Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Tojo IIc v Frank

 
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 >> Tojo IIc v Frank Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 3:42:28 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		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?
Post #: 1
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 4:07:17 PM   
FatR

 

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

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 2
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 4:10:03 PM   
CarnageINC


Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 3
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 4:15:35 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to CarnageINC)
Post #: 4
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 5:26:52 PM   
Athius

 

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

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 5
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 5:45:20 PM   
Q-Ball


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

_____________________________


(in reply to Athius)
Post #: 6
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 5:50:41 PM   
Miller


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

(in reply to Athius)
Post #: 7
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 9:25:29 PM   
crsutton


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

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 8
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 9:35:32 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 9
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 10:08:35 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline 		Forget the B17, the B24 is the indestructable monster

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 10
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 10:57:35 PM   
FatR

 

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

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 11
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/6/2010 11:03:13 PM   
FatR

 

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

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 12
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/7/2010 12:37:11 AM   
CarnageINC


Posts: 2208
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 13
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 5/7/2010 1:31:49 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 14
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/2/2011 2:39:07 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		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!

_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 15
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/2/2011 2:56:58 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		I´d 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 I´d 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).

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 6/2/2011 2:58:20 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 16
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/2/2011 3:06:35 PM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3611
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		CarnageINC,is that Robert Shaw in your signature?

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 17
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/2/2011 3:07:04 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 18
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/2/2011 5:20:50 PM   
Chickenboy


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

_____________________________


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 19
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/2/2011 7:36:15 PM   
crsutton


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

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 20
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/2/2011 7:58:53 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		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.





_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 21
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/2/2011 8:01:56 PM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________


(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 22
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/2/2011 9:00:45 PM   
PresterJohn001


Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 23
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/2/2011 9:30:08 PM   
Miller


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

(in reply to PresterJohn001)
Post #: 24
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/2/2011 9:36:13 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		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!

< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 6/2/2011 9:39:28 PM >

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to PresterJohn001)
Post #: 25
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/3/2011 1:46:43 AM   
Zeta16


Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline 		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).

_____________________________

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." -Ronald Reagan

(in reply to CapAndGown)
Post #: 26
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/3/2011 8:16:18 AM   
Rainer79

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Zeta16)
Post #: 27
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/3/2011 10:45:16 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 28
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/3/2011 3:50:39 PM   
crsutton


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

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 29
RE: Tojo IIc v Frank - 6/5/2011 3:59:10 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tojo IIc v Frank Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

2.281