Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 8:14:46 AM   
tigercub


Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline
I JUST RECEIVED MY COPY OF SHATTERED SWORD GREAT BOOK THE TALK FROM HERE MADE ME DO IT

OF NOTE IN THE BOOK IS ITS CLAIM THAT ONLY 56 Vals & Kates were made in all of 1942 page 89!

Can anyone disprove this?

I have production numbers but its not clear...if this is true? WOW what were they doing smoking Weed all day!

(Coz i am ZZZ waiting for AE)

Tiger!

< Message edited by tigercub -- 6/22/2009 8:38:40 AM >


_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
Post #: 1
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 8:42:58 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

I JUST RECEIVED MY COPY OF SHATTERED SWORD GREAT BOOK THE TALK FROM HERE MADE ME DO IT

OF NOTE IN THE BOOK IS ITS CLAIM THAT ONLY 56 Vals & Kates were made in all of 1942!

Can anyone disprove this?

I have production numbers but its not clear...if this is true? WOW what were they doing smoking Weed all day!

(Coz i am ZZZ waiting for AE)

Tiger!


The Japanese were converting over to D4Ys and B6Ns. The D4Y finally went operational in March 1943, after about a year of teething troubles with wing flutter and the German in-line engine. The B6N had even worse teething troubles, taking two years to reach squadron service in early 1944. The D4Y had a high stall speed, so it could only operate from Japanese fast carriers. The B6N was too heavy for the smaller Japanese carriers.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 2
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 9:22:57 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

I JUST RECEIVED MY COPY OF SHATTERED SWORD GREAT BOOK THE TALK FROM HERE MADE ME DO IT

OF NOTE IN THE BOOK IS ITS CLAIM THAT ONLY 56 Vals & Kates were made in all of 1942 page 89!

Can anyone disprove this?

I have production numbers but its not clear...if this is true? WOW what were they doing smoking Weed all day!

(Coz i am ZZZ waiting for AE)

Tiger!


Thats what Shattered Sword says, and if correct a blow for the JFP who thinks the game understates the ability of the japanese aircraft industry.

I will say it creates an admiration that the japanese empire did so much with such a screwed up home base.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 3
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 10:53:22 AM   
tigercub


Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline
Keffk LOL.....Ill fill some blanks that i have info on and see if any of the guys can add to this from what I have there numbers are in doubt

Source :Japanese Aircraft of the pacific by R.j.Francillon 1970 i picked up for $15.00AU 25 years ago

Val : D3A1 ,D3A2 production of 1,495 were build as follows
Nagoya
2 11-shi prototypes

6 D3A1 trial aircraft

470 D3A1 production craft ( Dec1939-Aug1942 )

1 D3A2 Prototypes (june 1942 ) why make a new Prototype if they stopped production?

815 D3A2 production craft (Aug 1942-june 1944)

Tokyo

201 D4A2( dec1942-Aug1945 )

Kates B5N1 and B5N2
Nakajima plant
669 B5N1 and B5N2 (1936-1941)

Aichi plant
200 B5N2 (1942-1943)

Kokusho

280 B5N2 (1942-1943)

does not give monthly numbers But i think shattered Sword claims can be in question?

anyone got more on this i would love to know.

Tiger!


< Message edited by tigercub -- 6/22/2009 12:21:33 PM >


_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 4
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 10:55:41 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
Shattered Sword is an extremely good read and I found it very illuminating, but its a bit... pop history?  I wouldn't take it as absolute gospel.

_____________________________


(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 5
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 10:57:18 AM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
Parshall and Tully attribute their aircraft production figures to "USSBS (22? - LY), Nav. 50, pp. 202-6", and to information supplied by Allan Alsleben and James Sawruk. I am not at all clear as to the USSBS data to which reference is being made.

I have, however, been able to take a look at an online copy of USSBS Corporation Report Vol. 34 upon the Japanese Army Air Arsenals' and Naval Air Depots' contribution to aircraft and engine production. This suggests a resumption of B5N2 production at the 11th Naval Air Depot at Hiro (nr Kure) in April 1942. A table in the report indicates a total production of 70 B5N2 between April and December 1942, with production rising from 5 airframes per month between April and July to 10 airframes per month thereafter.

I should like very much to access a copy of USSBS Corporation Report No. 2 on the Nakajima company proper, which might shed some further light, but have been unable to locate an online copy. Resolution of the conflicting data on Japanese aircraft production is, apparently, far from straightforward, and no doubt Parshall and Tully have the benefit of information I haven't seen. However, the figures I have cited for B5N2 production at a single NAD makes me wonder whether a total 1942 production figure of 56 machines needs some re-evaluation.

_____________________________




(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 6
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 11:00:47 AM   
tigercub


Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline
is that POP US History? anyway is a good book and i never take anything as Gospel been around to long.

Tiger!


_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 7
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 11:07:37 AM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
The USSBS Corporation Report Vol. 20 on the Aichi company gives an actual production figure of 55 B5N2 aircraft at its Ettori plant between June and December 1942. Interesting that this figure is so close to Parshall and Tully's 56 aircraft, but may be entirely coincidental.

_____________________________




(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 8
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 11:25:48 AM   
tigercub


Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline
thanks Local Yokel

Tiger!


_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 9
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 11:43:13 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
I think the whole point of the production figures quoted in "Shattered Sword" is to offer an explanation as to why the Japanese showed up for THE DECISIVE BATTLE (as they thought of it) with depleted airgroups in the KB. The shortages apparently extended beyond just Kates.

(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 10
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 12:13:54 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

thanks Local Yokel

Tiger!



Thanks Guys,

I have a number of very minor probs with SS, maybe its reputation would suffer a few small dents if investigated fully.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 11
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 2:55:27 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline
deleted

< Message edited by ckammp -- 11/1/2009 2:27:19 AM >

(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 12
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 3:08:52 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
Under carrier attack aircraft authors understand only B5N Kates. Here are some thoughts on this subject.

It is known that Nakajima did not deliver a single Kate in 1942, only Aichi’s Eitoku factory and 11th Naval Air Arsenal were producing Kates in 1942. Eitoku factory was not capable to produce any significant amount of aircraft in 1942, this new factory lacked some key machinery and reached planned output only in early ’43. In ’43-44 11th arsenal at Hiro had a very modest monthly output of 25 a/c of all types, and in 42 it was probably even less. Most of the sources indicate that ~480 B5N2 were delivered in 1942-44, if we take into account insufficient production capacities of both factories in 1942, ~60-80 Kates produced in 1942 seems to be more or less realistic number.

I’m not sure about exact 56 a/c figure though, as mentioned in the notes – this data comes from USSBS papers and Munitions Ministry documents, famous for their contradicting data, it’s highly unlikely that one of interrogated IJN officials in 1945 was able to remember the exact production figures for any particular plane in 1942. If 56 Kates were really mentioned somewhere, it could be really total figure produced in 1942 or… amount of a/c accepted by IJN, number of planes transferred to carrier borne units, or even calculated deficit of this type in the first line units. Nobody has hard data on this subject, but this doesn’t make Parshall’s point less valuable, it’s absolutely clear that IJN did not get enough Kates to replace losses in 1942.

Even before Midway it was already a critical situation, according to USSBS - 273 dive and torpedo bombers of all types were lost by IJN during 12/41-5/42, this figure includes both combat (162 a/c) and operational losses (111 a/c), ~1/4 of operational losses goes to training units equipped with obsolete types. So the frontline units losses during this period were ~ 240 Vals and Kates, the larger part of these losses were probably Kates, my guess - 120-140 Kates. After Midway IJN were losing their valuable torpedo-bombers at even higher rate, so with insufficient a/c supply, the second line and training units were stripped off all their Kates (mostly old B5N1s) by fall 1942.

The main reason why IJN found themselves in such a difficult situation were not the shortcomings of Japanese aircraft industry, which were obvious nevertheless, but the poor Koku hombu management. Even before the outbreak of the war Kate was considered obsolete type, the maiden flight of the brand new B6N Tenzan took place on march 14 1941(!) eight months before PH raid, and by that time everyone at IJN and Nakajima were absolutely sure that this new type would be IJN prime kanko type in 1942, reality proved them wrong but Nakajima were simply unable to reverse their production plans in early ’42 and switch some of their capacities back to B5N.

The situation with D3A was a bit better. Despite the fact that D4Y Suisei prototype was already flying in December 1940, it was clear that Aichi won’t be able to start mass production of this type in 1941 since Atsuta engine design was “wet” even by Japanese standards. With D4Y did not even figure in koku hombu replenishment plans, Val production at Aichi Funakata factory went somewhat smoothly in 1942. In “Aichi D3A1/2 Val” by Peter C. Smith one can find exact figures for Val production in 1942

April – 32 A1
May – 30 A1
June – 28 A1 + 1 A2
July – 25 A1
August – 17 A1 + 4 A2
September – 14 A2
October – 18 A2
November – 23 A2
December – 30 A2

Total – 132 D3A1 + 90 D3A2 = 222 Vals produced in 1942. Not a great achievement, but Vals were surely not in a short supply in 1942, so that IJN was even able to established new land –based Val units in spring ’42 (like 31st and 33rd Kokutai).

Val comprised the principal output of the Aichi Funakata factory until 1944, with D3A1 and -A2 being produced there until the latter were gradually phased out and output transferred to the Showa in Tokyo, so that Aichi itself could concentrate efforts on producing B7A. Ryusei was a much more complex a/c which required a major changes to quite simple machinery available at Funakata factory. Machinery upgrade at Funakata was completed in may ’44. Funakata didn’t produce a single D4Y, it was never planned to produce Judy there, so its output was not affected by D4Y or any other program.



_____________________________


(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 13
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 3:47:40 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
These numbers are an order of magnitude away from the 600 Tonies a month you see in WitP.

...I really hope Japans industrial abilities are better modelled in AE.  Uber-Corsairs/CAP walls and uber-factories are probably less fun than historical Corsairs and CAP but historical factories, for both sides.


_____________________________


(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 14
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 4:10:46 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3119
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

These numbers are an order of magnitude away from the 600 Tonies a month you see in WitP.

...I really hope Japans industrial abilities are better modelled in AE.  Uber-Corsairs/CAP walls and uber-factories are probably less fun than historical Corsairs and CAP but historical factories, for both sides.



It is a well known fact that the Japanese aircraft industry in WW2 sucked, so I think if you restricted the Japanese player to historical output, then nobody is going to want to play as Japan

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 15
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 4:25:57 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88
It is a well known fact that the Japanese aircraft industry in WW2 sucked, so I think if you restricted the Japanese player to historical output, then nobody is going to want to play as Japan


I'd be happy to see Japanese Tony production no better than Allied P38 production, myself... when its ten times as much (and five times higher than reality) I think something is up!

It's countered by P47s blowing through them like they were smoke, but thats ahistorical as well.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 6/22/2009 4:31:21 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 16
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 4:48:08 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3119
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I'd be happy to see Japanese Tony production no better than Allied P38 production, myself... when its ten times as much (and five times higher than reality) I think something is up!

It's countered by P47s blowing through them like they were smoke, but thats ahistorical as well.


I have run Japan in a CHS PBEM game (against Ramjet), and I can tell you that where building 400 Tony’s a month is possible. It would be putting a serious strain on HI, and engines, and that if Japan has only conquered her historical recourse centers, that 500 fighters total production would be pushing it.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 17
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 5:18:55 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88
I have run Japan in a CHS PBEM game (against Ramjet), and I can tell you that where building 400 Tony’s a month is possible. It would be putting a serious strain on HI, and engines, and that if Japan has only conquered her historical recourse centers, that 500 fighters total production would be pushing it.


Well, I think a lot of this sort of thing is precisely because Japan conquers a lot more than her historical resource centres (taking most of China + India seems to practically be a benchmark of Japanese success these days) and has a lot more merchant shipping and a lot less logistical issues than in reality. All these advantages combine create a snowball effect.

It looks like AE broadly speaking fixes a lot of these fundamental issues. The exact same industrial model would yield very different results with reworked merchant hulls and such, after all.

So I'm pretty optimistic re. AE and looking forward to it.

...I do hope 600 Tonies a month as a result of conquering half the planet isn't going to be a likely feature though.

_____________________________


(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 18
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 6:39:00 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88
It is a well known fact that the Japanese aircraft industry in WW2 sucked, so I think if you restricted the Japanese player to historical output, then nobody is going to want to play as Japan


I'd be happy to see Japanese Tony production no better than Allied P38 production, myself... when its ten times as much (and five times higher than reality) I think something is up!

It's countered by P47s blowing through them like they were smoke, but thats ahistorical as well.



it´s all that easy. If the Japanese player in a PBEM achieves only (or even achieves less) than what was conquered in real life and if the Allied achieves (or achieves more) with his subs what was achieved in real life than there´s no way at all to see a Japanese production being out of the whack. When you see those numbers you state than it´s because either the Japanese have conquered the whole map (which has to be questioned anyway) or they have stopped parts of their ship production or whatever other production. What you shouldn´t forget also is that while the Japanese player is building hundreds of Tonies, or Jacks, or Franks or Frances, he probably won´t build hundreds of Zeroes, Oscars, Nates, Betties or whatever at the same time too. I´m one of the more or less succesful players usually when taking over the Japanese and I can tell you (and my AARs) prove it, that the TOTAL number of Japanese aircraft I produce are LOWER than the TOTAL number of Japanese aircraft produced in real life.

Hard to imagine but that´s how it is. Of course the question remains if the Japanese aircraft industry would have been able to build those numbers of "top notch" aircraft. I would say no. But play this game and take on Corsairs with Nates in mid 43. Have fun with the game, you can only play it against the AI then. Not just because you wouldn´t find a Japanese PBEM player, guess there wouldn´t be a sense to play the Allied side either.

Wrecking havoc with the Allied in PBEM (even more so against the AI) is no problem at all. Those claims that always come up that the Japanese is totally overpowered industrial wise only comes from a couple of AARs that see a Japanese going totally out of the line. Like in my ongoing PBEM, it´s end 43 and I´m still on the offensive. Usually, the Allied kill off the Japanese in 44. More than in real life as the usual PBEM won´t see 45 due to a totally trashed Japanese industry, Navy, Airforce, etc.

When you take PBEMs as the prove if something is ok or not than 9 out of 10 PBEMs show you that the Allied "win" far earlier than they did in real life.

_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 19
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 7:07:49 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
There is an error in Shattered Sword I think. According to Munitions Ministry Documents (Seikocha v4. Koku Seiki Sokyoku Gatami) 126 B5N2 were produced in 1942. USSBS gives almost the same figure - 125

USSBS Corporation Report No.V Apendix C
Aichi Ettoru Factory B5N Actual Production in 1942
June – 2; July – 2; August – 3; September – 8;
October – 9; November – 13; December – 18
Total – 55 B5Ns
USSBS Corporation Report No.XIX Apendix B
11th Naval Arsenal B5N Actual Production in 1942
April – 5; May – 5; June – 5; July – 5; August – 10
September – 10; October – 10; November – 10; December – 10
Total – 70 B5Ns

Some sources indicate that Nakajima produced one more B5N2 in september 1942, special variant with fully protected fuel tanks of reduced capacity, aircraft ended up in service with Zuikaku air group. It seems unlikely but what if Parshall and Alsleben somehow missed the data for 11th arsenal? They’ve accepted 55 Kates produced by Aichi as a complete figure for 1942 and added that mysterious Kate produced by Nakajima, and here you go – 56 Kates in 1942.

The last paragraph on the page 89 leaves wrong impression. They actually say there that Japan produced just 56 carrier attack aircraft, both dive and torpedo bombers. This figure is wrong. Japan produced 348 carrier attack aircraft in 1942, 126 Kates and 222 Vals.


_____________________________


(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 20
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 8:17:28 PM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88
It is a well known fact that the Japanese aircraft industry in WW2 sucked, so I think if you restricted the Japanese player to historical output, then nobody is going to want to play as Japan


I'd be happy to see Japanese Tony production no better than Allied P38 production, myself... when its ten times as much (and five times higher than reality) I think something is up!

It's countered by P47s blowing through them like they were smoke, but thats ahistorical as well.



it´s all that easy. If the Japanese player in a PBEM achieves only (or even achieves less) than what was conquered in real life and if the Allied achieves (or achieves more) with his subs what was achieved in real life than there´s no way at all to see a Japanese production being out of the whack. When you see those numbers you state than it´s because either the Japanese have conquered the whole map (which has to be questioned anyway) or they have stopped parts of their ship production or whatever other production. What you shouldn´t forget also is that while the Japanese player is building hundreds of Tonies, or Jacks, or Franks or Frances, he probably won´t build hundreds of Zeroes, Oscars, Nates, Betties or whatever at the same time too. I´m one of the more or less succesful players usually when taking over the Japanese and I can tell you (and my AARs) prove it, that the TOTAL number of Japanese aircraft I produce are LOWER than the TOTAL number of Japanese aircraft produced in real life.

Hard to imagine but that´s how it is. Of course the question remains if the Japanese aircraft industry would have been able to build those numbers of "top notch" aircraft. I would say no. But play this game and take on Corsairs with Nates in mid 43. Have fun with the game, you can only play it against the AI then. Not just because you wouldn´t find a Japanese PBEM player, guess there wouldn´t be a sense to play the Allied side either.

Wrecking havoc with the Allied in PBEM (even more so against the AI) is no problem at all. Those claims that always come up that the Japanese is totally overpowered industrial wise only comes from a couple of AARs that see a Japanese going totally out of the line. Like in my ongoing PBEM, it´s end 43 and I´m still on the offensive. Usually, the Allied kill off the Japanese in 44. More than in real life as the usual PBEM won´t see 45 due to a totally trashed Japanese industry, Navy, Airforce, etc.

When you take PBEMs as the prove if something is ok or not than 9 out of 10 PBEMs show you that the Allied "win" far earlier than they did in real life.

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000. I don't know if that included pre-war production or not. As well, though IJ didn't have to face the entire USA air force, the USA plane production was like 3.5X greater. 76,000 planes in less than 4 years of war (though a good chunk of that may had been pre-war) isn't shabby at all. If that 'were' total WWII production, you're looking at like 20,000 planes a year; over 1,500 planes a month. EVEN if IJ can manage 600 of one type of fighter aircraft ingame, that's still FAR less than the average monthly totals. Even if only 48,000 were produced during the war, that's still 1,000 a month, still easily fitting in 600 of one fighter type. Like you said, the IJ player can modify a lot of near useless production to bring totals up still in very specific areas. The only arguement against 600 of any one fighter clearly shouldn't be that they couldn't produce them, but that probably no nation hinged so much on any one particular aircraft, which in this case would hover around the 50% historical production figures a month.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 21
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 8:31:33 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000. I don't know if that included pre-war production or not. As well, though IJ didn't have to face the entire USA air force, the USA plane production was like 3.5X greater. 76,000 planes in less than 4 years of war (though a good chunk of that may had been pre-war) isn't shabby at all. If that 'were' total WWII production, you're looking at like 20,000 planes a year; over 1,500 planes a month.


IIRC that figure does include 39-41 production.

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 22
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 9:19:02 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000.


Japan produced 53734 aircraft in 1942-1945, most of them in 1944 – 28180, for Japan in ’44 this was not bad at all, USSR for comparison produced 40300 planes the same year (with industry safe and well supplied). Japanese a/c production experienced 70% increase between 1942 and 1944. 28180 is impressive figure in such circumstances, but one should not forget that more than 20% of those were trainers, totally out of scope in witp, so monthly rate was about 1600-1800 of combat aircraft.

_____________________________


(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 23
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 9:27:38 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Some production figures include "trainers" and some do not - so you must be careful to distinguish. Most nations built a LOT of trainers like around 1/3rd. Neither WITP nor AE include trainers.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 24
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 9:36:19 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
I’ve just said the same thing.

IJ a/c production in 1944

Fighters - 13811
Attack aircraft – 5100
Recons – 2147
Trainers – 6147
Auxiliary – 975
All together - 28180 a/c


_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 25
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 9:55:07 PM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000. I don't know if that included pre-war production or not. As well, though IJ didn't have to face the entire USA air force, the USA plane production was like 3.5X greater. 76,000 planes in less than 4 years of war (though a good chunk of that may had been pre-war) isn't shabby at all. If that 'were' total WWII production, you're looking at like 20,000 planes a year; over 1,500 planes a month.


IIRC that figure does include 39-41 production.


Yes, they may just decide since WWII started officially in '39, even if you weren't part of that war, but ended up being a part of it later, they would include figures from '39 onwards.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 26
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 10:11:24 PM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000.


Japan produced 53734 aircraft in 1942-1945, most of them in 1944 – 28180, for Japan in ’44 this was not bad at all, USSR for comparison produced 40300 planes the same year (with industry safe and well supplied). Japanese a/c production experienced 70% increase between 1942 and 1944. 28180 is impressive figure in such circumstances, but one should not forget that more than 20% of those were trainers, totally out of scope in witp, so monthly rate was about 1600-1800 of combat aircraft.

So the war total would be roughly 1,174 per month including trainers. I think you're counting only 3 years. I'm counting about 45 months instead of 36, which must be how you're getting the higher figure. Still, even with 1,174, even at a 30% trainer rate, which you say is incorrect for IJ, 600 fighters of one type monthly is quite easy. IJ didn't do that needless to say, but the IJ player emporer can and at least has historical gross production figures to back it up.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 27
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/22/2009 10:31:16 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

I’ve just said the same thing.



Right - just consider my words to be "emphasis" !!!


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 28
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/23/2009 12:14:24 AM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22


quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I think I saw several internet sources that claimed IJ plane production was some 76,000.


Japan produced 53734 aircraft in 1942-1945, most of them in 1944 – 28180, for Japan in ’44 this was not bad at all, USSR for comparison produced 40300 planes the same year (with industry safe and well supplied). Japanese a/c production experienced 70% increase between 1942 and 1944. 28180 is impressive figure in such circumstances, but one should not forget that more than 20% of those were trainers, totally out of scope in witp, so monthly rate was about 1600-1800 of combat aircraft.

So the war total would be roughly 1,174 per month including trainers. I think you're counting only 3 years. I'm counting about 45 months instead of 36, which must be how you're getting the higher figure. Still, even with 1,174, even at a 30% trainer rate, which you say is incorrect for IJ, 600 fighters of one type monthly is quite easy. IJ didn't do that needless to say, but the IJ player emporer can and at least has historical gross production figures to back it up.


1600-1800 (combat a/c) is an average rate for 1944 only, the year when Japanese a/c output raised to its peak. But it’s a bit pointless task trying to figure out an average monthly production rate, there are so many different factors here that make any statistical result misleading and out of the context. While the use of number of aircraft rather than airframe weight tends to underemphasize increase of output somewhat in the USA and overemphasize it in Germany, in Japan the relationship between airframe weight and number of planes produced remained almost constant during the war years. In US, the shift to 4-engined bombers towards the end of the war tended to result in a decline in the monthly output of planes by number, whereas total weight produced increased. In Germany, the shift away from bombers to fighters resulted in an increase in number in 1944 while weight remained steady. In Japan, though there was a shift from bombers to fighters, the early bombers were very light while the trend in fighters was toward heavier, better protected types, so one balanced the other.

Japanese a/c output was actually adequate to meet their war needs. The real problem was their a/c industry management and IJA/IJN strategic planning. The irony for Japanese was that when in 1943 the good pilots were still available they had to use inferior planes and were killed, while, by the end of 1944 when the better planes were becoming available, pilot training had to be severely cut because of insufficient number of trainers and the fuel shortage, and then poor pilots were slaughtered in a lot better planes. When in 1942-early 43 they still had a luxury to produce more trainers and less fighters of obsolete types they opted for more such fighters, in 1944 they’ve finally got some good fighter designs and were ready to produce them in numbers, they found out that they had no adequate pilots to operate these new aircraft, so the losses became even higher and thus hard-earned increase in a/c production was simply nullified. Number of ground personnel and supporting units also did not increase properly by 1944, given the troublesome nature of most Japanese engines, it was a real handicap.

If you have enough capacities to produce 600 Tony airframes and 600 kawasaki engines per month (IIRC Kawasaki produced more than 400 Ki-61 airframes somewhere in 1944) this doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll get 600 new Ki-61s boost next month. The key here and that should really be used as historic reference for such matters is a number of fully operational a/c in first-line combat units. The following chart indicates the total first-line combat strength of all US airpower pitted against first-line combat strength of the Japanese units in PTO, on four successive dates.

------------USA------Japan

Jan. 1943 - 3537 / 3200 = 1,1 : 1
Jan. 1944 - 11442 / 4050 = 2,8 : 1
Jan. 1945 - 17976 / 4600 = 3,9 : 1
July 1945 - 21908 / 4100 = 5,3 : 1

As you can see the dramatic 70% increase in a/c production in 1944 did not change much for the first line japanese units. If your air force and air industry do not act as a single mechanism, all efforts will be futile.


_____________________________


(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 29
RE: Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD - 6/23/2009 1:25:17 AM   
tigercub


Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline
I have all the production numbers pre war and during for aircraft,Source :Japanese Aircraft of the pacific by R.j.Francillon 1970

Total aircraft production 1941-45 including gliders 69,888,just combat aircraft 52,242

The book source: United states strategic bombing survey

This Book has easily been the best source of Japanese aircraft information i have ever seen.
It has every type of Japanese built, numbers built,armament layouts and so on and on
but did not tell me all i wanted about Kates and Vals but it seems Shattered Sword claim that only 56 carrier attack aircraft were built in all 1942 is just Rubbish and the fact i can find this out in 24 hours chatting to people here says a lot to this forum and a lack of effort in this reguard by the Shattered Sword Writers.

Tiger!



_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Kates BY SHATTERED SWORD Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.719