Rate of fire in RTW 2 and a bit bout ROF

[christian]

after being a bit curious about rtw1 reloading mechanics i decided to play a bit as britain and discovered something quite disturbing 
in short the reload times were at times ABSOLUTELY INSANE at points where i had to wait TEN MINUTES for a gun to reload in 1920

this made me curious about how rof is handeled in rtw 2 because as alot of people who have looked into the rate of fire and naval guns of ww2 and the 30-50s they fired quite fast (about 10 times as fast as the 17 incher does in game and thats comparing the 17 incher to the japanese 460mm gun (18.1 inches)
so first i will go into a bit of detail about the current rof system and then ask some questions regarding rtw2 rof how its handeled and some other things
i added a file with around 12 or more pictures which include pictures of observed rof during my games
it is to be noted i have never reached a rof of 3 in my intire playthrough despite having some 7 star ships they simply cannot do it

first of all how gun rof works in rtw1 to my understanding and why its not as accurate as it would seem

effects which increase or decrease rof in rtw1
visibility -20
crew quality 0 to +10
under fire (are you being fired at) -10
sea state -30
deliberate fire (they take their time to aim) -20
on target (if you have hit or straddeled the enemy rof increases) +30
smoke interferance -60
low on ammo -20
ships fouling the range -30
tech level rof mod -20 to -50 depending on year (notice the messages appearing saying gradual rof increase yeah those)

what strikes me is that this appears on basically all guns for example under fire applies to both inclosed battleship turrets and completely open dd mounts with no diffrence in effect 
where in reality i would imagine being inside a turret you dont see much outside thus being fired at shouldnt really be there 
even if your ship is hit as long as its not where the gun is the rof shouldnt decrease as the crew inside are not effected

visibility i could understand if the slower firing also made the shots more accurate (crew compensating for worse vision so they try to aim better) but in this case as far as i know my precision in poor visibility has not improved
and in general unless its really really foggy the rof shouldnt be reduced (if its that foggy you cant even see over the bow of the ship)

i can understand sea state although it does seem a little extreme enclose 16 inch mounts on a battleship should not suffer the same as an open 4 inch dd mount

i dont see how fouling the range could be a problem maybe due to the rangefinder not being as good at determining the range thus making firing times longer ?

tech is understandable but it dosent give enough of a buff so to say


what we end up with is a rate of fire that is MUCH MUCH lower than it was in real life
for some guns such as the 18 inch gun a 3 minute reload should be there (0.33 rof) but when a 12 inch gun dips down to under 0.20 rof i really start to question a few things

while rof for larger guns in  1899 up until the very very early 1910s was not good (as shown by these examples

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_12-40_m1893.php (1 rof in 1887)
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_76-50_m1902.php (2 rof for a 7 incher in 1887)
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_10-32_mk1-4.php (0,5 rof for a 10 incher in 1884)
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_12-25_mk3.php (0.3 to 0.5 in 1890 on a 12 incher)

in general these numbers are quite low like they should be for such early guns this i think is perfectly represented in game early guns fire at very bad rates 

the problem is these are all guns from 1890 and earlier when we look into guns from the 1910s there is a big diffrence
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_12-45_m1906.php (12 inch 1906 2 rof
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_10-40_m1893.php (10.8 inch 3 rof)
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_135-45_mk5.php (13.5 inch 1.5 to 2 rof in 1909

in addition id like to note the japanese generally achieved 1 rof with the large british guns they had during tsushima

now what interests me is how is rof going to be handeled in rule the waves 2 compared to rtw 1 
first of all we have a wider era 1899 to 1950 (tech then the extra 22 years) in that time we went from guns that barely shoot a 12 inch projectile every half a minute to a 12 inch gun firing 3 projectiles per minute or an 8 inch gun that shoots over 10 projectiles per minute (des moines main gun) the general rof increase on all guns especially larger ones
in the 30s large gun rof became a possible thing as the japanese also demonstrated with their 18 inch gun capable of 2 rounds per minute despite it being an 18 inch gun

what im worried about happening is that rof dosent increase enough and we end up with ships in 1940 and 1950 that have less than half of what they did in real life
and sure multiple factors could reduce rof but in 1930 and after most turrets were often very reliable while having a very good rate of fire where conditions as we have in rtw 1 often just straight up dident have an effect on the crews rate of fire due to the loading being so much more mechanical 

so i quess question 1 boils down to how rof will be managed from 1899 to 1950 while being realistic will it be overly low like in rtw 1 or are we gonna see those machinegun hose 5 inch guns that existed during ww2 pumping out over 15 rounds per minute (which would be much more preffered due to aircraft)

will rate of fire for ships from 1905 to 1925 have a buffed rate of fire and return it to their "historical" values as the values in game currently are very low to say it at least 

also i understand (from one of the statements) that rof was purposefully nerfed in rtw1 from what many sites claim due to the fact that worse than the theoretical rof was often achieved 
while this is certainly true i think the nerf has been a bit too hard on the smaller guns especially for guns of the 5 inch size and below these guns were typically loaded by hand (not mechanically) and i fail to see how it takes over an intire minute to load a shell which you can carry and walk with 
it only gets worse with 4 inch and down the guns have better rof than the 5 inch gun but in many cases they still barely dont manage more than 2 rof unless perfect conditions which i think is a "BIT" low for such small easy to load guns 

i looked a bit at the rof of 6 inch guns and was quite surprised at their high rof
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-50_mk11.php
participated in jutland but due to slow hoists had only around 3-5 rof (depending on ship)
this is still far higher than in game 
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-50_mk22.php while this is a mount from the 1920s it still bears mention as its within the games timeframe
this mount achieved 5 rof against bismarck during bismarcks final battle (about twice of what we get in game)
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_55-50_mk1.php
5.5 inch mount on hood with a rof of 12 
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-51_mk7.php 
5 inch gun used on the clemsons 8-9 rof 
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4-40_mk1.php rated at 8-9 rof but off peurto rico shot 14 rounds in one minute with 11 hits (target shooting)

in game the 6 inch gun will often get only half of what these can attain 

another question was autoloading guns and how it effects their performance

in general autoloading guns were no possible larger than 8 inches due to the fact a gun larger than 8 inches usually needs a welin breech which simply cannot autoload in the traditional way
how will autoloading effect rof ? is it a set % reload speed increase or is it diffrent for every gun

for example the americans had a 76mm gun (3 inch) which was autoloaded which managed a rate of fire of over 60 rounds per minute in a dual mount which could also use VT fuses

another example is the japanese 100mm or the russian 100mm gun these all have a much faster loading mechanism (not autoloading) which gives them up to 19 rounds per minute rate of fire

also another question will extreme rof decrease accuracy as it does in rtw 1 (straddle fire as far as i know slightly decreases accuracy but since its locked on at that point its still higher than normal fire) 

(also yes i realise that i relied on only one source of information bud for older guns rof sources are hard to come by)


also are there any plans to make it so you can see the maximum achievable rof in the start screen of the gun (under gun details for example) in rtw 2

Attachments:

Ny ZIP-komprimeret mappe.zip (293.17 KB)

[Antediluvian Monster]

Few quick comments that pop to head:

Generally ships did not shoot as fast in battle as their theoretical RoF allowed. About once per minute for capital ship artillery is good rule even for '40s. And it could be slower.

The idea that performance detoriated under fire is an actual period theory if I'm not mistaken, down to ideas that fire should be spread enough in order to keep every ship engaged. I'm less sure of rate of fire is the best place for such malus though.

Ships size and mounting type affecting weather maluses sounds good to me.

[christian]

May 10, 2019 12:42:50 GMT -6 Antediluvian Monster said:

Few quick comments that pop to head:

Generally ships did not shoot as fast in battle as their theoretical RoF allowed. About once per minute for capital ship artillery is good rule even for '40s. And it could be slower.

The idea that performance detoriated under fire is an actual period theory if I'm not mistaken, down to ideas that fire should be spread enough in order to keep every ship engaged. I'm less sure of rate if fire is the best place for such malus though.

depends intirely what year and country we are talking about

in the 1940s most guns above 200mm could get atleast 2 rounds off per minute without any problems with a few exceptions 

notably the french 380mm gun and the 330mm gun the 380 had hoists that simply dident work and could not bring ammunition up to the guns while the 330 simply had slow hoists which gave it a nominal rate of fire of around 1.5 rounds per minute the 380 when fixed achieved 2.2 (jean bart) 

some american old dreadnaughts also fell below the 2 rof area with their 14 inch guns although the later turrets did help fix this problem (better hoists and better gun turrets) its also to be mentioned the british fell short by around 2-4 seconds depending on the ship and usually sat at around 1.8 rof 

i greatly recomend using navyweps they give quite a bit of info on rof and usually also link several times or places where a rof was achieved in order to get a realistic picture which includes designed rof and effective rof during battles and whatnot

most extreme example of bad rof for a small gun is the russian 180mm which was cramped and simply did not reach anywhere near its designed performance 

[Antediluvian Monster]

There is indeed intresting data on actual battle results on NavWeaps site, for example:

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php

A contrasting example of short and long range fire.

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php

Bismarck's famously "fast" guns shoot about once a minute.

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk1.php

Rodney shoots at Bismarck and gets about her nominal rate of fire... with half salvos (so actually half the nominal rate).

[christian]

May 10, 2019 13:02:50 GMT -6 Antediluvian Monster said:

There is indeed intresting data on actual battle results on NavWeaps site, for example:

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php

A contrasting example of short and long range fire.

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php

Bismarck's famously "fast" guns shoot about once a minute.

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk1.php

Rodney shoots at Bismarck and gets about her nominal rate of fire... with half salvos (so actually half the nominal rate).

true
it also depends on the firecontrol backing them up or their ammunition supply 
for example jean bart was mostly unfinished and there was no rush to fire fast thus she likely took her time to get a good aim 

regardless a rate of fire of 1.5 is still far from obtainable in game with 17 inch guns giving you 0.9 rof at peak with all possible buffs on 
with the highest i have gotten being 0.73 rof

the firecontrol crew also has to relay the new firing information if they are a bit slow even if the guns are loaded they still dont fire due to not having a solution yet

other factors also come into account such as range and elevation

most guns could achieve their max rate of fire until about 3-5 degree elevation from there on it became slower and slower the more elevation was required
for example yamato firing at 3 degrees was 30 seconds but 45 degrees was 35-36 seconds (time to elevate) 


in cases of smaller guns its usually about how long the crew can keep up and how fast they can physically move the shell
for example akizuki crewmen reported that 19 rof for their 100mm guns was possible but that it was extremely hard to do and needed a well trained crew and 15 rof was more typical 

[Antediluvian Monster]

For smaller guns there were also different control methods. USN used something called either rolling salvo or rolling bracket at Solomons' nights, a controlled spray and pray method pretty much. Presumably the idea was to get more hits per unit of time in and deliberate fire was seen as too restricting the advantage of RoF these guns got.

[dorn]

I will comment several things, others may elaborate even more.

Theoretical ROF is in ideal condition and was not achieved in battle. There are several factor which influence this but most important is accuracy fire. You need to see splashes and correct your fire hence the ROF is not important. As you achieve straddles you can change to rapid fire. But even that you cannot achieve so high ROF.

Another things are weahter (see HMS Duke of York during engagement with Scharnhorst).

You cannot compare WW2 firing around 20000 yards and Tsuchima when range is quite short and time between fire and hit/miss is short.

During the "Final Battle" against Bismarck, Rodney fired a total of 380 rounds. For the first hour of the battle, she fired at the equivalent of 1.5 salvos per minute. During the entire battle, she fired 1.6 salvos per minute during salvo firing and 1.1 broadsides per minute during broadside firing with outputs of 77% and 62% respectively (salvos were of four and five guns while broadsides were of all nine guns). The following description of the problems encountered by Rodney is taken from "The Final Action: The Sinking of Bismarck, 27 May 1941" by John Roberts:

As you can see even with relatively short range HMS Rodney makes only 1.1 broadsides per minute.

[christian]

May 10, 2019 14:04:23 GMT -6 dorn said:

I will comment several things, others may elaborate even more.

Theoretical ROF is in ideal condition and was not achieved in battle. There are several factor which influence this but most important is accuracy fire. You need to see splashes and correct your fire hence the ROF is not important. As you achieve straddles you can change to rapid fire. But even that you cannot achieve so high ROF.

Another things are weahter (see HMS Duke of York during engagement with Scharnhorst).

You cannot compare WW2 firing around 20000 yards and Tsuchima when range is quite short and time between fire and hit/miss is short.

During the "Final Battle" against Bismarck, Rodney fired a total of 380 rounds. For the first hour of the battle, she fired at the equivalent of 1.5 salvos per minute. During the entire battle, she fired 1.6 salvos per minute during salvo firing and 1.1 broadsides per minute during broadside firing with outputs of 77% and 62% respectively (salvos were of four and five guns while broadsides were of all nine guns). The following description of the problems encountered by Rodney is taken from "The Final Action: The Sinking of Bismarck, 27 May 1941" by John Roberts:

As you can see even with relatively short range HMS Rodney makes only 1.1 broadsides per minute.

you still fire before the shots land you dont just sit around twiddling your thumbs while you wait for your first salvo to land which could take over a minute due to the flight time

point is even with straddle fire in game you barely manage 0.5 rof with a 16 inch gun in 1920 where you should be getting atleast 1 or 1.5

except you can compare tsushima and ww2 because while the range at tsushima was short the muzzle velocity for those guns were also HORRIBLE and the shells dropped like rocks and the traverse and elevation on those guns were MUCH worse than in ww2 (less than 2 degrees elevation/s compared to ww2 6-8 degrees/s

The designed loading-cycle for these mounts was 30 seconds, but in practice, it was 35 seconds for one gun. As the shell loading in the handling rooms required 50 seconds, the maximum sustained rate of fire was one round per gun every 50 seconds. However, because of the necessity of firing wing and center guns of turrets in different salvos [in order to reduce dispersion problems], the firing rate was further reduced to one round every 60 to 65 seconds. Even with modifications, the Director of Naval Ordnance considered it extremely doubtful that a greater rate of fire than one round every 40 seconds for the first four rounds and one round every 45 seconds thereafter would actually be achieved.



The average of the full salvo per minute rate for single ship practices between 1928 to 1933 showed a yearly average of 1.90 to 1.53 compared with 2.28 to 1.93 for ships with 15 inch (38.1 cm) guns.

in short the rodney basically fills that area perfectly a salvo every 1.6 minutes of course then you have one turret going down to mechanical problems 


The following description of the problems encountered by Rodney is taken from "The Final Action: The Sinking of Bismarck, 27 May 1941" by John Roberts:

She experienced various minor problems with mechanical failures and drill errors, the worst being with the right gun of A turret. This gun missed 11 salvos due to problems with the slide locking gear and then, at salvo 65, a complete jam occurred in the right shell pusher hoist. As a result of drill errors the top shell was rammed up the hoist and jammed in the gunhouse with its nose against the rangefinder supports. It was not cleared until 12 hours after the action. In addition the centre gun of A missed 2 salvos due to slow drill and all the salvos from 64 to 88 due to mechanical failures, the left gun of A missed 10 salvos and did not fire after salvo 97 due to mechanical failures. B turret's centre gun misfired at salvo 4 and missed 5 or 6 over a period of 7 minutes towards the end of the action due to drill errors. The left gun of B had several delays as a result of drill errors but X turret suffered only two jams which caused only minor delays.

as can be seen it was more the mounts were actual physical garbage compared to the american 16 inch guns and the british ones were EXTREMELY unreliable
the british turret unreliability can also be seen when prince of wales was forced to retreat during the battle of the denmark straight when her guns malfunctioned

general rof is still around 2

also the rof of guns below 10 inches is horrible being less than half as fast as in real life (6 inch guns firing at 2 rof in game while they were in real life capable of 6 rof)

also there are rof caps in game these caps are for 5 inch guns 3.4 rof and for 17 inch guns 1 rof exactly
problem is there is no feasable way to hit these caps for rof because they are basically impossible to reach and usually the closest you get is 75% of the way to that cap

[akosjaccik]

Unfortunately it will take at least a week for me to get back to my written sources, but I very much doubt it's wise to bring up the russo-japanese war in regards to the second world war. The main agents there were mid-caliber guns, and I seem to recall the main caliber turrets were fairly slow to fire, plus the average range is not comparable either. The much-quoted NavWeaps puts the 12"/40 30,5cm (41st year type 30 cm) at a muzzle velocity of 2,400 fps (732 mps), whereas let's say, the USA's 16"/45 Mark 5's AP at 2,520 fps (768 mps). Range was more of an issue of limited elevation rather than muzzle velocity, and that in turn the problems with rangefinding and aiming. And considering some ranges at Tsushima, I don't know, off the top of my head 6-7 kilometers maybe, elevation rate was probably not an issue, again, not least because the guns couldn't really reach a high angle in the first place. RtW's reload values are fairly well researched concerning main calibers.

[Antediluvian Monster]

May 10, 2019 14:24:59 GMT -6 christian said:

in short the rodney basically fills that area perfectly a salvo every 1.6 minutes of course then you have one turret going down to mechanical problems

Those are half salvos though, so it's equivalent of 0.8 full salvos a minute.

[christian]

May 10, 2019 14:45:29 GMT -6 akosjaccik said:

Unfortunately it will take at least a week for me to get back to my written sources, but I very much doubt it's wise to bring up the russo-japanese war in regards to the second world war. The main agents there were mid-caliber guns, and I seem to recall the main caliber turrets were fairly slow to fire, plus the average range is not comparable either. The much-quoted NavWeaps puts the 12"/40 30,5cm (41st year type 30 cm) at a muzzle velocity of 2,400 fps (732 mps), whereas let's say, the USA's 16"/45 Mark 5's AP at 2,520 fps (768 mps). Range was more of an issue of limited elevation rather than muzzle velocity, and that in turn the problems with rangefinding and aiming. And considering some ranges at Tsushima, I don't know, off the top of my head 6-7 kilometers maybe, elevation rate was probably not an issue, again, not least because the guns couldn't really reach a high angle in the first place. RtW's reload values are fairly well researched concerning main calibers.

the low velocity of the 16 inch was mostly due to the fact it fired the super heavy shells it could propel its high explosive shells at 830 m/s 

in addition you have to remember the shell weight diffrences a heavier shell has alot more energy behind it 

and we arent just talking 400 kg diffrence the diffrence between the 16 inch shell weight is 839 kg thats alot

the battle of tsushima was brough up in regards to the reload rates of guns in game because during tsushima as far as i have seen the reported rate of fire for 12 inch guns (mikasa) was around 1.5 rounds per minute
in addition
The post-war US survey of Japanese Seacoast Artillery states that these guns fired 2 rounds per gun per minute.

in game the rof cap for 12 inch guns is at 1.9 although less than half of this is reached due to the fact the adjusted rof is usually around 1 i have been unable to obtain a rof of 1.5 in any game even into the 1920s where that kind of rof should very clearly be available
especially considering what the germans achieved on their 280mm guns

tsushima was 7-6 km distance yes

just to show the diffrence between the japanese 12 inch guns and the american 16 inch gun in energy this is the diffrence
355773415 joules of energy in the 16 inch shell

while the japanese 12 inch shell had 126627345 joules of energy

the range of each at 20 degree elevation is 21000 meters for the 12 inch japanese gun
and 26000 meters for the american 16 inch gun

reload was likely not effected at all by suck close range battles 

regarding the accurasy of the rate of fire i find it to be on the low side considering the rof caps

for example lets look at some 6 inch guns from jutland and tsushima and also some of the german 11 inch guns at jutland
german 11 inch 28cm guns

Description from "Naval Weapons of World War Two:"

"The hoists could supply three rounds per gun in 51 seconds, including loading and unloading the hoists, and the firing cycle with a strong and well trained crew was about 20 seconds."

^During the Dogger Bank battle in 1915 Seydlitz was in continuous action for two hours. During that time, she averaged a firing rate of one salvo every 42.3 seconds, an impressive performance considering that the guns were hand worked.

with british 6 inch guns this is to be said (tsushima again)
^

The Rate of Fire figure given above is found in references for British guns of this caliber, but "Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860-1905" quotes Jellicoe's 1906 figures for rates of fire for these guns in gunlayers' tests and in battle practice and notes that the latter figures corresponded well to those actually attained by the Japanese at Tsushima:

Gunlayers Test 12 rounds per minute

Battle Practice 4 rounds per minute


while the MAXIMUM possible rof (rof cap) is 2.8 shells per minute 

british 6 inch secondaries on rodney (1922 date of design this is within the games tech frame and thus should be represented as all rof bonuses unlocked)

The original design requirement was for a rate of fire of 7 to 8 rounds per minute. On trials, the best rate achieved was 4 rounds per minute. During her battle with Bismarck, Rodney fired 150 salvos from her starboard battery at an average of 5 salvos per minute and 98 salvos from her port battery at an average of 3.9 salvos per minute. During the first 9 minutes at close range she achieved 5.9 rounds per minute and an output of nearly 100%. In all, Rodney fired 716 rounds of 6" (15.2 cm) CPBC during this action.


german 15cm gun in 1906
In "Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting" by John Campbell, it is stated that German capital ships were provided with an ammunition hoist for each 15 cm (5.9") gun and that these could provide 7 or more complete rounds per minute. For light cruisers the rate of supply was about three to five rounds per minute per gun once the ready ammunition had been used up.

[akosjaccik]

May 10, 2019 15:25:48 GMT -6 christian said:

Warspite: APC 6crh (super charges!) - 2,638 fps (804 mps)

Roma: APC: 2,789 fps (850 mps)

New Mexico: AP - 2,700 fps (823 mps)

et cetera. Not a screaming big difference at seven kilometers (and considering that the 12" was able to elevate to a maximum 15 degrees in that mounting, talking about 20° makes little sense). However, we are drifting off a bit too much, so I logged in and downloaded one of my sources from the e-book store.

"The russian gun's (...) nominal rate of fire was 1,5 shots per minute, but in practice they could not achieve this, and the actual rate of fire was about half of this value. (...)" (Zoltan Horvath - From Port Arthur to Tsushima, 2018, Libri) The author then goes on to say that the notion that the japanese heavy artillery overwhelmed the russians with rate of fire does not stand. Japanese 305mm guns fired 446 shells with an excellent 9% hit ratio, and on average they fired a full broadside in every 8-10 minutes, using up ultimately 50-60% of their ammunition. Russians did not care that much about aiming, firing at least 900 305mm shells and about 360 of the 254mm shells. The 305mm shells achieved 37 hits, for a ratio of 4,1%, not catastrophic for the time.

NavWeaps puts Mikasa's original armament at a RoF of "about 1 round per minute", and that pretty much means "when everything goes right" and basically when you have nothing else to do than to "just" slam a round in and press the trigger, which, as we can see for example above, not what happened. I also am not sure what does energy have do with reloading.

[christian]

May 10, 2019 16:28:38 GMT -6 akosjaccik said:

May 10, 2019 15:25:48 GMT -6 christian said:

Warspite: APC 6crh (super charges!) - 2,638 fps (804 mps)

Roma: APC: 2,789 fps (850 mps)

New Mexico: AP - 2,700 fps (823 mps)

et cetera. Not a screaming big difference at seven kilometers (and considering that the 12" was able to elevate to a maximum 15 degrees in that mounting, talking about 20° makes little sense). However, we are drifting off a bit too much, so I logged in and downloaded one of my sources from the e-book store.

"The russian gun's (...) nominal rate of fire was 1,5 shots per minute, but in practice they could not achieve this, and the actual rate of fire was about half of this value. (...)" (Zoltan Horvath - From Port Arthur to Tsushima, 2018, Libri) The author then goes on to say that the notion that the japanese heavy artillery overwhelmed the russians with rate of fire does not stand. Japanese 305mm guns fired 446 shells with an excellent 9% hit ratio, and on average they fired a full broadside in every 8-10 minutes, using up ultimately 50-60% of their ammunition. Russians did not care that much about aiming, firing at least 900 305mm shells and about 360 of the 254mm shells. The 305mm shells achieved 37 hits, for a ratio of 4,1%, not catastrophic for the time.

NavWeaps puts Mikasa's original armament at a RoF of "about 1 round per minute", and that pretty much means "when everything goes right" and basically when you have nothing else to do than to "just" slam a round in and press the trigger, which, as we can see for example above, not what happened. I also am not sure what does energy have do with reloading.

while the russians fired more shells its also to be noted they had 8 battleships compared to japans 5 their gunnery was absolutely garbage likely because of their crews morale having gone around the world sat at madegascar for a month losing crew to sicknesses they even held gunnery training where the only thing they hit was the ship towing the target

due to russias crew (or lack there of on some ships due to sickness) and their poor experience likely lead to their poor rate of fire since guns in the 1900s were mostly manually loaded and required strenght and as such was tiring to do

generally if the japanese only fired every 8-10 minutes from their 12 inchers something is very very wrong

The post-war US survey of Japanese Seacoast Artillery states that these guns fired 2 rounds per gun per minute.
(12 inch gun on mikasa)

The post-war US survey of Japanese Seacoast Artillery states that the coastal artillery turrets could fire 2 rounds per gun per minute for brief periods.
mikasas 10 inch secondary guns

in general the russian pacific squadron was a complete flop in perfomance 

also looking into the russian ships guns

they had one which had a rof of 0.20 on one of their ships from 1878 they also had 2 ships with 0.5 rof main guns on the coastal battleships
so no wonder they had such bad rof they were sailing with guns extremely bad on very old ships 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I have to agree that 2.8 maximum is too little for a 6" gun. It could be as much as doubled. Or perhaps the small guns should have extra bonus from rapid fire/firing for effect. Could also be mount dependant, those pedestal deck guns without integral hoists should be more slow to fire past a point.

On unrelated note, there could also be extra penalty for having too large guns on too small/lively a ship, as there seems to have been pattern like that (e.g. the Canets on Matsushimas).

[akosjaccik]

May 10, 2019 18:56:28 GMT -6 christian said:

generally if the japanese only fired every 8-10 minutes from their 12 inchers something is very very wrong

You have the data on the guns, the durations, the shells fired, you can do the math yourself as well. The trick is simply that you deleted the "in average" part.

The rest of your post is interesting to me in that way that is basically says "Yes but other parameters were at play". Exactly. RtW is concerned about simulating the battles, not the datasheets. For example, "The post-war US survey of Japanese Seacoast Artillery states that these guns fired 2 rounds per gun per minute" - said report talks about the 12"/45, not the /40, and was written in 1946. The phrase "seacoast artillery" is also a bit telling how much significance it has regarding Tsushima.