Tojo IIc v Frank (Full Version)

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



Message

CapAndGown -> Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 3:42:28 PM)

From looking at all the stats on these two fighters, it is clear that the Frank is a better fighter, except for one thing: the Frank has a service rating of 3 while the Tojo has a service rating of 1. I am wondering if this one difference might be enough to make the Tojo more desirable.

First lets compare:
Speed: Tojo 376, Frank 392 - Frank + 16
Climb: Tojo 3830, Frank 2730 - Tojo + 1100
Max Altitude: Tojo 36740, Frank 34440 - Tojo + 2300
Armament: Tojo 4x12.7mm, Frank 2x20mm, 2x12.7
Armor: Tojo Yes, Frank Yes
Durability: Tojo 28, Frank 30 - Frank + 2
Range: Frank +1 normal, +2 extended; w/drop tank +2 normal, +2 extended
Maneuver: Tojo 24, Frank 26 - Frank +2
Availability: Tojo 44/3, Frank 44/4

The Frank is slightly faster, slightly more maneuverable, slightly more durable, has greater range, and has better armament.

The Tojo climbs much faster.

Assuming that by 1944 one of the main duties of Japanese fighters will be to defend their bases against allied bombers, the cannons of the Frank look attractive, but so does the climb rate of the Tojo. Plus, 4x12.7mm mgs is not bad, if not as good as having cannons.

So although the Frank is better overall, it is not much better and yet will be harder to keep in service.

Anybody gotten to this point in the war to see how Franks' poor serviceability effects their desirability?



FatR -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 4:07:17 PM)

In my current Japanese PBEM I decided to gamble on Frank for the late war. Tojo is just too undergunned to deal with Allied bombers. Lower service rating means little if the airfield is wrecked on the first day of the battle. Tojo also lacks range. Better fighters save pilot lives and airframes are much easier to produce than pilots. If service rating 3 proves absolutely cripping, I'll use both types in parallel.



CarnageINC -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 4:10:03 PM)

I haven't gotten to this stage but I have a question on maneuverability, is this that important when facing bombers and same goes to the range, assuming that your protecting your base.  IMO, more airframes and climb rate seem to matter more than the armament to me, given the success of the Zero and their cannons has against the 4e in early war.



CapAndGown -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 4:15:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

I haven't gotten to this stage but I have a question on maneuverability, is this that important when facing bombers and same goes to the range, assuming that your protecting your base.  IMO, more airframes and climb rate seem to matter more than the armament to me, given the success of the Zero and their cannons has against the 4e in early war.


I am not sure I understand your comment on Zeros. They seem to do OK against B-17s for me. I attribute that to their 2x20mm cannons.



Athius -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 5:26:52 PM)

Right now Iam going for a tandem ki-84/ki-44 deployment. The ki-84 as the faster heavy fighter (focke wulf?) and the Tojo as the lighter armed but more reliable alternative



Q-Ball -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 5:45:20 PM)

Not sure on those, but playing Allies I find myself relying on the P-40K more than the P-38 for that exact reason: Service rating. The P-38 is fine for brief missions, but for day to day CAP coverage, the P-40K is better, only because it flies.

I would produce both

For the same reason, forget the Tony if you haven't already



Miller -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 5:50:41 PM)

Tojo all the way, simply due to the service rating of 1. More Franks will die on the ground than in a2a combat.

What you have to understand as the IJN player is that 4E bombers are nearly invincible, regardless of what fighter is attacking it. I put a lot of faith in the Frank but was sadly dissapointed by the results in my game, the 20mm cannon does not seem to make any noticeable difference.

The Tojo IIc is a decent all round fighter, its only downside being its rather limited range (6/8 hexes with droptanks).



crsutton -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 9:25:29 PM)

I will have to say that with a service rating of 3 I find my p38s all but useless. They are good enough fighters (not great) but one mission with a lot of fighting and it is five days or so before the squadron can fly again.

Plus, you just don't get many p 38s to begin with. It is a tough call for the Japanese player (as well it should be) Tojo is the domiant mid war fighter-more than capable vs the P 40. So much so that he ability of the Japanese players to produce so many really hinders the Allies, but by the time the Allies get the faster P47 and corsairs, the tojo's bloom starts to fade. But to rely on Franks and George's will be a problems as they just can't operate from front line airfields due to the service rating.

High service ratings hurt the defender more so than the attacker. Early in the game, even the average service rating of 2 hurts the Allies as Japan not only has more fighters but can put them back in service faster. Once the Allies get an overwhelming number of aircraft, the high service ratings are not such a liability.



CapAndGown -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 9:35:32 PM)

Thanks for the responses. I was thinking the Frank would be my wonder weapon. But now I see that is not going to be the case. I guess it is time to redirect some of my R&D to the Tojo.

BTW, Tojo's can bring down B-17s. In a raid just the other day Tojo's shot down 4 B-17E's. And that is the IIa model that only has 2x12.7mm mgs. I figure the IIc model, with 4x12.7mm mgs and armor, has to be better.



Miller -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 10:08:35 PM)

Forget the B17, the B24 is the indestructable monster[:(]



FatR -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 10:57:35 PM)

Early Lightnings have service rating 4, though. 4 is cripping, and 2 is practically unnoticeable, so I don't know how bad is 3.

The big problem with Tojo I see right now, is Hurricane IIc already kicking its ass in the summer of 1942. Not a good sign of things to come. And later models of Tojo don't improve its flight characteristics.



FatR -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/6/2010 11:03:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Forget the B17, the B24 is the indestructable monster[:(]

Just the last turn I lost six of them to Tojos (IIa). Was very disappointed and almost shocked after my experience with B-17. Poor coordination played a role, and a squadron of Liberators went into the hornet's nest alone, but still. It seems, that having large (20+) numbers of 4Es in one raid is important for their survival.



CarnageINC -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/7/2010 12:37:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown


quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

I haven't gotten to this stage but I have a question on maneuverability, is this that important when facing bombers and same goes to the range, assuming that your protecting your base.  IMO, more airframes and climb rate seem to matter more than the armament to me, given the success of the Zero and their cannons has against the 4e in early war.


I am not sure I understand your comment on Zeros. They seem to do OK against B-17s for me. I attribute that to their 2x20mm cannons.




I have not had much luck bringing down 4e's with Zeros, I get better luck with the Ki-43 Ic Oscar. Plus you can train more IJA pilots than IJN pilots so losses don't hurt as bad.



CapAndGown -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (5/7/2010 1:31:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Early Lightnings have service rating 4, though. 4 is cripping, and 2 is practically unnoticeable, so I don't know how bad is 3.

The big problem with Tojo I see right now, is Hurricane IIc already kicking its ass in the summer of 1942. Not a good sign of things to come. And later models of Tojo don't improve its flight characteristics.


I have found the Tojo to be competent against the Hurricane. The thing about the Hurricane is that it has 4x20mm cannons and is armored. That will definitely make a difference. It seems like most allied fighters have better armament than Japanese fighters and they are generally armored. This makes a big difference between being damaged and being dead.



SuluSea -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/2/2011 2:39:07 PM)

How do you guys feel about the Frank models?    I'm trying to plan out my R&D on army fighters and they do look like very nice aircraft to combat Allied aircraft but I'm wondering how difficult they will be to keep flying with the 3 service rating. Anyone have any experience they'd like to share, thanks!



LoBaron -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/2/2011 2:56:58 PM)

IŽd say they got a slightly different mission profile.

Tojo is the classic CAP/short range interceptor with superior climb and good service rating.
The ideal fighter to deploy forward or act as airbase defender, cruise speed makes it an option for escort missions too.

The Frank has the better range and stronger armament so is ideal for sweep/LRCAP missions if it wasnt for
the service rating. 3 is high enough to have 1/3rd of your fighters sitting on the ground, so forward deployment
is risky and direct base defense only advisable in case you are able to make sure the enemy does not get through.
The cruise speed of 277 is a tad high for bomber escort.

If you have to decide IŽd go for the Tojo, but only if you have alternative airframes to do the job the Tojo can not
(e.g. shooting down heavily armoured stuff).



ilovestrategy -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/2/2011 3:06:35 PM)

CarnageINC,is that Robert Shaw in your signature?



Puhis -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/2/2011 3:07:04 PM)

Service rating 3 fighters are only for airfields with railroads, so that player can transport squadrons away from front line when number of operational aircraft is getting low.



Chickenboy -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/2/2011 5:20:50 PM)

I'm following this discussion with interest. Thanks to the usual crowd for helping out JFB players that have yet to get to that stage in the game.

Puhis made a great comment. I think it was CNG that first advised a 'rotational schedule' for high service (3) rated fighters in the game. Have a group ready for action, one in action and one refitting / repairing. Ensure that the bases where these fighters are used are interconnected by rail for ease of strat movement of damaged / repairing airframes.

I'll probably produce them both. One for areas with rail transport or large interconnected bases for repair / replacement and one for the 'boonies'.

Does everyone's derision of the Tony extend to the Id model as well? The armament and speed seem pretty good-at least on paper.



crsutton -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/2/2011 7:36:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Service rating 3 fighters are only for airfields with railroads, so that player can transport squadrons away from front line when number of operational aircraft is getting low.




Yep this is key. As the Allies even if I lose the initial sweep-escort battle. I know that there will be plenty of franks, georges, jacks, tonys on the ground the next day for my bombers to hit.-unless the base is on a rail line. Then I don't bother. You need to base tojos at forward fields where they at least have a change to recover and leave the base. The tojo is not as good as any 2nd generation Allied fighter, but it is OK enough. Due to it's service rating, I think the Japanese player should still be producing it in numbers until the end of the war.

The other thing my opponent and I have noted is that cannon equipped fighters do not seem to do well vs the faster Allied fighters. I know that cannon are not as accruate in the editor but is there also a relationship between accuracy vs speed? That is, does the chance to hit go down as speed goes up. I know in RL this was the case but am not sure about in game.



SuluSea -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/2/2011 7:58:53 PM)

Thanks guys for taking time to answer. It only takes a couple times for an airbase to get pummeled with high maintenance planes to realize they belong on a railine. [;)]  The CNG tip is noted and appreaciated.



I grabbed a snapshot of the Tony 1d and Tojo that  arrive near the same time frame for comparison if anyone wants to comment on Chickenboys question as I'm interested in hearing thoughts as well.


[image]http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b11/Noopers/TTComp.jpg[/image]



Cuttlefish -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/2/2011 8:01:56 PM)

I've used both the Tojo IIc and the Frank late war against Allied bombers. It's a tough call. The Japanese player needs to keep planes in the air over several turns to defeat a determined attempt to close an airfield, so the Tojo is the better choice because of its service rating. But the Frank is one of the few Japanese fighters that can really shred a formation of B-24s. So I think that, ideally, using both types in tandem is the way to go.

A cunning Allied player won't send unescorted bombers against the Japanese late war, though. Instead he'll sweep for several turns ahead of the bombers with P-51s, P-47s, and so on. Only superior numbers will save Japan then, and that is very hard to achieve by late '44.




PresterJohn001 -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/2/2011 9:00:45 PM)

Hopefully will get to try out the Tony Id soon, like the look of the 2x CL 20mm cannons. My provisional plan if for Tony Id's and Franks when they arrive. If Tony's don't work out i'll try the Tojo IIc.

Tony's Base defense, Franks offensive and supporting bases.



Miller -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/2/2011 9:30:08 PM)

As I stated over a year ago in this thread, Tojo IIc all the way. The Frank is better but its service rating cripples it, especially in the CAP role vs 4E bombers. By all means build some Franks, but limit them to sweep and escort missions unless they are flying from a base with plenty of engineers and aviation support........



KenchiSulla -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/2/2011 9:36:13 PM)

It is pretty hard to stop a allied determinded offensive against airfields. A mix of Tojo's and Franks with a good pool of reserve pilots and a network of airfields and aviation support to redeploy should be enough to give the allies a bloody nose.

I have noticed that pilot quality is a huge factor too so I wouldnt worry about small differences in speed and stuff like that.. You do not have influence on it. You do have influence on preparing your pilots!



Zeta16 -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/3/2011 1:46:43 AM)

I would say the Frank, the Tojo are Ok but they get damaged by the bombers and sit on field as well. Ask Freeboy about my franks in the PI's. It's all about rotation and rest. Never let a groups moral fall below 99 and if it does get them out of combat. Ypu will see a big difference when the moral starts to fall, sent them out to train with some new pilots for a few weeks then send them back in. This has worked well for me(I am flying about 2/3 Franks and then Tony's and Tojo's in late 44). Also don't be scard about service rating get better aircraft and change out airgroup often and you will see results (do the same thing with the Jack and George, they are worth having as they are pretty good).



Rainer79 -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/3/2011 8:16:18 AM)

As long as you have sufficient AV support at a base I do prefer the Frank. If there is a shortage in that area (and there WILL be at some bases) that increased service rating will start to hurt. There the late war service rating 1 fighters will start to shine. So my advice would be to build both in sufficient numbers. I am also starting to like the Oscar IV with its twin 20 mm cannons BTW.

One additional detail is that the Tojo is the inferior Kamikaze plane due to a worse bomb load.



EUBanana -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/3/2011 10:45:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Early Lightnings have service rating 4, though. 4 is cripping, and 2 is practically unnoticeable, so I don't know how bad is 3.

The big problem with Tojo I see right now, is Hurricane IIc already kicking its ass in the summer of 1942. Not a good sign of things to come. And later models of Tojo don't improve its flight characteristics.



3 is pretty bad. 2 is pretty bad as well, really, but the Allies don't notice it simply because 2 is the standard for them.

You notice it when you get P47s though. You can be brazen about sending them to airfields exposed to Japanese bombers. You can be brazen about night bombing. If all you got is service rating 2-3 aircraft it's possibly to heavily reduce their combat strength just by constantly night bombing.

The P38 is OK regardless as its an offensive fighter, almost never used for CAP. The Corsair, however, is a different story. The first Corsair with service rating 3 really is not that effective. Usually what I want is a squadron of desperadoes able to be dropped into a small jsut captured airfield and provide CAP for convoys bringing up engineers and reinforcements and supply. You need one squadron that really punches above their weight, so when the Japs come and start bombing the tar out of your new airfield they are seen off. Corsairs simply can't do this. Was a major problem for me until the P47 showed up, one squadron of those will make the Japanese pause.



crsutton -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/3/2011 3:50:39 PM)

With the latest beta patch you can now (for a PP price) swap out some marine corsairs for hellcats-of which there are plenty of. The hellcat is an excellent forward fighter due to its service rating of 1. Also, you will get better corsairs in late 43 that have a 2 service rating.



Numdydar -> RE: Tojo IIc v Frank (6/5/2011 3:59:10 AM)

Here are some other threads that might help

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-japanese-army-fighter-22529.html

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?3475-Imperial-Japanese-Army-Fighter-Aircraft

Also according to Wikapedia, "the Ki-84 was considered to be the best Japanese fighter to see large scale operations during World War"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-84

Of course this is all dependent if the airframes are modelled according to the historical record which may have an impact on which plane is 'better' in the game [:)]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.203125