gun.

01-06-2006, 11:59 AM
Yeah it is kind of funny how you can have a watch crew just fine in many situations but can't have a guy on the AA gun...gets especially irritating in areas with lots of air traffic. Even if the AA gunner wouldn't be afforded perfect accuracy, I would rather have a AA guy spraying from an unstable platform then to wait for perfectly calm seas, at least to give the aircraft something to worry about.

As long as the deck gun subjet is still here, if anyone is interested I recommned also takign a look at a book called "U-boat War Patrol: The Hidden Photographic Diary of U-564," by Lawrence Paterson. It follows the boat under the command of Teddy Suhren during his last war patrol.

There was a correspondent on board the boat (VIIC) as it patroled in the Caribean, and so there are a wealth of invaluable pictures, everything from capturing a blazing tanker during a night attack on a convoy, to refueling from a Milchkuhe.

Among them, are some great pics of the gunnery crew in action, showing sequentially how the ammo was brought out bellow decks, passed up the ladder to the tower, then dropped through the side chute. The crew was on deck, strapped in safety harnesses, and there was two men holding shells behind the loader. Just behind the second man was the chute from teh conning tower.

What I noticed in the pic was that the shell could be dropped down the chute, and then remained in place, so theoretically all the guy would have to do was turn and grab the shell, no big hassle, so long as the guys inside kept passing them up.

These pics were from daylight, but early in the morning on 27th August 1942 they used the gun to finish off the Norwegian tanker Vardaas (about 8,700 tons) after a single torpedoe had only crippled her, and the second failed to eject from the tube properly (almost blowing the boat up).

The author states that at 07:10 shooting began, and lasted for 25 minutes, over which time 50 shells were fired, so you can see right there they were firing on average 2 a minute, although it could easily have been faster or slower at any given time, particularly as the gunners found the range, and also, it is stated that there were several misfires, which would have interrupted firing periodically.

Of the 50 shots, 35 were seen to have hit, and by 07:50, the tanker was definitely going under and the U-boat turned for home.

There is one solitary picture in the book of the shelling, but it is very dark, so all you see is blackness with this huge fireball as the 88 mm shells ignite one of teh main storage tanks on the tanker.

The incident illustrates that the rate of fire could be maintained fairly fast, even in spite of a.) darkness, b.) several misfires, the average was as said already 2 a minute. One can only assume that with better light conditions and no malfunctions, the rate would have been faster.

The action also illustrates the effectiveness of the shells themself. 35 hits are not that many after all, even for a crippled ship of this size.

What is more, the author also mentions earlier in the book how Suhren takes on torpedoes from a IXC that had had a relatively uneventful patrol and was returning. That same IXC's sole kill was also made with its deck gun in the Gulf of Mexico.

There is also mention of Hardgen on U-123 getting several kills earlier in the area during January, and off Brazil in April.

Thus, for those who say the deck gun was not really used, it sounds quite the contrary when you begin looking into the patrol histories. The deck guns were if not used to make kills outright, at least used fairly frequently to sink already crippled ships. And this being in mid-1942.

The deck guns were more effective than people think. Their lack of use by the later part of the war, and subsequent removal entirely (from the XXI and XXIII) were due not to their ineffectiveness by because of the air threat, and particularly, the radar equipped air threat.

If radar, or at least, centimetric radar, had never been developed, the gun would have most likely remained past 1943.

In WWI, where the air threat was less, this was the case. The most succesful U-boat ace ever was Lothar von Arnauld de la Periere, who sank 54 ships on one patrol in the Mediterranean in WWI, but used only 4 torpedoes...and 900 shells from the deck gun.

01-06-2006, 03:55 PM
I had that book in my hands yesterday at a militaria store, but put it back in favour of these two: "Ostfront" by Charles Winchester and "Hitler, The Pathology of Evil" by George Victor. Only so many dollars to spend, that is the problem. I also saw the biography of Guderian, "Panzer General." Every time I come home with a bag full of books and such I get reminded that I have to refloor my house and fix the windows.

I read in one of my books about the WW1 U-boats sweeping the seas, before aircraft were the menace they were to become in WW2. The author stated that the U-boats shortened the age of the wooden schooners by 20 years or so. Many of the ships sunk by WW1 U-boat guns were sailing vessels and smaller steamers, not much worth a torpedo. I agree, had the aircraft not forced the U-boats under, there would have been more gunnery actions, at least until the merchant shipping had been equipped with their own guns.

01-06-2006, 06:43 PM
I have "Ostfront" as well. Excellent book. For anyone who hasn't read it, it doesn't go into tons of details about any one specifc campaign, but it sure does a great job of outlining the entire Eastern Front and things that are often overlooked by casual readers, namely the eb and flow of the war economies and the social and political reasons for Germany's defeat, aside from the usual "they couldn't cope with the mud and snow and huge Russian hordes" cliche.

I highly recommend it to anyone.

Good point Kaleun about the old square riggers. Indeed many ships sunk in WWI were pretty antiquated, and in many cases, WWI U-boat captains also boarded ships and either planted charges or opened the sea *****, which is something that was not really practiced to much extent in WWII.

By the middle of WWII there was definitely more going wrong for the U-boats other than aircraft: as you said not only were merchants increasingly more heavily armed, but the formation of true hunter killer groups in addition to pure escort ships also was a major factor in curtailing gunnery actions.