RE: Japanese Aircraft

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Japanese Aircraft

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 >> RE: Japanese Aircraft

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/21/2015 5:42:21 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Interesting that you mention Mavis easier to maintain than Emily (that is the other big 4E patrol). Both are SR4 and should technically be equal in terms of difficulty to maintain

Yes, that waswhat I thought. But seems to be not correct. Mavis are in fact easier to maintain, much easier. But the Emily not. I only get a 2 plane detachement of them and could not get them to fly at all. One is always in repair the other maybe flies one round and then is grounded too

but the 2 pilots of the Emily are outstanding seem to have the best search rating seen so far.... maybe transfer them to a unit that actually can fly their planes

Edit: Maybe they need a AV special for them....

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/21/2015 6:46:24 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 31

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/21/2015 5:51:15 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I tend not to use those planes to bomb Chinese, it has little effect in the end. Train or do ASW. The Marys and Anns are good for that (ASW) because of their bombload. But I would hesitate to build any more.

However they train and gain with bombing missions even if the missions are quite useless. Set them high so no AA losses and try to avoid the few I15s etc. the Chinese have :) You will have only few oplosses if you check their fatigue once in a while.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 32

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/21/2015 5:53:15 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

They are friendly planes that fly from small runways. Japanese pilots thought well of the Sonia. Just saying.

One of these light bombers was actually a dive bomber..kind of in reality. Cannot remember which oine tho.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 33

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/21/2015 6:00:08 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Quite good for local ASW around your port hubs as well

I had a suspicion they might be really good at that. There are areas where the short range isn't that much of a detriment.

I do this too, actually they start to attack subs now. Do not hit, but try. I believe you need 60 ASW and higher. I wonder if low naval skill helps with sub attacks. Would be logical. I train now the units that have ca. 60 ASW at lownav too. And later they can get better planes, however changing 1E planes to 2E costs 75PP in my game. Maybe cause of the mod.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/23/2015 12:13:01 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 34

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/21/2015 6:09:20 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I don't think I would ever spend in building trainers; unless I am role playing. The cost of a single engine Ki-36 Ida is the same as the cost of the most advanced single engine plane Japan have (think Ki-84 for example). In real life it makes sense to build docile, less costly planes for training, but that is not modeled in game.

Thus any second rate or recently obsolescent plane can be a good trainer. The game also doesn't model the fact that training was attritionally heavy. I think the US lost more carrier capable planes in Lake Michigan that it did in the entire Pacific. In game you can have the same trainers running for the entire war with barely any loss.

Playing Japan I would use all Army 1E bombers available, but won't build any more, eventually they will be all replaced by 2Es

Now that you mention the training issue I totally agree. I am not yet an expert on the Japanese, but I know for sure that eg. Germany starting in 43 had terrible losses for training. Esp. the case when trainees would switch to the "real deal" BF109. This plane was prone to landing accidents due to narrow landing gear and generally needed a more experienced pilot then eg. the FW190. With the loss of fuel as war the war went on, less and less plitos could be trained adequetly and so the Luftwaffe demise started (not to mention the attrition by fighting 4Es and their escorts and the conditions on Russian front). So it would be neat if we get some more training op losses in this game. Maybe depending also on plane type. Normally rookies would first train with a very slow and safe plane - but when they switch to combat model training the trouble starts, esp. if a not so safe plane like the ME109 would be used.

Not sure which planes would be comparable in the pacific TO on either side and which ones would be more safe....AFAIK eg. the F6 Hellcat was more a safe one, as it took some inspiration from the FW190. I guess the Tony would be a more unsafe one as it took some features from BF109....

EDIT: Changed ME to BF also forgot to mention the TERRIBLE high command of the Luftwaffe which was a major factor for it�s downfall. And some wrong developments and personal issues that eg. Profs. Messerschmidt and Heinkel had with Milch. Milch wanted to convert more BF109 to FW types. But Prof Messerschmidt had connections higher up, so the BF109 was produced in large numbers until wars end.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/23/2015 12:16:06 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 35

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/21/2015 8:19:16 PM

kstoddard2

Posts: 19
Joined: 6/29/2005
Status: offline

USAAF tests of the Tony seem to indicate that it was pretty docile. The Ki-61 didn't have the narrow wheel track of the Bf-109. Plus it's fuselage was tall enough to compensate for the torque of the Ha-40 (license copy of the DB 601 in the Bf-109)so it didn't have the tendency to swing in the direction of propeller rotation. So it would seem that unusually high operation attrition should apply to the Tony.

Kyle

_____________________________

I'm starving, get me a scotch!

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 36

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/22/2015 5:48:54 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

The license built Ha-40 turned out to be an unreliable engine, especially in the South Pacific. This is why it has a high service rating in the game.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to kstoddard2)

Post #: 37

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/22/2015 6:04:48 AM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Must have been a production problem (precision mechanics?) as no such problem appeared in Europe or North Africa in German/Italian use.

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 38

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/22/2015 6:18:42 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Engines behave differently in combinations of heat/cold and humidity. I don't know if the Ha-40 had problems due to manufacturing, or the weather, or both but the Germans didn't operate much in hot/humid climates. The Mediterranean's climate is a lot like California's, hot and dry.

The P-38 operated OK in cold and dry climates as well as hot and damp climates, but the cold and moist environment of northern Europe caused the oil in the superchargers to get jellify causing them to seize up especially at high altitude. Lockheed finally fixed the problem by the introduction of the J, but it was mostly out of service in northern Europe at that point.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 39

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/22/2015 9:22:12 PM

bomccarthy

Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline

From what I have read, the Ha-40 was a victim of too few skilled machinists trying to produce a complex design in large quantities, something that afflicted the Homare as well. I don't have the book handy, but I recall Fire in the Sky noting that by late 43, more than 50% of the Ki-61s were failing their final assembly inspections, and being sent back into the production line.

I'll try to find the link - there is an interesting postwar document that summarizes the interviews with the lead engineers at Mitsubishi and Nakajima. They detailed problems with fuel injection systems (which they believed necessary to get the most of the poor quality avgas that was in use by 44) and the quality of metal that was coming out of the foundries (leading to main bearing failures).

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 40

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/22/2015 9:56:16 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

The army Babs are too useful for search and recon so I'd keep that line going for at least a dozen or so a month.

I prefer the Dinah for army search and recon. Yes its more expensive (because of two engines), but production numbers don't need to be great and the Dinah will upgrade later. You do however need the naval version of the Babs as I believe its the only land based naval search/recon A/C available early war.

quote:

Often times in PDU on games it makes a lot of sense to stick with a single engine bomber for a while Mary, Ann, Sonia or Ida. Really whichever model you like. The ones that drop 250kg bombs are effective in China, and also over isolated Allied troops. They are friendly planes that fly from small runways. Japanese pilots thought well of the Sonia. Just saying.

I stopped single engine bomber production turn one. I still have plenty of Mary's/Ann's, and only use Sonia/Ida for training. Sonia/Ida's bomb load is just too light. If the Japanese pilots liked the Sonia that's all well and good, but mine haven't said a word.

Its a game and I think you need to get as much bang for the buck from your supply expenditure as possible. P252 of the manual, 15.4 Air Unit Supply, "Level bombers flying an offensive Mission expend supplies equal to their Maximum Load divided by 1000 per Mission." (sic) Their bombs tend to be larger/more of them and therefor have a greater chance of 1) hitting a target, 2) inflicting damage. Just something to consider.

quote:

I think this illustrates one of the reasons the game is good. All the decisions.

+1

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Amoral)

Post #: 41

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/22/2015 9:57:29 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

If you are new, you should start playing with PDU ON

As per your question, I would stop immediately the following obsolete models:
Ki-51 Sonia
Ki-36 Ida
Ki-27 Nate

And also these:
Ki-56 Thalia
F1M2 Pete
because their production line can be used for more useful models

I suggest you read Mike Solli's AAR as it has lots of insights on how to play Japan

This is my line of reasoning too.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 42

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/22/2015 10:00:36 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Japanese bible
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2959613

I have read it start to finish(?), its gone dormant lately. Still of tremendous value.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 43

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/22/2015 10:17:44 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

but the supplies used are a fraction

See my post above, its all relative.

quote:

the airbase doesn't have to be big,

This is for me the one and only reason for the 1e bombers early in the war. They can get to the upfront front and operate effectively from the small bases available. So for that reason they are not throw a ways (OK maybe the Ida's

). This is especially true for the Mary's/Ann's as I like big bombs (always liked hammer to egg shell.

quote:

The plan is to get them Helen 1s as they have a MAD device

MAD isn't available 'til late '44 IIRC, and doesn't give that much of a boost at that. Although some boost is better than no boost.

quote:

Mitchels and DB7 can get through Japanese CAPs that only have Oscars

Not in my game. Oscar's, I'm talking the 1c with the twin heavy MG's in the nose, slaughter Mitchels on a regular basis. Escorted or not. I do tend to have a numerical advantage and of course my crews are excellent at this stage of the war (up to fall '42).

_____________________________

(in reply to Amoral)

Post #: 44

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/22/2015 10:20:42 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Interesting that you mention Mavis easier to maintain than Emily (that is the other big 4E patrol). Both are SR4 and should technically be equal in terms of difficulty to maintain

Durability factors into repair time. The Emily is significantly harder to keep operational.

Good point and something to keep in mind, otherwise Mavis/Emily appear to be the 'same' A/C. One thing to note here is having excess AS available (if you can afford it) tends to help.

_____________________________

(in reply to Amoral)

Post #: 45

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/22/2015 10:38:03 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

Cancelled all transport too the payload is too low.

Careful my friend as you will/should discover that your air transports are extremely useful early on, and op losses tend to be high. Their pilots are not the best of the best. How about unloading all those fat transport ships, bonus or no, they are slow at the small ports you will capture in the beginning. OK bring in some stevedores. What you say? NS units. How? Fly 'em in those transports that have a payload that is too low.

Need to protect that just captured base? Why not fly in some AS in those same transports. Bingo an operational airbase the day after its captured (that is of course if you didn't tattoo the base before you grabbed it

quote:

Waiting for 43 when the copy of the DC transport will appaer.

Again, careful my friend. If this is the plane I think you're referring to you will be sadly disappointed. I don't recall its name, but if I'm not mistaken this is a navy plane and there are only a few naval transport units that can use it. So PDU on or not army A/C can not become naval A/C, and vice versa.

Edit:Another use for those air transports is paratroopers. They too can be quite useful and pesky early on for the Japanese player.

< Message edited by rustysi -- 8/22/2015 11:41:20 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Amoral)

Post #: 46

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/22/2015 11:07:47 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The license built Ha-40 turned out to be an unreliable engine, especially in the South Pacific. This is why it has a high service rating in the game.

Bill

Also IRL why the radial engine version of the plane appeared. The Japanese had a lot of trouble, for whatever reason, getting the DB601 license built engine right so they finally gave up. In the meantime they had all these air frames laying about, so they slapped a radial engine on there and wallah they had themselves a great A/C. The Ki-100 was born and proved to be a good high altitude interceptor, albeit too little too late.

< Message edited by rustysi -- 8/23/2015 12:13:42 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 47

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/23/2015 8:00:32 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

The plant that built the Ha-40 was also destroyed in a B-29 raid.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 48

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/23/2015 10:45:45 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Must have been a production problem (precision mechanics?) as no such problem appeared in Europe or North Africa in German/Italian use.

Yes, but I think Wdolson explains it already. However the precission machinery of the Japanese wasn�t up to the standard of German/British/US. Unlike the UDSSR which also had not that machinery ( it got some through lend lease ofc), it could not make the design simple and rugged WITHOUT high tech. With exceptions of course I believe their DDs are sturdy also for planes probably the Tojo fighter.

As for the DB engine which BF109 used, not only had the Japanese technical problems with the license production but also the pilots did not like this type of engine. They were used to the other type (called radial I believe)...so pilots had not so much faith in this plane, which is not good for combat morale as one can imagine.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/23/2015 12:34:28 PM >

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 49

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/23/2015 10:55:15 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Interesting that you mention Mavis easier to maintain than Emily (that is the other big 4E patrol). Both are SR4 and should technically be equal in terms of difficulty to maintain

Yes, that waswhat I thought. But seems to be not correct. Mavis are in fact easier to maintain, much easier. But the Emily not. I only get a 2 plane detachement of them and could not get them to fly at all. One is always in repair the other maybe flies one round and then is grounded too

but the 2 pilots of the Emily are outstanding seem to have the best search rating seen so far.... maybe transfer them to a unit that actually can fly their planes

Edit: Maybe they need a AV special for them....

Well gues you can disregard kind of what I wrote, cause Emily seems to be ok. Just give them 2x or 3x the air support. If I want to build them is another question as Mavis seems good enough for the job.

Maybe a few per month to try them out...however 4 engines are used I believe which are quite important to other modells...

Also I studied a bit more (too much in fact) and found it may be indeed a good idea to put one of the light bombers back into production. Reasons were stated above. Also I need to pay 75PP if I want to convert these to the 2 eng bombers. Or even 150PPs if to eg. Nicks. Ok, I have PPs quite good stocked but guess if enemy production swings in full, you also need to free up some arty and divs from Korea or China which will cost a lot....mh. 2 of the light bombers are ok, the ones with the 250kg bomb and better range. One of these uses some engine which is needed the other uses an obsolete modell.

Also someone noted one of them has a camera. Now the question is, why dont have the recon planes cameras ? So these seem to be not important as the recons without camera do what they are supposed... mh.

Edit: Guess it is so that the recon planes have build in cameras anyway. Which will not appear as load in the plane data. But that one (Mary?) plane seems to have an outboard camera ? Like a pod or something...

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/23/2015 4:16:15 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 50

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/23/2015 11:04:08 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Not in my game. Oscar's, I'm talking the 1c with the twin heavy MG's in the nose, slaughter Mitchels on a regular basis. Escorted or not. I do tend to have a numerical advantage and of course my crews are excellent at this stage of the war (up to fall '42).

Well reviewed Oscar again, definitatly the 2 HMG are not enough. However my pilots are also good, numerical advantage often but not always. This is more an issue of harrassment tho, as in this point the Allied bomber strength is not high enough to cause serious damage (except their carrier air and few torpedo planes - noted the old Swordfish is effective if they encounter not much resistance). Also ofc the Allied air suffered a lot (like my Nells btw.) from unescorted raids or only a few P40 etc as escort. P40 is faster than Oscar. The Blenheim and other older bombers suffer high attrition, this will probably negativly affect their pilot morale/skill when their better bombers arrive. I play AI - but a human player will try to more avoid useless raids if he has not an advantage of escorts. So in this regard ofc I have it easier than PBM guys. But also a human can make mistakes and blunders enough so he will get enough bomber raids send to the slaughter.

Well in 6/42 the Tojo arrives much faster and has 2 more LMGs. The later Tojo has cannon too. They are researched already, this research will not adance them as the standard date for them is 6/42. But I believe most of the reaearch plants will convert to production without delay and damage. SO researching has an effect even if it does not get the type earlier imho. You can also choose to convert the research of eg. Tojo I to Tojo II without damage of factories...(iirc)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/23/2015 12:06:54 PM >

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 51

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/23/2015 11:15:56 AM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

As has been said, against a human and with PDU off, you have to research the Oscar line.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 52

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/23/2015 11:30:41 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Cancelled all transport too the payload is too low.

Careful my friend as you will/should discover that your air transports are extremely useful early on, and op losses tend to be high. Their pilots are not the best of the best. How about unloading all those fat transport ships, bonus or no, they are slow at the small ports you will capture in the beginning. OK bring in some stevedores. What you say? NS units. How? Fly 'em in those transports that have a payload that is too low. Need to protect that just captured base? Why not fly in some AS in those same transports. Bingo an operational airbase the day after its captured (that is of course if you didn't tattoo the base before you grabbed it ).

quote:

Waiting for 43 when the copy of the DC transport will appaer.

Again, careful my friend. If this is the plane I think you're referring to you will be sadly disappointed. I don't recall its name, but if I'm not mistaken this is a navy plane and there are only a few naval transport units that can use it. So PDU on or not army A/C can not become naval A/C, and vice versa.

Edit:Another use for those air transports is paratroopers. They too can be quite useful and pesky early on for the Japanese player.

I agree with some more game time. Also checked some data again, yes the plane I mean is a navy plane. The name I cannot remember but it has 9000 or so payload. The others have 3000 or less

Yes I noted that transports are useful. Dropped some para already, some only encounted a base force and overcame them. Some other encounter a phil div (I believe at Tacloban) and were a bit disrupted. However we still can send 2-3 ships to land reeinforcements in this locations which *should* be isolated. Not always in AI games, as they get some bonus. Also lack of supply is very slow to lower combat readiness generally I noted. I will let some unit from em starve a while to see if and when they get disabled devices and their morale drops. Of course I will send them stuff before they die, I am not that cruel. :)

Re. transport, they are very useful also for training, you can put them on general they will gain all kinds of skills if only slow, but later you can check which skill(s) they developed best and maybe use some of the pilots for other duties too. My op losses are ok, I mostly do not use long range and put them on rest for a while. Rest can mean here also 40-60% training...

These air support companies are good for air transport btw. They only have 8 air support but if you transport 3 of them you have 24 which means a complete air unit can operate (depending on size). Btw, I am surprised that Japangets so much air support units at Tokio to ship away, I thought they were short of them in real life.

Another thing that came to my mind, what are "good" pilots. IIRC from the Allied game 60 is kind of a threshold. Now we need to look at skill and exp. Exp is gained with "real" combat and flights. While skill can be gained with training. Skill will and can also improve in combat. But more exp. Is a pilot of 60/60 good ? And 70 is exceptional ? Or is only over 80 considered outstanding? I believe these must be quite rare.

Btw: Skill can be gained without planes. I had a unit from which allplanes were gone (Kate) but most pilots survived. While waiting to get new planes, put themon training. They gained skill, it seems this is theoretical and simulator training. In the classroom etc. or they borrow planes from the other units nearby...

The Kate unit above suffered unescorted raid but not far away, some planes were shot down. But most made it back somehow but were so damaged that they crashed on landing or were written off after But most pilots ok :)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/23/2015 2:17:09 PM >

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 53

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/23/2015 8:40:31 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

The later Tojo has cannon too.

I have not tried to use it but that cannon has a very poor accuracy, 6 IIRC. I believe it was done this way due to the guns' slow rate of fire.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 54

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/23/2015 8:55:34 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

P40 is faster than Oscar.

Not by enough to make a difference in the game. The speed will go up some as the model advances. This A/C also has good maneuverability and range. Later in the game its given two 20mm cannon, although by then it may be too far outclassed.

quote:

definitatly the 2 HMG are not enough.

They are just enough, except when it comes to 4e bombers. Their center-line configuration gives them a high accuracy. BTW with all this said I do like the Tojo better. Its just that the Oscar has a roll to play as well. In my games I plan to basically turn the production numbers around. Japan built ~5900 Oscars and ~1225 Tojo's IRL. I don't know if I'll produce those exact numbers, but something like that. Also remember these plans have a SR of 1 and can be used to protect the bases of your more advanced fighters. The Tojo (and the Oscars' are not that shabby either) also has one of Japans' best climb rates, good for CAP. Same with the Jack.

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 55

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/23/2015 9:43:53 PM

bomccarthy

Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Must have been a production problem (precision mechanics?) as no such problem appeared in Europe or North Africa in German/Italian use.

Yes, but I think Wdolson explains it already. However the precission machinery of the Japanese wasn�t up to the standard of German/British/US. Unlike the UDSSR which also had not that machinery ( it got some through lend lease ofc), it could not make the design simple and rugged WITHOUT high tech. With exceptions of course I believe their DDs are sturdy also for planes probably the Tojo fighter.

As for the DB engine which BF109 used, not only had the Japanese technical problems with the license production but also the pilots did not like this type of engine. They were used to the other type (called radial I believe)...so pilots had not so much faith in this plane, which is not good for combat morale as one can imagine.

If you're interested in the Japanese engineers' observations concerning the Ha-40 and Ha-140:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ATIG-Report-39.pdf (Air Technical Intelligence Group report on Kawasaki engine development)

There are also reports on Mitsubishi and Nakajima engine development:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ATIG-Report-24.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ATIG-Report-45.pdf

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 56

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/28/2015 9:14:41 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

The later Tojo has cannon too.

I have not tried to use it but that cannon has a very poor accuracy, 6 IIRC. I believe it was done this way due to the guns' slow rate of fire.

Yes, all the 37+40 mm have very poor acc. I believe also low range. Guess to fit 2x40mm into a small fighter this gun had to be very small and light and so it kinda sucked in lethality. But still if it will hit it will do some damage I hope. The German 30mm that the 262 got wasnt very accurate too btw. but hen it hit, 1 was enough to down a P51. I will always critize the armament of the 4 guns of the 262 a mixture would have been better imo.

Btw- your view of the Oscar isnt wrong too, I noted later it gets a speed boost. So worth 1-2 small factories probably. However I already decided not to continue the Oscar line and stick to the C model until something better arrives. Also noted that PDU on or off may not be so important most Oscar units can also upgrade to other planes. But, if one takes a look at the later Oscars some may be ok for eg. Sweep and vs. other light aircraft. However I had 1/3 of Oscar sweeps shot down recently over PM. Mostly by Kittihawks... guess these have better pilots (Aussies or Kiwis?)...Well the sweeps went in peacemeal of course that contributed. Only the 3rd sweep had success. Will try this again, after the Oscar rests and meanwhile the Aussies attacked Buna from which their fighters also went down. Give and take...

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/28/2015 1:06:02 PM >

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 57

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/28/2015 12:01:22 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Must have been a production problem (precision mechanics?) as no such problem appeared in Europe or North Africa in German/Italian use.

Yes, but I think Wdolson explains it already. However the precission machinery of the Japanese wasn�t up to the standard of German/British/US. Unlike the UDSSR which also had not that machinery ( it got some through lend lease ofc), it could not make the design simple and rugged WITHOUT high tech. With exceptions of course I believe their DDs are sturdy also for planes probably the Tojo fighter.

As for the DB engine which BF109 used, not only had the Japanese technical problems with the license production but also the pilots did not like this type of engine. They were used to the other type (called radial I believe)...so pilots had not so much faith in this plane, which is not good for combat morale as one can imagine.

If you're interested in the Japanese engineers' observations concerning the Ha-40 and Ha-140:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ATIG-Report-39.pdf (Air Technical Intelligence Group report on Kawasaki engine development)

There are also reports on Mitsubishi and Nakajima engine development:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ATIG-Report-24.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ATIG-Report-45.pdf

Thanks !

I know (knew) an amazing site that had basically the whole reports from some Allied commissions that investigated Japanese tech after the war. I read ca. 1/3 of it. It was a lot. However I need to check if I still have that site bookmarked somewhere it was quite an old one. Guess maybe it was already posted here.

The major weaknesses of their tech was electricity, wiring, fusing, plugs etc. Also welding (!). In short, but that was described in detail. They concluded the electicity tech standard was US of the 30ties...so anything suffered from this radar and radio in the first place ofc. Radio would be unreliable and have often faults and no standard of spare parts existed.... only some examples from what I remember. It also said some ship building suffered from bad welds.

(in reply to bomccarthy)

Post #: 58

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/28/2015 12:27:59 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Noted 2 strange things re. aircraft - maybe an oversight or WAD??

a) The copy of the DC3 (or Dakota or C47) that will appear in 43 (name still eludes me) has a load of 9000. While the original in the Allied database has 6000

b) The Nick Ia upgraded to the Nick Ic not to the Nick 1b

I wanted to change the research to the upgrade model, but the factories were damaged. So I needed tracker to find out the fact the 1a upgraded to 1c and not 1b which means you lose the undamaged factory bonus. Had I known this before....

Question is this WAD?

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 8/28/2015 1:28:18 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 59

RE: Japanese Aircraft - 8/28/2015 4:45:10 PM

Theages

Posts: 167
Joined: 2/16/2007
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

b) The Nick Ia upgraded to the Nick Ic not to the Nick 1b I wanted to change the research to the upgrade model, but the factories were damaged. So I needed tracker to find out the fact the 1a upgraded to 1c and not 1b which means you lose the undamaged factory bonus. Had I known this before.... Question is this WAD?

This is why tracker is your friend.
I don't see any benefit in the versions b and c. They get bigger guns, but with reduced accuracy (only 1 and 3 despite being centerline). Once I read in a thread, that the a seems to be the best version (common consensus?) at least against bombers. The b and c could be better against ground / ship.

< Message edited by Theages -- 8/28/2015 5:51:23 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 60