In Pearl Harbor why do the IJN have the A6M5?

[daddog]

Japanese (IJN) forces consist of Zero Team and IJN Team.

Zero Team will be:

    * 50% A6M2 Zero (no bombs, droptanks OK).
    * 50% A6M5b Zero (no bombs, droptanks OK).

Was years before the A6M5 was out. Why did you put it in?

[EagleEyes]

VERY VERY Good question!  Might as well give the Americans either the F6F or the P-51D!


If my memorie serves me right, A6M5 didnt come out till late 43 early 44.

[Brooke]

The reason for A6M5b's is already covered in the writeup.  See Reasons for Various Aspects of Rules.

Also, the number of them are one of the things that might be adjusted based on the beta frame.

If you guys have any questions about the reason for some aspect of the rules that is not covered in Reasons for Various Aspects of Rules, let me know -- I'd like to add it.

[daddog]

Although the IJN didn't use A6M5b's at Pearl Harbor, some are in the mix to account for the fact that many of the US bombers are later-war variants. At Pearl Harbor, of the aircraft we are modelling, the US had B-17D's (we use B-17G's, which have better defensinve armament), A-20A's (we use Boston III's, which are very similar to A-20A's), P-40B's (which we have), P-40C's (we use P-40B's, which lack self-sealing fuel tanks and drop tanks), F4F-3's (we use F4F-4's with 4-gun configuraiton), SBD-1's (we use SBD-5's, which have self-sealing fuel tanks and larger tanks, but we disallow use of the 1000 lb bomb), SB2U-3's (we use SBD's), and B-18's and PBY bombers (we use SBD's and TBM's, which are better in some ways, worse in others).

Ok so I see your reasons that are stated in the rules. As far as the B-17’s I thought they were unarmed? Yes your not using formations, but should they be allowed to fire at all? Many other items you list above (P-40B for example) is a weaker version of B the American’s use. That is an IJN advantage. You use the F4F because we don’t have the F3F, but what is the difference? I gather that is an American advantage, but you don’t state what is it. You mention the SBD variant we use has self sealing tanks, but that is a minimal factor to toss in the A6M5. You mention the ordnance of the SBD which has nothing to do with a reason to use the A6M5 over the A5M2. Not that you intended it as a reason to sub out the A6M2. Finally you mention the SBD’s and TBM’s pointing out that in some ways they are better AC then what was at PH and not in others.

Over all I really don’t see an impelling reason to give the IJN 50% A6M5’s and 50% A6M2’s.

Personally I would drop an AC or two from the Allied side before I would give the IJN the A6M5 to counter act some “uber” element the American’s have due to the variants you choose in the setup. A6M5 does not belong in Pearl Harbor IMHO.

[Nefarious]

Originally posted by daddog
A6M5 does not belong in Pearl Harbor IMHO.

Agreed.

[Easyscor]

The A6m5 came out in March, 1944 and doesn't belong in Pearl.

[daddog]

Phew. I was afraid I was going to be alone there for a bit.

[SkyGnome]

I've spent a bit scratching my head over this too.  Once I threw out any sense of historicality, the overall matchup is kind of hard to call.  The A6M5 should be absolutely invincible vs. fighters - but on the other hand, the allied attack aircraft are mightilly (and inapropriately) well armed and armored compared to the the Japanese planes.

I have no doubt that it is going to be a freakshow.  However, as long as enough people come to have fun, it just might be.  (Though with only 1/3 of the seats being fighters, just getting enough people might be a trick.)

[ROC]

This was a tough one to get our hands around.  The plane matchups just don't work well "historically" and there is still a discussion on the final plane compliment with all the COs and Design team.

There will be a very solid need for a well attended beta test to confirm some conditions regarding the matchups.  There has been some tests performed, but seeing them square off against each other in a large group will really expand on the differences.

I know that everyone is looking at this from both a historical point of view and the reality of the existing plane models and how they actually perform, and we all greatly appreciate the comments and feedback.

I think Brooke has shown a good comparison between the planes, and if we were to strip off all the Icons and look at the Plane Performance exclusively, then they match up pretty well.  I also have a thought in the back of my mind that the A6M5 might be too much, but have thought fewer of them, not removing them completely.

Again, it's one of just a few loose ends that are being tightened.  

Prior to a Beta Frame, anyone up for a large fight in the SEA this Sunday Evening to pit some of these planes against each other to see how they fare?

I can toss up a map, and if we can pull 50 or so people in we could Really run these things out and see how they work.  Wouldn't do much good with a handfull of people, we have that data already.

[Brooke]

OK, here are the full details of why I suggest a6m5's in the mix.

The US has these non-historical advantages based on what planes are available (as per http://www.ww2pacific.com/aaf41.html):

No Brewster Buffalos, only F4F-4's.
No Curtiss P-36 Mohawks, only P-40B's.
No Boeing P-26 Peashooters, only P-40B's.
No B-18 Bolo's (SBD-5's and TBM-3's instead, both faster, more maneuverable, harder to hit, better offensively, and likely sturdier)
No PBY's Catalinas (same as for B-18, only moreso)
No B-17D's (only B-17G, which has tail gun, more defensive armament, more armor, better self-sealing fuel tanks)
No SBD-1's (only SBD-3's, which have more armor and better self-sealing fuel tanks)
No TBD's Devestators (only TBM-3's, which are faster, more armor, better self-sealing fuel tanks)

So, the US has a lot of aircraft that are better than historical.  Specifically, they are faster and sturdier than their historical counterparts.  It seems to me, rather than screwing with numbers (which isn't any more historical than some other adjustment) the best way to adjust is it to give the IJN in some of its planes a little boost in speed and amount of ammo.  The a6m5 isn't much better than the a6m2 -- it is a little faster and it has more ammo -- just the thing needed.

Now, if you think the IJN will cream the US even if it has all a6m2's, then I'm all for just a6m2's.  However, I think the IJN will have its hands full and that the fight is not going to be so lopsided.

[Brooke]

By the way, the reason there are B-17's there is that there were 12 B-17D's at Pearl.  I am not counting the other 12 that were flying into Pearl during the attack and which were not armed.

[Brooke]

Originally posted by SkyGnome
Once I threw out any sense of historicality . . .

Well, I've spent about 100 hours researching, finding references, posting them in the rules, working to make it as historical as playability and constraints of the game seem to allow.

Granted, this is work I've done based on my knowledge and judgement, so I can't and don't claim it's perfect.  Still, I'm hoping it at least is not lacking "any sense of historicality".

a6m5's for me is the change to make that is *least* disruptive to historical elements and being most directly fair considering the US aircraft mix.  That's why I recommend it.

[mussie]

Ya gotta work with what you have got....

Brooke

[pez]

A rumble in the sea this sunday sounds like fun. just make it after 3 pm mountain and i'll be there.

pez

[culero]

Originally posted by Brooke
snip
Now, if you think the IJN will cream the US even if it has all a6m2's, then I'm all for just a6m2's.  However, I think the IJN will have its hands full and that the fight is not going to be so lopsided.

Brooke, past iterations of this event at Air Warrior used A6M2 only for Team Zeke. In each instance, Team Jordi won both the US and IJN phase of that year's event. The planeset considerations you mention were relatively the same there. I suggest this indicates that balance exists with the A6M2-only setup, if the ROE in this design are similar.

culero