Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Dinah Fighter: Worth building?

 
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 >> The War Room >> Dinah Fighter: Worth building? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Dinah Fighter: Worth building? - 5/28/2010 4:24:09 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		The Dinah fighter is available in late 1942. Fast, good range, nice guns......but does it work in combat? What are other's experience?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Dinah Fighter: Worth building? - 5/28/2010 4:48:03 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The Dinah fighter is available in late 1942. Fast, good range, nice guns......but does it work in combat? What are other's experience?


Actually, IMHO there should be no Dinah fighter there in 1942 and this is a database typo...

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 2
RE: Dinah Fighter: Worth building? - 5/28/2010 5:29:21 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		Seem to remember an armed high-altitude fighter interceptor version was proposed in '44, there may have been the odd prototype or pre-production to see combat built but it never entered large-scale service. Anyone got any more info?

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 3
RE: Dinah Fighter: Worth building? - 5/28/2010 7:08:37 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		It only has one gun, the 37mm cannon. The accuracy on that weapon is 1. So you only have one gun to shoot and it will most likely miss. Seems like a poor plane to me.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 4
RE: Dinah Fighter: Worth building? - 5/28/2010 7:20:43 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		IIRC first version of the 37 mm gun had to reload manually, so plane could only fire about 2 rounds per minute... That's why accuracy is so low.

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 5
RE: Dinah Fighter: Worth building? - 5/28/2010 8:23:47 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Seem to remember an armed high-altitude fighter interceptor version was proposed in '44, there may have been the odd prototype or pre-production to see combat built but it never entered large-scale service. Anyone got any more info?



The excellent performance of the Ki-46 implied that it might be useful as a heavy fighter or fast light intruder bomber. It was over 80 KPH (50 MPH) faster than the standard Army twin-engine fighter, the Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu ("Nick"). However, the Japanese were slow to consider the Ki-46 in such roles, partly because the Ki-46 had been designed with speed as a defense and so lacked the armor protection and self-sealing tanks needed to survive a shoot-out. As mentioned earlier, the Ki-46 also lacked maneuverability and a good climb rate.

By the middle of 1943, the Japanese were clearly on the defensive and were considering the prospect of Allied bomber attacks on the home islands. In June 1943, the Rikugun Kokugijutsu Kenkyujo (Army Aeronautical Research Institute) began work to convert the Ki-46 into a stopgap high-altitude interceptor. The interceptor variant was based on the Ki-46-III with cameras deleted, though it reverted to a more conventional cockpit canopy arrangement since the nose had to be fitted with twin Ho-5 20 millimeter cannon with 200 rounds per gun. An Ho-203 37 millimeter cannon with 200 rounds capacity was placed in a fixed mounting on the top of the aircraft to fire upward and forward at an angle of 60 degrees from the horizontal.

The result was designated the "Ki-46-III Kai", or "Army Type 100 Air Defense Fighter". The interceptors were modified from existing Ki-46 reconnaissance aircraft at an Army facility in Tachikawa, with the first operational aircraft delivered to fighter sentais (squadrons) in October 1944.

source: http://www.vectorsite.net/avdinah.html

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 6
RE: Dinah Fighter: Worth building? - 5/28/2010 9:56:28 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The Dinah fighter is available in late 1942. Fast, good range, nice guns......but does it work in combat? What are other's experience?

Early availability clearly is a database bug. But the main question is whether these low-accuracy 37mm cannons, like the one the Dinah fighter is equipped with, work. I too would very much like to know, if anyone tested them in action. Because if they don't, there is no reason to, say, ever upgrade the first available model of Ki-45.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 7
RE: Dinah Fighter: Worth building? - 5/29/2010 2:58:04 PM   
Schatten

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 10/3/2009
Status: offline 		i use the KI-45 KAIc Nick (middle 43) except the Dinah due to Armor.

Anyway, due to the well known Bomber Defense (use Bombers as Escort for Fighters as Ally Player^^) they ineffective anyway.
I use 1 Group equipped with them for 2 Months now...they nearly daily in fight v. US and British 2 and 4-E in Burma and have not shoot even one of them down, only some dmg....the only + is they have not lost a single Plane to the unescorted Bombers as have the A6M5 and Oscar IIb.

The best of my Fighters as anti-Bomber is clear the A6M5 but it means nothing more as they can shoot all 3-4 days 1 or 2 of the 4-E

Anyway as long 3 4-E can fly through 40 Fighters and 3/4 of them come even not to shoot but go dmg as they close in and dive away there is no effective anti-bomber Japanese Fighter, speak as long the routine of bomber defense is broken you can forget it.
the only advantage of armor is that they dont go shoot down by the bomber´s like the other, unarmored, Japan Fighter´s.
But the Problem is that 10, 30, 60 Fighter´s mean nothing as they simply go dmg plane for plane as they close to the bombers and dive away...they even dont come to shoot.

back to the 37mm..i dont think it works as the KI-45 should have randomly shoot down some Bombers in 2 months of daily fighting if it would work

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 8
RE: Dinah Fighter: Worth building? - 5/29/2010 4:09:45 PM   
Swenslim

 

Posts: 437
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Odessa, Ukraine
Status: offline 		Absolutly not worth. You have a single unit active for few months with 6 a/c max. And a single 37 mm cannon has 2 accuracy. I have upgraded this unit to Togo.

(in reply to Schatten)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Dinah Fighter: Worth building? Page: [1]
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

0.906