Here Comes the "Betty"!

[SmokinLoon]

A step in the right direction for sure!  It appears to be able to carry 2000lbs worth of ordnance (4/250kg; 1/800kg; or a torp); fly and climb at a decent speed, and pack a dang good defensive punch by having a 20mm cannon in the tail.

It will be nice not havig to rely only on the Ki67's for Japanese bombing missions.

[Perrine]

ki-67 mixing up with A6ms and N1ks for missions is just wrong .  thank god for the Mitsu-Bettys

[columbus]

See Rules #4, #6

[Scherf]

Now, all we need is an Ohka.

It ain't a-gonna happen.

[Krusty]

Well, according to wiki it could carry 1x 800kg bomb, 4x 250kg bombs, and I would assume it has a 100kg and 50kg option like the Ki-67 has.

It will climb better than most other bombers because it was very light. However, being a bit stubby and being an early war plane it was underpowered (part of the effort for super long range was to reduce weight, another was to put range over speed) and would make 260mph give or take top speed.

The question I would have is "what was a historically common bomb load?" -- because I don't know what these really carried very often. For example, 1000 lb bombs on P-51s were extremely rare, almost never happened. What would be "normal" for the Betty?


Interestingly enough, the Japanese never really sought to increase bomb loads like the Allies did. You can see a similar trend in the Ju88s and their predecessors. They seemed content with the payload, just wanted better performance. The Betty was only about 15mph faster than the Nell that it replaced, carried [roughly] the same bomb load [as any other Japanese bomber], had the same rear defensive guns (20mm dorsal instead of tail), actually had a hair's less range than the Nell, but overall it replaced the Nell. Surely it wasn't because the Betty was more survivable (they left the armor off of both!), so it really begs the question "Why?"

P.S. The above also suggests the Betty can easily stand in for the Nell (*cough*UntilWeGetTheNell*cough*)

[Saxman]

The question I would have is "what was a historically common bomb load?" -- because I don't know what these really carried very often. For example, 1000 lb bombs on P-51s were extremely rare, almost never happened. What would be "normal" for the Betty?

Not sure about bomb load, but G4Ms DID carry and use torpedoes, particularly during the Guadalcanal campaign, but also later in the war.

[Karnak]

While designing the G4M, Mitsubishi repeatedly told the customer that they could not make an effective warplane with the requirements listed on two engines and requested permission to go to four engines, but the customer, the IJN, denied them at each step.  Because of that Mitsubishi had to forgo all protection, even going so far as to make the wing skin part of the fuel tanks.

If Mitsubishi had been allowed to go to four engines it would have had the range, or more, armor and self sealing tanks and perhaps a heavier payload and defensive armament.  The G4M1 already had an engine producing 30% more power than the B-17's engine.

Chock the entire debacle that the G4M was up to the IJN.

[Krusty]

Very good point Karnak. Kind of like the Germans had Jets in early-mid 1944 but the doctrine/orders hamstrung their actual use and development. I guess that goes with all sides (US hamstringing the bombers by requiring them to be able to defend themselves, etc). I guess what I was pointing out was that the "orders" for the planes didn't change much, even if the need changed.

Saxman: The G3M Nell also carried torpedoes!

[Ack-Ack]

Chock the entire debacle that the G4M was up to the IJN.

Agreed.  A lot of the Japanese high command's decisions and requirements for planes and other things were based on the belief that they wouldn't be fighting a prolonged general war.  The Betty was a result of such mentality as were some other aircraft.

ack-ack

[Perrine]

hold up, before I get excited the cannons used in G4Ms are just crappy oerlikon-type Type-99 cannons, right?

[Krusty]

You probably don't fly the Bf109E much, right?

Don't knock it til you've killed 100 planes or so in it. It's a good gun.

Regardless, I don't know if that's the model on the Betty or not. I would imagine so, given the timeline.

[BrownBaron]

hold up, before I get excited the cannons used in G4Ms are just crappy oerlikon-type Type-99 cannons, right?

Yup, type 99's. Some varriants had 2x20's in the dorsal, and other used all 20mm defensive guns(excluding the nose, although I don't find myself using that position too often in my sorties).

[JOACH1M]

Now, all we need is an Ohka.

It ain't a-gonna happen.

You won't ever see a "kamakazie" like plane due to the respect of those men who used them

[Scherf]

Quite so.

[Saxman]

You won't ever see a "kamakazie" like plane due to the respect of those men who used them

That and it will be of absolutely no benefit to gameplay whatsoever. In fact, it would just be DETRIMENTAL because every dweeb that currently bails out of their Lancstukas will just ram them into the target instead.