ki-43c

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

ki-43c

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 >> ki-43c

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

ki-43c - 12/23/2009 5:52:09 PM

Athius

Posts: 73
Joined: 9/12/2009
Status: offline

Iam playing scenario 2 and started a mass building programme to update all frontline army fighters to the ki-43c. ( the ki-43 is going to be my main army fighter until the - heavily rushed by R&D - ki-84 becomes available Building almost 100 every month right now and I just upgraded a frontline squadron (on the frontline of burma) to the ki-43c but the peformance is...dissapointing.

They rarely shoot anyone down and I've lost many aircraft. I tried putting them on different altitudes (15.000 and 20.000) but It doesnt seem to make much difference.

Is there any way to make them more effective?

Post #: 1

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 6:14:37 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Athius

Iam playing scenario 2 and started a mass building programme to update all frontline army fighters to the ki-43c. ( the ki-43 is going to be my main army fighter until the - heavily rushed by R&D - ki-84 becomes available Building almost 100 every month right now and I just upgraded a frontline squadron (on the frontline of burma) to the ki-43c but the peformance is...dissapointing.

They rarely shoot anyone down and I've lost many aircraft. I tried putting them on different altitudes (15.000 and 20.000) but It doesnt seem to make much difference.

Is there any way to make them more effective?

Strangely enough, it seems that with the current stats the Ki-43c is a superior high altitude fighter, 30k+

_____________________________

Surface combat TF fanboy

(in reply to Athius)

Post #: 2

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 6:16:41 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Hard to say out of context. The Ki-43c is actually quite a good aircraft.

There are some ways to improve the effectiveness in general:

- range to target (extended range is a strain on the pilots)
- altitude (with the Oscar 30k is no problem, its important to know at which alt your opponent is fighting, find out and adapt to it)
- mission type (in order of A2A advantages: Sweep, CAP, escort)
- numbers (very important!! don�t fight A2A battles outnumbered except if you have to or have the advantage for another reason)
- Squad commanders (watch for good Air ratings)
- morale/fatigue/experience

Thats only a few things to watch for, I�m sure others can add more.

_____________________________

(in reply to Athius)

Post #: 3

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 6:50:07 PM

Ametysth

Posts: 74
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

Against most allied fighters, you are flying too high. Take Hurricane IIa as an opponent. It has Maneuver rate that is worse than Ki-43, but higher you go smaller the difference. On the other hand Hurricane is faster, so Mnvr advantage is even less in practice. You want to max this advantage for best results.

Bellow 15 k altitudes, low and med altitudes, Ki-43 Hayabusa [Oscar] has advantage of +19 versus Hurricane, but between 15 and 20 k it is only 12. Still higher and it drops to +6 in 21-31 k range and +2 in extremely high altitudes.

Only plane you want to meet in 15-20 k altitude band is Russian I-15 and its variants. That thing can fly a circle around Ki-43 at low altitudes, but lacks the engine power to fight in higher altitudes. So in Burma and SW Pacific, stay low.

On other note, I have doubts about your plane strategy. My fear is that it could lead huge losses of experienced pilots flying Oscars against ever faster allied fighters, leaving your Ki-84's piloted with schoolboys. Also lightly armed Oscars will never do much damage on enemy planes. Damaged results should be expected. Let us know how it turns out.

(in reply to Athius)

Post #: 4

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 7:04:15 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ametysth

Against most allied fighters, you are flying too high. Take Hurricane IIa as an opponent. It has Maneuver rate that is worse than Ki-43, but higher you go smaller the difference. On the other hand Hurricane is faster, so Mnvr advantage is even less in practice. You want to max this advantage for best results.

Bellow 15 k altitudes, low and med altitudes, Ki-43 Hayabusa [Oscar] has advantage of +19 versus Hurricane, but between 15 and 20 k it is only 12. Still higher and it drops to +6 in 21-31 k range and +2 in extremely high altitudes.

Only plane you want to meet in 15-20 k altitude band is Russian I-15 and its variants. That thing can fly a circle around Ki-43 at low altitudes, but lacks the engine power to fight in higher altitudes. So in Burma and SW Pacific, stay low.

On other note, I have doubts about your plane strategy. My fear is that it could lead huge losses of experienced pilots flying Oscars against ever faster allied fighters, leaving your Ki-84's piloted with schoolboys. Also lightly armed Oscars will never do much damage on enemy planes. Damaged results should be expected. Let us know how it turns out.

Be sure flying 30k+ the Oscaar is a dangerous opponent even for the P38...

Don�t miss the effect of the bounce.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ametysth)

Post #: 5

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 7:15:22 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Athius

Iam playing scenario 2 and started a mass building programme to update all frontline army fighters to the ki-43c. ( the ki-43 is going to be my main army fighter until the - heavily rushed by R&D - ki-84 becomes available Building almost 100 every month right now and I just upgraded a frontline squadron (on the frontline of burma) to the ki-43c but the peformance is...dissapointing.

They rarely shoot anyone down and I've lost many aircraft. I tried putting them on different altitudes (15.000 and 20.000) but It doesnt seem to make much difference.

Is there any way to make them more effective?

Note, that actual losses against Ki-43 are routinely up 2 to times higher than losses from combat reports, because Ki-43s light armament rarely causes outright destruction of enemy planes. Watch combat replays. "Plane X spins away on fire" is an almost certain kill. "Plane X falls away trailing smoke" is a probable kill. Bombers do not have such messages, but still take more losses than stated in the report.

(in reply to Athius)

Post #: 6

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 7:26:14 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Athius

Iam playing scenario 2 and started a mass building programme to update all frontline army fighters to the ki-43c. ( the ki-43 is going to be my main army fighter until the - heavily rushed by R&D - ki-84 becomes available Building almost 100 every month right now and I just upgraded a frontline squadron (on the frontline of burma) to the ki-43c but the peformance is...dissapointing.

They rarely shoot anyone down and I've lost many aircraft. I tried putting them on different altitudes (15.000 and 20.000) but It doesnt seem to make much difference.

Is there any way to make them more effective?

NO USSHENRICO OR CRIMGUY...

.
.
.
.
.
I'm doing the same thing you are in terms of the Ki-43c production. I'm just under 100/month in my two PBEMs. It's not that I'm particularly enamored with the Oscar C, but it's a question of the alternative for the first year. Yes, I'll upgrade as quickly as possible to other more advanced fighters, but I'm not going to sit on my laurels in a defensive mode while I'm waiting for about a year for other (better) fighters to come on line.

If you think the Ki-43c is disappointing, you should look harder at the Nate. What a junkheap that one is! At least you can approach a 1:1 kill ratio with the Ki-43c versus allied early fighters. Oh, sure, I'd rather have the A6M2 for my IJAAF units, but that ain't gonna happen either.

I think some of the specific recommendations by other posters (outnumber your opponent, skill of leaders, etc.) is useful to minimize your Oscar losses. I would add to keep a close eye on pilot quality and training. Your Oscars will stand up much better if you can maintain pilot quality of 70 versus 55 or lower. Do what you can in terms of unit rotation to make that a reality.

_____________________________

(in reply to Athius)

Post #: 7

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 7:30:55 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Bear in mind too....that with FOW on, your own losses will often be underinflated, including those on CAP defense.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 8

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 7:35:40 PM

Ametysth

Posts: 74
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Be sure flying 30k+ the Oscaar is a dangerous opponent even for the P38...

Don�t miss the effect of the bounce.

Unless the Lightings are also high up, waiting for you. In that case you will be hacked to pieces.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 9

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 7:41:47 PM

stldiver

Posts: 724
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: West Palm Beach, USA
Status: offline

Ditto above.

Oscars fly at 30k plus. Get that bounce.

Fly with vets 70 plus exp, I have found high experiance trumps a lot of shortcomings.

Make them come to you, i.e. use at short distance.

and most important outnumber them.

This has lead to my Oscars outpreforming the competition. Even Hurricanes. I never fly long distance, if I have to then Zero's handle that job.

The Oscars even can take down heavy bombers in large numbers and altitude when used as point defense.

Not the best plane but definatly usable as long as you don't treat it like a zero and fly all over the place. I try to preserve my pilot quality for the future thus abide by these rules, If I can't then I don't fly the mission.

Also as stated previously Nates are dogs, no reason to waste good pilots on such bad planes. They may be needed in the first week in Malaya but after that relugate them to training squadrons, don't lose precious pilots in those planes.

Others talk about building Nates not to lose the engines already produced, IMO your building a coffin for that pilot that is harder to produce. Upgrade to building Oscars immediatly or just shut down production and save HI for future planes that work.

As to post above about Lightnings, if they come to you and your more experianced and outnumber your still OK, but its good to have that Nick squadron around those Lightnings.
Same rules apply.

< Message edited by stldiver -- 12/23/2009 7:42:09 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 10

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 8:41:27 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

You mentioned relying on Ki-43c until you get the Frank. That's a long wait. What's wrong with the Ki-44 Tojo in the meantime?

The Tojo is faster, tougher, and has more firepower. The Oscar is more maneuverable, but the gap closes at higher altitudes. The Ki-44IIa looks like a much better plane. The gap is less than WITP though, where the Tojo was "OK" and the Oscar was "Dogmeat".

No more Tony v Tojo debate. With PDUs on, I can't find a reason to build ANY Tonys, unless I am missing something.

_____________________________

(in reply to stldiver)

Post #: 11

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 9:35:33 PM

Athius

Posts: 73
Joined: 9/12/2009
Status: offline

The opinions on the preferred altitude of the ki-43 are divided, some of you say that I should keep them low, gaining maximum manouvre advantage while others say that I should keep them at high altitude gaining a bounce bonus.

@ Q-ball

Well, iam accelerating the Frank by heavy (455) r&d production. spread out over small (size 4 and size 2 or even size 1) and some larger (size 20 or 30) plants. I did this because the WITP wiki said that the chance of a r&d point getting repaired was bigger when the factory was bigger (but a bigger factory would also mean that it would take longer before it would actualy produce any's points, some good balancing)

as an expiriment I also added the smaller factory's , those factory's would start generating points quicker and perhaps the repair time wouldn't be that bad.
To my suprise the factory size doesn't seem to matter in the repair time, as all the repairs so far have evenly spread over size 30, 20 or size 1 factory's. The only difference between is the fact that the latter ones actualy produce points.

I've assigned a large amount of extra size 1 factory's to frank research, and start upgrading them one in small groups to bigger size's once they have been repaired. By this I hope to get the Frank accelerated to 1943, decreasing the time gap.

Iam a little uncertain what to do with the ki-44. I read about it on wikipedia an their it stated that the pilots themselves didn't like the plane to much, and the total airframes produced was lower then that of the ki-43, so I figured that the ki-43 was the better plane. But it seems I was wrong on that. (I did think of using the ki-44IIB as a bomber interceptor but ultimately chose the ki-45 instead)Its weapons didnt seem to be that much stronger though, and it is certainly less manouvrable
I looked up the tony using witptracker, and the tony seemed only a tiny bit less manouvrable then the k-44, but it does come with armor protection.

I don't want to switch planes to often and I plan to only produce a few key type fighter planes in large amounts (producing small quantities of many different aircraft seemed a mistake to me)
and I was under the impression that the ki-43IIb would be able to holds its own till early 1943

Iam still prety new here and just started my first GC as japan so I lack the experience with this game you guy's have, and it seems that I have still alot to learn.

Jasper

(also, Iam sorry for raping the english language)

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 12

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 9:40:02 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

You should always try to get the bounce. And that means staying high. Simple as that.

If this is not possible because of enemy plane maximum altitude is better or a far better performer at high alt,
then going to the alt band thats optimal for this fighter (or where the performance delta to the enemy fighter is largest)
is the second best option.

_____________________________

(in reply to Athius)

Post #: 13

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 10:18:00 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

You mentioned relying on Ki-43c until you get the Frank. That's a long wait. What's wrong with the Ki-44 Tojo in the meantime?

The Tojo is faster, tougher, and has more firepower. The Oscar is more maneuverable, but the gap closes at higher altitudes. The Ki-44IIa looks like a much better plane. The gap is less than WITP though, where the Tojo was "OK" and the Oscar was "Dogmeat".

No more Tony v Tojo debate. With PDUs on, I can't find a reason to build ANY Tonys, unless I am missing something.

Unlike RL, Tojos get armor very late. You'll have armored Ki-43-IIb earlier. And armor seems to be huge factor, both in survivability and in preserving pilot's life if a plane goes fown. Tonys also are armored. So, choosing Tojo as your main mid-war fighter is not a no-brainer.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 14

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 11:24:39 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Athius

T (I did think of using the ki-44IIB as a bomber interceptor but ultimately chose the ki-45 instead)

The big problem with Ki-45 is the fact that even with PDU On you have the grand total of one non-permarestricted group that can uprgrade to it, as figter groups do not accept fighterbombers. You'll get another in late 1942, and that's it.

(in reply to Athius)

Post #: 15

RE: ki-43c - 12/23/2009 11:38:22 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

To hijack this thread just a bit, I am actually thinking of doing mostly Tojos, but also some Tonys. I like to make my life more complicated.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 16

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 1:03:40 AM

Marty A

Posts: 213
Joined: 8/7/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

You mentioned relying on Ki-43c until you get the Frank. That's a long wait. What's wrong with the Ki-44 Tojo in the meantime?

The Tojo is faster, tougher, and has more firepower. The Oscar is more maneuverable, but the gap closes at higher altitudes. The Ki-44IIa looks like a much better plane. The gap is less than WITP though, where the Tojo was "OK" and the Oscar was "Dogmeat".

No more Tony v Tojo debate. With PDUs on, I can't find a reason to build ANY Tonys, unless I am missing something.

Unlike RL, Tojos get armor very late. You'll have armored Ki-43-IIb earlier. And armor seems to be huge factor, both in survivability and in preserving pilot's life if a plane goes fown. Tonys also are armored. So, choosing Tojo as your main mid-war fighter is not a no-brainer.

Agree. tojo not armored until 3/44 [iic]. i build tojo until tony is out then stop until armor on tojo is ready.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 17

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 1:27:14 AM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

Remember with accelearting the Frank you need the engine also.... Also there were some reports you can only accelerate a maximum of 3Months.

(in reply to Marty A)

Post #: 18

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 3:11:44 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Remember with accelearting the Frank you need the engine also.... Also there were some reports you can only accelerate a maximum of 3Months.

Sorry to weigh into the R&D debate again, but I have and you can...

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 19

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 1:44:25 PM

xj900uk

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline

The Ki-43c Oscar was probably the most manouverable monoplane fighter of WWII, capable of doing multiple Immlemans + a Hammerhead stall to finish. It has a bubble canopy for all-round vision, a fantastically good rate of climb, and has no match in a low-speed turning dogfight (it's legendary butterfly flaps enable it to turn inside anything, including the Zero). At 30k+ feet it continued to outperform most 2nd generation Allied fighters right to the end of WWII, which is quite remarkable all things considered.
The first problem is that, because of it's low wing-loading and general light-weight construction, it is a very poor diver. Virtually any Allied plane can just put the nose down (with enough altitude to start with) and dive away from it. If you don't want to tango with the Oscar and have already seen it, there's not much the Oscar pilot can do about it.
The armament of 2 rifle-calibre mg's (later increased to 12.7mm which were about equivalent of the US fifties) and onlyu 250 rpg was barely adequate for WWI and was almost fascical by '41. Despite a few unofficial field modifications its armament remained completely inadequate for WWII, and to make matters worse the Oscar, because of its fast rate of climb, was often used as a high-flying bomber interceptor. Hmm, can just imagine an Oscar taking on a formation of B17's or B24's at high altitude and seeing it getting shreded by the defensive box fire of all those fifty-calibre mg's (the Oscar has no armour plate or redundant systems, like all Japanese first generation WWII fighters. In RL most Oscar's were lost this way, trying to take on bomber formations.

Other than that, it's a genuinely fantastic plane. I have been very lucky to siit in the cockpit of one a few years back and loved the experience (unforutnately it was on the ground not going anywhere)

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 20

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 2:56:02 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

The Ki-43c Oscar was probably the most manouverable monoplane fighter of WWII, capable of doing multiple Immlemans + a Hammerhead stall to finish.� It has a bubble canopy for all-round vision, a�fantastically good rate of climb, and has no match in a low-speed turning dogfight (it's legendary butterfly flaps enable it to turn inside anything, including the Zero).� At 30k+ feet it continued to outperform most 2nd generation Allied fighters right to the end of WWII, which is quite remarkable all things considered.�
The first problem is that, because of it's low wing-loading and general light-weight construction, it is�a very poor diver.� Virtually any Allied plane can just put the nose down (with enough altitude to start with) and dive away from it.� If you don't want to tango with the Oscar and have already seen it, there's not much the Oscar pilot can do about it.
The armament of 2 rifle-calibre mg's (later increased to 12.7mm which were about equivalent of the US fifties) and onlyu 250 rpg was barely adequate for WWI and was almost fascical by '41.� Despite a few unofficial field modifications its armament remained completely inadequate for WWII, and to make matters worse the Oscar, because of its fast rate of climb, was often used as a high-flying bomber interceptor.� Hmm, can just imagine an Oscar taking on a formation of B17's or B24's at high altitude and seeing it getting shreded by the defensive box fire of all those fifty-calibre mg's (the Oscar has no armour plate or redundant systems, like all Japanese first generation WWII fighters.� In RL most Oscar's were lost this way, trying to take on bomber formations.

Other than that, it's�a genuinely fantastic plane.� I have been very lucky to siit in the cockpit of one a few years back and loved the experience (unforutnately it was on the ground not going anywhere)

Well, a pretty plane but not fantastic. Built for the previous war. In the end speed and firepower won out over agility in a combat plane. Against the faster more durable fighters, even a good pilot in an Oscar could only use the assets of the plane to keep alive, not to kill. No way you can dictate the course of an engagement in a slow undergunned aircraft. Only against the rawest of pilots could you prevail. I don't think many Japanese pilots thought too highly of the Oscar.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to xj900uk)

Post #: 21

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 2:59:10 PM

Swenslim

Posts: 437
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Odessa, Ukraine
Status: offline

It is still worth to build 30-40 Tony'sper month for 1-2 pure interceptor squadrons. Japan has more than plenty of small plnts that can be converted to build a lot Tojo's, Frank's , Judy's and A5M3 Zeroes. For example in my game gainst AI I am producing 110 A5M2, 100 Oscars, and building R&D factorys for 110 Franks, 80 A5M3, 65 Tojo's, 30 Tony's and still have 6000 HI surplus every month.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 22

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 3:04:59 PM

Swenslim

Posts: 437
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Odessa, Ukraine
Status: offline

I dont think it is correct. Of cource I am still to early in game , only may 1942 to accelerate any plane, but I have already moved entry date of some enigines for 5-6 months earlier. And it really does not so important will you get planes earlier or not, the main reason to expand numerous factoryes to produced 8-16 or even more planes each is to have already operation factorys when plane will arrive to service. This is due fact that R&D factory automaticaly converts to production factory when plane arrives.

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 23

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 3:24:42 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I don't think many Japanese pilots thought too highly of the Oscar.

I'm not so sure about this crsutton. I think the development of the Oscar was in direct response to pilot interviews and pilot feedback in the development phase of this aircraft. IIRC, S. Sakai talks about this in his book.

The downside of this, of course, is that an aircraft tailor made for honorable one on one aerial samurai duels involving dogfighting and manueverability struggles had little place in the Second World War for the most part. I believe that the Oscar C was nearly exactly what the pilots asked for. Except the pilots got it all wrong...

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 24

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 3:36:53 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Athius

Iam playing scenario 2 and started a mass building programme to update all frontline army fighters to the ki-43c. ( the ki-43 is going to be my main army fighter until the - heavily rushed by R&D - ki-84 becomes available Building almost 100 every month right now and I just upgraded a frontline squadron (on the frontline of burma) to the ki-43c but the peformance is...dissapointing.

They rarely shoot anyone down and I've lost many aircraft. I tried putting them on different altitudes (15.000 and 20.000) but It doesnt seem to make much difference.

Is there any way to make them more effective?

NO USSHENRICO OR CRIMGUY...

.
.
.
.
.
I'm doing the same thing you are in terms of the Ki-43c production. I'm just under 100/month in my two PBEMs. It's not that I'm particularly enamored with the Oscar C, but it's a question of the alternative for the first year. Yes, I'll upgrade as quickly as possible to other more advanced fighters, but I'm not going to sit on my laurels in a defensive mode while I'm waiting for about a year for other (better) fighters to come on line.

If you think the Ki-43c is disappointing, you should look harder at the Nate. What a junkheap that one is! At least you can approach a 1:1 kill ratio with the Ki-43c versus allied early fighters. Oh, sure, I'd rather have the A6M2 for my IJAAF units, but that ain't gonna happen either.

I think some of the specific recommendations by other posters (outnumber your opponent, skill of leaders, etc.) is useful to minimize your Oscar losses. I would add to keep a close eye on pilot quality and training. Your Oscars will stand up much better if you can maintain pilot quality of 70 versus 55 or lower. Do what you can in terms of unit rotation to make that a reality.

Try setting your Nates to 9k altitude or lower. I have more kills with Nates than with Oscars in my games. The Nate is very maneuverable at low altitudes, use that to your advantage. Oscars should be between 15k and 20k for best results.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 25

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 5:16:06 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

The early Tojo and Tony versions offer only an extra two 7.7mm mg's over the Oscar, and greater speed at the cost of manouverability......so not much of an improvement until the up-gunned later versions appear in mid/late 43.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 26

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 5:28:54 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

It is still worth to build 30-40 Tony'sper month for 1-2 pure interceptor squadrons. Japan has more than plenty of small plnts that can be converted to build a lot Tojo's, Frank's , Judy's and A5M3 Zeroes. For example in my game gainst AI I am producing 110 A5M2, 100 Oscars, and building R&D factorys for 110 Franks, 80 A5M3, 65 Tojo's, 30 Tony's and still have 6000 HI surplus every month.

I hope your strategy works, because that is pretty much exactly what I am doing

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to Swenslim)

Post #: 27

RE: ki-43c - 12/24/2009 6:46:38 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Except the pilots got it all wrong...

I work with pikots. Like MD's, they never admit to being wrong.

Too funny!!!

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 28

RE: ki-43c - 12/29/2009 5:04:35 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Just a screenie to back up my claim of having better results with the Ki-27. As you can see, the results speak for themselves.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 29

RE: ki-43c - 12/29/2009 3:15:47 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, a pretty plane but not fantastic. Built for the previous war. In the end speed and firepower won out over agility in a combat plane. Against the faster more durable fighters, even a good pilot in an Oscar could only use the assets of the plane to keep alive, not to kill. No way you can dictate the course of an engagement in a slow undergunned aircraft. Only against the rawest of pilots could you prevail. I don't think many Japanese pilots thought too highly of the Oscar.

Japanese pilots thought very highly of their Falcons, esp after conversion to the improved Ki-43II but recognized it's weaknesses as well as it's strengths. The light armament 'was' recognized as a weak point and the veterans attempted to compensate for it by targeting vulnerable sections of enemy planes, for example the radiators of Hurricanes. The centerline armament and upgrade to 12.7mm helped in this. Energy tactics were used and the bounce was sought naturally, to which the Falcon's ability to quickly change it's alt and energy state was a boon. Diving as mentioned was weaker than than the enemy and could be utilized if spotted early enough.

In Burma, where the majority of Oscars flew regularily, they scored an impressive 5:1 ratio over the Hurricane, to the consternation of the RAF. When the Spitfire VIII arrived, the Japanese managed to compete with it for a brief period, neither side being able to establish air superiority, but as Allied resources expanded, Japanese resources stayed static or shrank as other Theaters took priority. Arrival of additional 2nd generation aircraft in increasing numbers added to the burden....as with the Zero, the Ki-43II, despite modest improvements in speed and protection could not compete in full. By latewar, they were reduced to cagey hit and run raids, bouncing from airfield to airfield to thwart Allied attempts to catch them on the ground since shooting them out of the air proved so difficult. The Allies worked hard to try to catch the JAAF at vulnerable times, (landing/taking off etc) and eventually gained successes after their resources peaked and they could put planes over Burma virtually 24/7 outside of the Monsoon season. The Japanese countered with reduced operations and conversion of Ki-43's, esp new Ki-43III to fighter bomber roles for tiny hit and run ops.

It was against the heavies that the Ki-43 had it's toughest time. Still, they managed to shoot down 22 x B-24's and a B-29. In return however they lost 18 planes shot down by return fire from the Liberators. An interceptor like the Ki-44 would have been better but the one time they tried to deploy a Sentai in Burma it had the worst luck....almost cursed luck and was withdrawn quickly. Ki-43 remained the staple fighter in the Theater throughout the war, with only a handful of more advanced Ki-61's and Ki-84's arriving

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 12/29/2009 3:43:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 30