10 replies to this topic

[Dave Franklin]

Noticed that not everyone's <= 6 inch guns are allowed to rapid fire. The "complaint" came from the guys running the Italians, where on the Gunfire CRT only their 3.5"-3.9" guns are allowed to RF. Looking at the others, the same is true for the French, and the Japanese only go up to 4.7"-5". Just wondering why?

[Jim O'Neil]

Because many nations guns were not so quick firing as other nations guns. The Italians fired their 6 inchers somewhat more deliberately.

[Lonnie Gill]

Bravo6 is right. Turns out not all 6" guns were created equal. Hand loading of guns (generally 6" and smaller) does not always equate with a noticably higer RoF than the mechanically loaded larger guns (8" and larger). A review of Campbell and a number of other sources will show that the practical rate of fire for the 6" and smaller guns of several navies would not support "Rapid Fire." In addition to the Italians, many of the French guns do not have a high practical RoF. The same is true for IJN 5.5" and 6" guns. This is demonstrated by actions such as the Sydney vs. Bande Nere and Colleoni in the Med in 1940. With the Sydney's higher effective RoF and better fire control, this wasn't simply a 2:1 mismatch as first appeared.

[Dave Franklin]

Thanks for the info. I'll pass it along to the whining Italians.

[Paul Herkes]

As one of the folks on the losing end of the rapid fire issue, my observation is that the "6 times per battery" limitation wasn't particularly meaningful. In our (admittedly limited) experience the battles themselves haven't last much longer than than this and the time spent within rapid fire range has not approached 6 turns. I'm not sure if the rapid fire was factored into the PVs, but I'd argue for a much lower restriction on the number of times that rapid fire could be used. From a play standpoint this would make the decision to use or not use rapid fire more significant to captain.

[Jim O'Neil]

I assumed double ammunition usage, and thus 9 turns of rapid fire... again as the IJN DDs... the only way to deal with a cruiser at 4500 yards, after the torpedoes are gone, is to pour it on them!The Japanese 5" is not as fast as the US 5"/38 in ROF, so maybe that is also a consideration. The 5"/38 could put out prodigous amounts of fire, and thus a 6 round limit is fair... the extra potential damage is not allowed for though. Of course, the US Gun fires HE, while the Japanese gun also has a SAP round.

[Martin Jerred]

As there is no ammunition limit, it's hard to assume RF is double expenditure...that's how it used to be. These days it's unlimted firing, except for RF batteries which are limited to 6 turns.A possible house rule, recently suggested by the whinging Italians following a Cape Spada game (in which Sydney sunk Bande Nere and severly damaged Colleoni - 6 hits in one salvo is brutal...although only one hit was actually caused by the RF) is that RF shouldn't be allowed unless the battery fired normally against the target in the previous turn. I can see their point, however I can also see that against potential TT threats you'd just turn the volume up anyway so I remain undecided.Zippee

[HERVE MAS]

What is the ROF 'lower limit' to qualify for Rapid Fire ? If you take the example of the French, I would consider that 6" guns on cruisers would qualify whereas the 6.1" wouldn't. Similarly, the 5.5" Model 27 would allow rapid fire whereas older (Model 23) or more modern designs (on Le Fantasque class or Mogador) wouldn't? Is that correct?

[Jim O'Neil]

Well my answer is hardly definitive, but I think a firing cycle of 7-8 seconds or less (or ROF of 8+ RPM if you prefer to calculate it that way) is about the cut off. The French 6" is just at this, and the 6.1 inch is slower. Many of the 5.5 and 5.1 inch guns don't measure up either ... although the powered mounts on DUNKERQUE, STRASBOURG, RICHELEIU and JEAN BART do. Doctrine is also a factor, although often not well known. The USN had a policy of getting the range and then shooting as fast as possible until you saw you were missing; This was altered (mid-late 1943) to fire several rapid broadsides after getting the range, then checking before firing more rapid broadsides again. The RN also made use of Rapid Fire, but in a somewhat more controlled manner. Ultimately, it's the historical use that should drive the decision ... but this is not always clear. Hope that is some help.

[Cpt M]

The big determinant here is doctrine. According to what I've been able gather through research, only the USN, RN and KM had a doctrine (and the equipment) of rapid fire for anything above a 4" quickfirer with the USN's and RN's doctrine being most developed. The French were trying to move in that direction with their 5.1" guns, but the mounts gave no end of trouble and it never came about. Bravo6 hit it straight on; the historical use (as close as research can show) is what drives the decision.

[Lonnie Gill]

Herve,Interestingly, Bravo6 and Coastal mirrored my thinking on this subject rather well. As a starting point, I took a firing cycle of 8 seconds or less as a threshold for rapid fire. My research through Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War Two, the navweaps website and other sources indicated that French and a number of other national 5" - 6" guns didn't meet that criteria. There were also a number of comments that many of the French mounts experienced various problems which limited them to lower practical rates of fire. Further, only a few navies embraced the rapid fire doctrine. Other navies took the view that rapid fire would lead to increased ammunition expenditure with little increase in hits, a point which had some validity based on historical results. Thus, I took the position that the French 5.1" - 6.1" guns would not qualify for rapid fire tactics. For most of them, the data is fairly clear on this issue. I noted that the 6" guns used on the La Galissonniere class cruisers and the Richelieu class battleships did appear to have had better firing cycles. However, without strong evidence that the French Navy had adopted the rapid fire doctrine for these ships, as opposed to their other ships, it's not clear they would have used the tactic. Therefore, I limited rapid fire to 3.9" and smaller French batteries. My sources for the French Navy are not as extensive as for some of the other navies. Perhaps someone with more definitive sources can cite evidence that my approach should be amended.