RE: Japanese airframe production (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 2:41:27 PM)

Here is some interesting info. This shows the number of pilots to fill out reinforcement air units by month. The average number of reinforcement pilots is 150 IJN and 195 IJA per month. Note the 4 months where the requirement exceeds the replacement rate.



[image]local://upfiles/1598/7A511306080E45898901741C6593AC36.jpg[/image]



vonSchnitter -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 3:35:02 PM)

Carrier based fighters next.

No doubt, the A6M2 is the ticket till the end of 42.

There are a few factors which may have a bearing on Zero production planning:

a) The fighters on CVL/CVEs are Claudes (the Tayo is empty)
b) The fighter groups of the Fleet Carriers are only 18 ac in size - which is half the number of the USN CVs - except for Kaga - there is room to spare however
c) Only 2 A6M2 groups spawn till the end of 42 (and one Claude group and one A6M3 group)
d) The numbers: By the end of 42 the A6M2 pool is short by 69 ac (not counting the initial pool) and there is the contigent of 195 (possible) Claudes (64 in permanently restricted command) that begs for being upgraded.
This 200 AC deficit - which may, or may not be compounded by demands of airgroups spawning with new CVs - needs to be made up out of an initial production of 672 p.a. or roughly 700 till the end of 42 - about 1/3 of the production.
e) The A6M2 line does not directly upgrade to the A6M3 path - only after M5b. Even though the improvements of the M3 line are not dramatic at the start - it will show over time.
What is more, the M3 line - starting with the M5c in 10/44 - will evolve into rather short legged interceptor types - requirung drop tanks for any offensive mission.
f) Factories: Even though the line will end up with 3 factories(or four if you care to count the M7 in) - offering a bit of flexibility - I would think a second M2 factory is a good thing to gradually adjust to early requirements and to ease the M2-M3 transition without losing to much in terms of investment.

e) As to the M7 and Sam - I have no clue - potential candidates for switchovers ?

[image]local://upfiles/12623/F74194AC52A6488BBCA23E0AEE2F3362.jpg[/image]



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 3:40:00 PM)

One way to extend the A6M2 airframes you have is to "upgrade" all the fighter units that are attached to restricted HQs to Claudes.  They're most likely going to be training anyway, so you may as well give them obsolete aircraft.



vonSchnitter -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 3:51:45 PM)

Hi Mike,

just checked - the two A6M2 groups till end of 42 are 21st and 22nd AirFl. respectively - no permanently restricted command Zeros for that timeframe.

btw. did you get my PMs ?

Your pilots list is very interesting. Looks like some means of on-map training needs to be devised !

@Kitakami - why prefer the B5N1 over the N2 ? There are only 99 engines for the N1 in the pool - and non producing ?



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 4:31:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

just checked - the two A6M2 groups till end of 42 are 21st and 22nd AirFl. respectively - no permanently restricted command Zeros for that timeframe.


Well, so much for that idea. [:D]

And yes, I did get your messages. Thanks. Changes already made. I got those wire diagrams done. Just need to find a place to post them. The only one that is complex is the IJN fighter upgrade path for Zeros. The rest are pretty straightforward.



Mynok -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 4:59:40 PM)


I don't have the manual handy but I thought pilot reinforcements went into the 'queue', which is a twelve-month, 4 stage 'training' program? The startup 'queue' has a lot more than a 150 pilots in the final stage, so once those guys come out (they go into the reserve pool?), you should have plenty of pilots for reinforcement groups barring massive losses in the front line groups.



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 5:04:31 PM)

It shows per quarter.  Every month, each month's portion moves up a month.  The average is 150 per month for the IJNAF and 195 for the IJAAF.



Mynok -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 5:10:41 PM)


Ah...gonna come out with experience in the 50's too it looks like. Preliminary tests by others seem to indicate that on-map training in the 3 skills needed by a unit (which vary obviously) will be another 3 months approximately to get into the 60s level on all 3.

Sounds reasonable to me.





Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 5:23:09 PM)

Here's an example of the pilot screen:



[image]local://upfiles/1598/9B35342515A94339A39743F0FB19E156.jpg[/image]



Q-Ball -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 5:36:29 PM)

Great summaries guys, keep it coming! There should be a way to compile findings together, because we will need the help later on!




vonSchnitter -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 7:04:49 PM)

a little more datamining: IJN Level Bombers

Until the arrival of the P1Y1 Frances in 11/43 all that counts are the Nells and the G4M1 Betty. Period.

When comparing the G3M2 Nell, G3M3 Nell and G4M1 Betty - the M3 Nell has some distinct advantages over the Betty:
Range ! 21 hexes for the M3 Nell as compared to 17 for the Betty !
That means: If you look for an AC to augment your fleets of Mavis and Emily for long range searches, the G3M3 is it - for the duration. The same holds true for ASW duties. Not to mention the H-6 Radar for the Nell M3 - with its questionably late introduction date ...

The slightly higher durability of the Betty (36) to the Nell (35) is significant ?

To my lights, the role of G3M2 Nell and G4M1 Betty is simple - offensive missions with torps versus any kind of shipping or supporting assets (ports with bombs), if not protected by enemy CAP - or else - within range of friendly sweeps or escort which just translates into Zeros.
There is no way, the IJN LBs can stand in steed (or rather in lieu - s.p.) of heavy bombers in any kind of interdiction role. Your milage may vary.

I would keep the G3M2 in production - till somewhere in the first Q of 42 or some such. Switch the factory to Betty and use some R&D factory for G3M3 production.

There are some 12 Bettys to be taken out of restricted comands, that is it.





[image]local://upfiles/12623/5DE0E63654C5422BB928A51DE6A097CB.jpg[/image]



vonSchnitter -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 7:15:19 PM)

disregard



Kitakami -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 8:13:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Carrier based fighters next.

No doubt, the A6M2 is the ticket till the end of 42.

There are a few factors which may have a bearing on Zero production planning:

a) The fighters on CVL/CVEs are Claudes (the Tayo is empty)
b) The fighter groups of the Fleet Carriers are only 18 ac in size - which is half the number of the USN CVs - except for Kaga - there is room to spare however
c) Only 2 A6M2 groups spawn till the end of 42 (and one Claude group and one A6M3 group)
d) The numbers: By the end of 42 the A6M2 pool is short by 69 ac (not counting the initial pool) and there is the contigent of 195 (possible) Claudes (64 in permanently restricted command) that begs for being upgraded.
This 200 AC deficit - which may, or may not be compounded by demands of airgroups spawning with new CVs - needs to be made up out of an initial production of 672 p.a. or roughly 700 till the end of 42 - about 1/3 of the production.
e) The A6M2 line does not directly upgrade to the A6M3 path - only after M5b. Even though the improvements of the M3 line are not dramatic at the start - it will show over time.
What is more, the M3 line - starting with the M5c in 10/44 - will evolve into rather short legged interceptor types - requirung drop tanks for any offensive mission.
f) Factories: Even though the line will end up with 3 factories(or four if you care to count the M7 in) - offering a bit of flexibility - I would think a second M2 factory is a good thing to gradually adjust to early requirements and to ease the M2-M3 transition without losing to much in terms of investment.

e) As to the M7 and Sam - I have no clue - potential candidates for switchovers ?



<the premise for everything below is PDU on>

I have been thinking about the A6M2 / A6M3 issue, and have been having conflicting thoughts. There are 2 factories at start, 56(0) for the M2 and 0(24) for the M3. The M3 model starts production in June '42. Now, if we were to let that factory do its research, the 100 research point level should be reached in April, thus making A6M3 production start in May, not June. I am considering going the historical route, filling land-based Zero units with the M3 model while using the M2 for the carriers and Betty and Nell escort groups. The differences in performance are as follows:

- Mas speeed: M3 +7
- Cruise speed: M3 +33
- Max alt: M3 +3,440
- Climb: M3 + 50
- Endurance: M2 +274
- Load: M2 +110
- Manouver: above 15K M3 is +4/+8/+11

So the M2 has a 4-hex range advantage over the M3 (with the M2 using drop tanks), while the M3 climbs faster and is more manouverable at higher altitudes.
Also the M3 factories become M3a factories in December '42.

Decisions... decisions...

My current thoughts are to increase M3 production from 0(24) to 0(48) right from the start, expecting the factory to start producing planes in May '42 (while hoping that it happens in April [:)] ). Now, I do not think a monthly production of 56 M2s and 48 M3s will be enough. The question is... what to do then? Expand the M2 factory to 112? Expand the M3 factory to 96? Grab another factory and produce one of them in it?

Decisions... decisions...



Kitakami -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 8:30:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

<snip>

@Kitakami - why prefer the B5N1 over the N2 ? There are only 99 engines for the N1 in the pool - and non producing ?


The B5M1 Mabel is Max Speed +2, Cruise Speed +58, Max Alt - 2,560, Climb - 290, Manouver +5, Endurance - 111 compared to the B5N2 Kate.
Normal and extended radius are the same for both planes. But the B5M1 uses the Mitsubishi Ha-33 engine, while the B5N2 uses the Nakajima Ha-35, which is the most-used fighter engine. There is a 65(0) factory producing the Ha-33 in Nagoya, and a 180(0) producing the Ha-35 in Tokyo at start. Without too many factories to switch around, easing the demand for fighter engines sounds to me like a good idea, because we need to replace Claudes and Nates in LARGE quantities.

At start there is neither B5M1, B5N1, or B5N2 production, There is only a 0(0) B5N2 factory in Hiroshima. Changing it to B5M1 and then expanding it would not cost more than just expanding it, or would it? So, I am inclined to use the B5M1 Mabel, and see if I can accelerate production of the B6N1 a couple of months... but I will think about it in November '42 or so. That will depend on the state of the Japanese economy, early-war losses, etc.

Just my 2 cents [;)]



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 8:59:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

I have been thinking about the A6M2 / A6M3 issue, and have been having conflicting thoughts. There are 2 factories at start, 56(0) for the M2 and 0(24) for the M3. The M3 model starts production in June '42. Now, if we were to let that factory do its research, the 100 research point level should be reached in April, thus making A6M3 production start in May, not June.


That is not necessarily the case. The manual states, "For every 100 development points the availability of the aircraft or engine may be moved up one month."

It's a die roll. Not a given, unfortunately.



vonSchnitter -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:01:44 PM)

Hi Kitakami,

up to some creative thinking, eh [:D]

Questions and Ideas like yours, are exactly, why I keep going - or rather why I keep questioning the obvious.

top a - Mabel: If there is one thing going for the Mabel, it could be the engine. All other performance data being in the same ball park - service ceiling assumed to be of less importance in a TB.

That leaves the engine.
Unless you are quicker than me - probable - I care to get all the numbers straight in the first place.
I promise you - unless someone comes up with a a more suitable tool - you will get a single spreadsheet to play around with all your what-ifs for at least the end of 42.
I am just working up .. one issue at a time. Than we talk shop ..

top b: A6m3

a) The M3 is not carrier capable - controversal I grant you.
b) The rather short range of the M3 which limits its uses - if you care for fighters to fly sweeps on long ranges or to go along with your Navy LBs the M3 looks out of place. But this probabaly is more a reflection on your general planning, than anything else.
c) Care to share your ideas/math on how to advance AC availability in R&D ?











Kitakami -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:02:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

a little more datamining: IJN Level Bombers

Until the arrival of the P1Y1 Frances in 11/43 all that counts are the Nells and the G4M1 Betty. Period.

When comparing the G3M2 Nell, G3M3 Nell and G4M1 Betty - the M3 Nell has some distinct advantages over the Betty:
Range ! 21 hexes for the M3 Nell as compared to 17 for the Betty !
That means: If you look for an AC to augment your fleets of Mavis and Emily for long range searches, the G3M3 is it - for the duration. The same holds true for ASW duties. Not to mention the H-6 Radar for the Nell M3 - with its questionably late introduction date ...

The slightly higher durability of the Betty (36) to the Nell (35) is significant ?

<snip>


The G3M3 is Max Speed -8, Cruise Speed -12, Max Alt + 4,400, Climb +520, Manouver -2, Durability -1, Endurance +97 compared to the G4M1.
It uses 2x Mitsubishi Ha-33 engines (65 per month produced in Nagoya), while the G4M1 uses 2x Mitsubishi Ha-32 engines (65 per month produced in Nagoya). There is a 22(0) G3M2 factory in Maebashi (which converts to G3M3 in May '42), and a 25(5) G4M1 factory in Nagoya (which converts to G4M2 in January '44).

Note: attacks made at distances greater than 11 hexes will be unescorted from the point of origin so, if escorts are needed, they will have to come from fighter strips closer to the attack point, or carriers. But I agree that to have the ability to project Long Lances from 21 hexes away is a definite edge.

I had not considered switching Betty production to Nell production because the G4M1 is superior to the G3M2... but you have shown us that the G3M3 is a very good choice... thanks!



vonSchnitter -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:13:05 PM)

Some more .

it was not my intention to propose the use of the later Nell over the Betty in hot shooting engangements -
testing may show.

All I am saying is: For naval search/asw the late Nell is the better choice over the Betty: range and ceiling + radar - eventually. And pretty much the identical bomb load (which counts on search/asw)



Kitakami -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:18:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

That is not necessarily the case. The manual states, "For every 100 development points the availability of the aircraft or engine may be moved up one month."

It's a die roll. Not a given, unfortunately.


[X(] That is... obnoxious...
If the design principle from WitP stock holds, it means it is easier to advance production when closer to the expected date. My thoughts are to start 5-6 months before that date, trying to get to 100 research points 1-2 months before then. Only testing will show us if my thinking is correct or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

c) Care to share your ideas/math on how to advance AC availability in R&D ?


Calculations are not as simple as I describe them below but let's keep things simple... I always had trouble with statistics in college [:D]

In the particular case of the A6M3, lets say that it takes the whole of December to get the 0(24) factory to 24(0) status. Then it produces, on the average), 24 development points in January, February, March, and April. That gives us 98 points or so. Give it a few more days in the first part of May, and it should reach 100, a little less than one month before production is scheduled to begin. If the way it worked in stock holds, it should happen.

Now, let's suppose that we increase the factory to 0(48) right from the start. In January the factory produces 24 development points. In February, it produces 48 (we have 72 now). Somewhere around the middle of March, it hits the 100-point mark. It is possible that production is advenced to May '42 then, with some 24-odd points remaining at the end of March. Then in April we add 48 more to the total, for 72. In the middle of May we would hit the 100-point mark again, so if production was not advanced to May in March, then it should happen now. Of course research costs industry points, etc. so it is an expensive, and possibly futile, proposition.

Again, just thinking... I have already changed my mind on Zero production once or twice, so it most probably will happen again :)



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:22:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Here is some interesting info. This shows the number of pilots to fill out reinforcement air units by month. The average number of reinforcement pilots is 150 IJN and 195 IJA per month. Note the 4 months where the requirement exceeds the replacement rate.



[image]local://upfiles/1598/7A511306080E45898901741C6593AC36.jpg[/image]

Mike,

this is a great way to look at these data!



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:26:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Carrier based fighters next.

No doubt, the A6M2 is the ticket till the end of 42.

There are a few factors which may have a bearing on Zero production planning:

a) The fighters on CVL/CVEs are Claudes (the Tayo is empty)
b) The fighter groups of the Fleet Carriers are only 18 ac in size - which is half the number of the USN CVs - except for Kaga - there is room to spare however
c) Only 2 A6M2 groups spawn till the end of 42 (and one Claude group and one A6M3 group)
d) The numbers: By the end of 42 the A6M2 pool is short by 69 ac (not counting the initial pool) and there is the contigent of 195 (possible) Claudes (64 in permanently restricted command) that begs for being upgraded.
This 200 AC deficit - which may, or may not be compounded by demands of airgroups spawning with new CVs - needs to be made up out of an initial production of 672 p.a. or roughly 700 till the end of 42 - about 1/3 of the production.
e) The A6M2 line does not directly upgrade to the A6M3 path - only after M5b. Even though the improvements of the M3 line are not dramatic at the start - it will show over time.
What is more, the M3 line - starting with the M5c in 10/44 - will evolve into rather short legged interceptor types - requirung drop tanks for any offensive mission.
f) Factories: Even though the line will end up with 3 factories(or four if you care to count the M7 in) - offering a bit of flexibility - I would think a second M2 factory is a good thing to gradually adjust to early requirements and to ease the M2-M3 transition without losing to much in terms of investment.

e) As to the M7 and Sam - I have no clue - potential candidates for switchovers ?



<the premise for everything below is PDU on>

I have been thinking about the A6M2 / A6M3 issue, and have been having conflicting thoughts. There are 2 factories at start, 56(0) for the M2 and 0(24) for the M3. The M3 model starts production in June '42. Now, if we were to let that factory do its research, the 100 research point level should be reached in April, thus making A6M3 production start in May, not June. I am considering going the historical route, filling land-based Zero units with the M3 model while using the M2 for the carriers and Betty and Nell escort groups. The differences in performance are as follows:

- Mas speeed: M3 +7
- Cruise speed: M3 +33
- Max alt: M3 +3,440
- Climb: M3 + 50
- Endurance: M2 +274
- Load: M2 +110
- Manouver: above 15K M3 is +4/+8/+11

So the M2 has a 4-hex range advantage over the M3 (with the M2 using drop tanks), while the M3 climbs faster and is more manouverable at higher altitudes.
Also the M3 factories become M3a factories in December '42.

Decisions... decisions...

My current thoughts are to increase M3 production from 0(24) to 0(48) right from the start, expecting the factory to start producing planes in May '42 (while hoping that it happens in April [:)] ). Now, I do not think a monthly production of 56 M2s and 48 M3s will be enough. The question is... what to do then? Expand the M2 factory to 112? Expand the M3 factory to 96? Grab another factory and produce one of them in it?

Decisions... decisions...


That's a tough decision. I want the M2 for carriers and long range land based missions. I also want the M3 for all other land based missions. Not sure I want to expand both factories though....



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:26:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami


...But I agree that to have the ability to project Long Lances from 21 hexes away is a definite edge.



While the IJN airdropped torp was excellent, I did not realize they had mastered dropping a "Long Lance"...[:D]



Kitakami -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:30:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

<snip>

a) The M3 is not carrier capable - controversal I grant you.
b) The rather short range of the M3 which limits its uses - if you care for fighters to fly sweeps on long ranges or to go along with your Navy LBs the M3 looks out of place. But this probabaly is more a reflection on your general planning, than anything else.
c) Care to share your ideas/math on how to advance AC availability in R&D ?



The M3 may not be carrier-capable, but I shudder when I think about 1-2 factories producing 150 M2s between them a month... I'd rather have some of that factory space producing M3s, because they will automatically upgrade to M3a's in December '42

The legs are short, yes, and they can't join Bettys or Nells on long range strikes... at least not from the same base. But if used correctly, from forward bases, they should be quite effective. For example: M3s from Lae do sweeps on Port Moresby much better than M2s from Rabaul using external tanks. Tried it already (don't ask for the numbers... I wrote down the result, but did not save the data, unfortunately). They do require positioning of air support in the right places, and using engineers to increase the size of airfields, but I have the feeling that proper management of those assets will make for a much stronger Japanese position.

One thing does worry me about engine and airframe production, though. It is EXPENSIVE to optimize. Each factory we switch costs time and resources. So that is why I enjoy our discussions so much, because we discuss things BEFORE making changes. 5-6 brains definitely think better than 1 :)

Cheers!



Kitakami -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:31:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami


...But I agree that to have the ability to project Long Lances from 21 hexes away is a definite edge.



While the IJN airdropped torp was excellent, I did not realize they had mastered dropping a "Long Lance"...[:D]



ROFL!!!

You are correct. The aerial torpedo was 21 inches, not 24... brain gas, that one [:D]



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:35:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami


...But I agree that to have the ability to project Long Lances from 21 hexes away is a definite edge.



While the IJN airdropped torp was excellent, I did not realize they had mastered dropping a "Long Lance"...[:D]



ROFL!!!

You are correct. The aerial torpedo was 21 inches, not 24... brain gas, that one [:D]


No worries. I had to give you a hard time since you took as a log in name my favorite table-top naval miniature to play...



Elladan -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:46:14 PM)

quote:

In the particular case of the A6M3, lets say that it takes the whole of December to get the 0(24) factory to 24(0) status. Then it produces, on the average), 24 development points in January, February, March, and April. That gives us 98 points or so. Give it a few more days in the first part of May, and it should reach 100, a little less than one month before production is scheduled to begin. If the way it worked in stock holds, it should happen.

Now, let's suppose that we increase the factory to 0(48) right from the start. In January the factory produces 24 development points. In February, it produces 48 (we have 72 now). Somewhere around the middle of March, it hits the 100-point mark. It is possible that production is advenced to May '42 then, with some 24-odd points remaining at the end of March. Then in April we add 48 more to the total, for 72. In the middle of May we would hit the 100-point mark again, so if production was not advanced to May in March, then it should happen now.


I wouldn't count on that for 2 reasons (that is if it is working as it was in WitP):
- R&D factories are notoriously slow in repair, the farther the entry date, the slower the process. So 24 points repaired in December 41 is rather impossible methinks.
- Research points are only generated by undamaged factories, so the accumulation in case of A6M3 would start in March/April at the earliest if expanded.
So no chances for early A6M3, sorry.

As for A6M2 vs A6M3 and G3M3 vs G4M1, why not keep both in production? We would lose a bit of optimization, but that shouldn't be a big deal as performances are so close and we would save on factory retooling costs.



vonSchnitter -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:47:20 PM)

@ Kitakami

quote:

The M3 may not be carrier-capable, but I shudder when I think about 1-2 factories producing 150 M2s between them a month... I'd rather have some of that factory space producing M3s, because they will automatically upgrade to M3a's in December '42


Yup - my way of thinking - a second - or even third - M2 factory could be the ticket ?
We just need to find something suitable - Pete ? A Navy transport ?



Mike Solli -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:50:14 PM)

Concerning the A6M2 vs. the A6M3, keep in mind that their paths will eventually converge.

Here are the paths:

A6M2 --> A6M2 Sen Baku FB (2/44) --> A6M5b (6/44)
A6M3 --> A6M3a (12/42) --> A6M5 (8/43) --> A6M5b (6/44)




Elladan -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:56:52 PM)

True, but this will happen late in the war. From 12/42 A6M3a will be a superior choice.
BTW, do you see any use for Sen Baku?



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Japanese airframe production (8/10/2009 9:59:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

@ Kitakami

quote:

The M3 may not be carrier-capable, but I shudder when I think about 1-2 factories producing 150 M2s between them a month... I'd rather have some of that factory space producing M3s, because they will automatically upgrade to M3a's in December '42


Yup - my way of thinking - a second - or even third - M2 factory could be the ticket ?
We just need to find something suitable - Pete ? A Navy transport ?

I have never put that much effort into A6M3 production (in WITP). Only enough to provide 4 (total) "interceptor" datais in Timor and the Solomons. I keep the M2s as escorts and for the Carriers until the world comes to an end (or I get M5s, which ever comes first). Why the excitement about the A6M3a?



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625