3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun - 2/15/2003 8:45:56 AM

Flying fortress

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/1/2002
Status: offline

Have anyone noticed anything with these guns? There are something wrong with these guns! Although they were excellent AA guns, they never fire at aircraft! EVER!!!!! After aircombat, I look at the ships with these guns, and guess what? They have not expended a single round, while all the other AA guns have expended all their ammo!!! These were supposed to be the best AA gun in the entire IJN arsenal for gods sakes!!! And they don't even fire a single round in air combat! Is this a bug? Or was this gun misplaced or miscategorized as a surface gun unable of AA fire? Could you guys explain this please? Just wondering, because under the current system, the best IJA gun is taken out of play and when you are playing the Japanese, you want all the AA fire you can get your hands on! Any way this bug could be fixed?

Thanks, and great job on all these patches! Matrix, you have made this the best game ever! ( of course until WITP comes along)

Specs of the 3.9in(10cm)/65 type 98

19 rounds/min
max angle 90deg~ -10deg
ceiling-14,700meters
range-19,500

Post #: 1

- 2/15/2003 11:39:14 AM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

Well spotted mate.

I'd be interested in the response you get.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 2

- 2/15/2003 11:00:07 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Fort;

Interesting question you have there. How do you KNOW this weapon never fires?

BTW, if as you suggest, it may be misclassified as conventional artillery, the crew will be in for a big surprise if they fire a contact-fused round at 90 degrees elevation ;)

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 3

Data - 2/15/2003 11:43:14 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, 169 guns were produced (68 of these were deployed in land mounts)

Gun
Designation 10 cm/65 (3.9") Type 98 (Model 1938)
Ship Class Used On Akitsuki, Oyodo, Taiho and B-64
Date Of Design 1938
Date In Service 1942
Gun Weight 6,731 lbs. (3,053 kg)
Gun Length oa 265.0 in (6.730 m)
Bore Length 255.9 in (6.500 m)
Number Of Grooves 32
Length Of Rifling 221.7 in (5.631 m)
Chamber Volume 641 in3 (10.5 dm3)
Rate Of Fire 15 - 21 rounds per minute

Ammo
Type Fixed
Weight of Complete Round HE - 61.7 lbs. (28 kg)
Projectile Types and Weights HE - 28.67 lbs. (13 kg)
Bursting Charge N/A
Projectile Length 44 in (111.8 cm)
Propellant Charge 13.2 lbs. (6 kg)
Cartridge - 33 lbs. (15 kg)
Muzzle Velocity 3,281 fps (1,000 mps)
Working Pressure 19.4 tons/in2 (3,050 kg/cm2)
Approximate Barrel Life 350 - 400 rounds
Ammunition stowage per gun about 400 rounds

Range
Elevation With 28.67 lbs. (13 kg) HE Shell
Range @ 45 degrees 21,325 yards (19,500 m)
AA Ceiling @ 90 degrees 42,651 feet (13,000 m)

Mount/Turrent data
Designation Twin Mounts
Akitsuki (4), Oyodo (4), Taiho (6) and B-64 (8)
Weight 76,060 lbs. (34,500 kg)
Elevation -10 / +90 degrees
Elevation Rate 16 degrees per second
Train Oyodo, Taiho and B-64: About +/-70 degrees
Akitsuki: About -150 / +150 degrees

Train Rate 12-16 degrees per second
Gun recoil N/A

The guns had a very short service life, they wore out after 350-400 rounds fired

Data from
"Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships" by W. H. Garzke, Jr. and R. O. Dulin, Jr.
"Japanese Warships of WWII" by A. J. Watts
"Naval Weapons of WWII" by John Campbell

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 4

- 2/16/2003 12:31:01 AM

dasgman

Posts: 70
Joined: 2/23/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline

the 3.9/65 Type 98 gun is listed as a dual purpose gun in the database ... what indications do you have that the gun is not firing?

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 5

- 2/16/2003 4:48:06 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Have you tried it against a target at medium or high altitude? Some guns in the game fire at high but won't fire very low.

Joel

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 6

- 2/18/2003 5:28:08 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

We've confirmed there is a bug (or more correctly an unintended consequence of certain rule interactions) here and have added it to our list. Don't know if it will get into the 2.30 patch or have to wait for the next one. Depends on the implications of the fix and the testing situation for the current patch. Thanks for the report.

Joel

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 7

- 2/19/2003 7:13:58 AM

rough44

Posts: 29
Joined: 2/2/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline

never suspected my favourite gun wasn't even working, glad it was sighted and diagnosed.

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 8

- 2/28/2003 8:55:52 AM

Flying fortress

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/1/2002
Status: offline

WOW!!!:) It was a bug! Thanks for replying, Matrix. You guys are the best at fixing bugs! Way to go!!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 9

- 3/1/2003 11:56:46 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Flying fortress
[B]WOW!!!:) It was a bug! Thanks for replying, Matrix. You guys are the best at fixing bugs! Way to go!! [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes it was a bug and we've fixed it in our internal version that will soon become the official 2.30 patch. Thanks again for the report that led us to find this problem.

Joel

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 10