IJN/IJA, the early war planeset and play balance

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Squire
* B5N Kate has no forward gun. What would they do with a 7.7mm if they had one, dogfight F4Fs?

*TBM-3 has an extra pair of .50s as forward armament. I can see how that would be very unbalancing. Ur kidding right? They are useless except for a morale booster to the crew.

*The SBD-5 was the most numerous variant built. The earlier version at Midway (SBD-3) did 250mph and could carry 1200lbs of bombs as well. There was not a huge difference.

*Ki-61 was the best IJAAF fighter before Ki-84 by virtue of its better turn rate, armament (20mm cannon), and comparable speed to the Ki-44. The Ki-44 was not superior as an overall fighter to Ki-61. It climbed better, and in every other category was inferior. Btw, IJAAF pilots didnt much like it either.

I see every reason for the B5N to be included. It was the IJN Carrier Arms PRIMARY weapon for the first 2 years of the Pacific war, and was the biggest thorn in the side of the USN in all the major Carrier actions during that time.

Later.

The TBM-3 is vasty, vastly more durable and faster than the TBD-1.  To claim they are equal is to make a bald faced lie.

The SBD-2 and SBD-3 at Midway could make 240mph, a full 40mph less than the 1943 SBD-5.  The difference to the intercepting A6Ms is more than 100%.  A 30mph as opposed to 70mph advantage.  I'll have to rmember that a 40mph speed change doesn't matter.  That means that a Spitfire Mk V is as good as a Spitfire Mk IX, and a Spitfire Mk IX as good as a Spitfire Mk XIV.  After all, 40mph doesn't matter.

Most Ki.61s had two 12.7mm machine guns and topped out at 348mph.  We have one that is from 2nd quarter, 1944 and is thus completely inappropriate for early war setups.  The Ki.44-Ib could do 360mph and was armed with four 12.7mm guns.

I have no problem with the B5N1 being added, so long as the US forces have to use the TBD-1 Devastator.  The problem lies in the fact that they do not.  The Japanese keep getting saddled with the outdated stuff and the US is getting stuff that is inapropriately modern for the scenarios.


If you Allied types don't want any opposition, that's fine.  You're coming dangerously close to achieving your goal.

[Squire]

Im not comparing the TBM to the TBD. Im comparing the TBF-1 Avenger of 1942 to the TBM-3, with the extra .50s.

The SBD-5 did @255 mph (as does the AH version).

The SBD-3 did @250 mph. Even if it did @240, Ill give you that (my sorces say 250), hardly a big difference?

The Ki-61 did @370mph (368 is the quote I have for the Ki-61-1 series) as it does in AH. The Ki-44 was no faster and its armament was either poorer or no better, depending on the version. In any case, I find no source that claims the Ki-44 was the better fighter, or faster.

Ki-61 does very well against P-40s, F4Fs, and F6Fs too. The IJ could have got the Ki-61 version with the 4 x 12.7s too, but they got the better one. I remember how the 27th Sentai in Warbirds complained bitterly about the lack of 20mm cannon in that sims version of it.

[Karnak]

Hmmm.  I remembered the SBD-5 as doing 280mph.  I just checked my book and it says 252mph.  The AH table gives it 260mph.

That is still faster, but only 20mph.  Still significant and wrong, but not as bad.

The TBF was only just reaching units in 1942.  The US equivilent to the B5N is the TBD-1.

Ki.61-Is topped out at 348mph.  Ki.61-I-KAIs topped out at 368mph.  Ki.61-IIs topped out at 379mph.

The Ki.61-I-KAI entered service in 1944.

The Ki.61-I was armed with two 12.7mm guns and two 7.7mm guns.

The Ki.61-Ia was armed with two MG151/20s and two 7.7mm guns.

The Ki.61-I-KAIc was armed with two Ho-5s and two 12.7mm guns.

[Squire]

Specification of Kawasaki Ki-61-I-KAIc Army Type 3 Fighter Model 1c:

One Army Type 2 twelve-cylinder liquid cooled engine (Kawasaki Ha-40) rated at 1180 hp for takeoff and 1100 hp at 11,480 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 366 mph at 13,980 feet. An altitude of 16,400 feet could be reached in 7 minutes. Service ceiling 32,810 feet. Maximum range 1120 miles.

Dimensions: Wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches, length 29 feet 4 inches, height 12 feet 1 11/16 inches, wing area 215.3 square feet. Weights: 5798 pounds empty, 7650 pounds loaded.

Armament: Two fuselage-mounted 20 mm Ho-5 cannon and two wing-mounted 12.7 mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns.

Another source, #s are close. 366 mph quoted here. I have a feeling the Ki-44 is within 10mph of the Ki-61 for most versions. I still maintain it was not a superior fighter overall. I would have to see a breakdown of the Ki-44 versions speed #s and corresponding armament, and compare it to the Ki-61 versions.

[Karnak]

Squire,

The problem is that the Ki.61-I-KAIc is a March, 1944 fighter.

The Ki.44-Ib, which entered production in May, 1942 has these numbers:

Speed: 360mph
Climb: ???
Armament: four 12.7mm Type I machine guns

The Ki.44-IIb, which entered production in December, 1943, has these numbers:

Speed: 376mph
Climb: 3,940ft per minute
Armament: four 12.7mm Type I machine guns

The Ki.84-Ia is also concurent with the Ki.61-I-KAIc.

The Ki.84-Ia's numbers are:

Speed: 392mph or ~400mph depending on the engine (the faster one was the most produced)
Climb: 3,600ft per minute
Armament: two 20mm Ho-5 cannon with 150 rounds per gun and two 12.7mm Type 103 with 350 rounds each

I would prefer the Ki.84 for late war and the Ki.44 for mid war.

[oboe]

Well I would like BOTH the Ki.44 and the Ki.84!   And the A6M3 and J2M3 Raiden to boot!

And as far as the armament on different models of the Ki.61, why can't we have all of them?   How many different models of the Spitfire and Me109 do we have?  And does the armament vary between these models?   You bet it does.    And with the many other planes (P-51, P-47, Spit, Me109, Fw190) you can even change the armament in the hangar.    Why would the Ki.61 not be given the same consideration?

You can't argue with the fact that the Japanese are being given apparently the earliest possible model of attack planes while the U.S. forces are being given much later-war models.    WTH?    What conclusions are we supposed to draw from that?

I know you Allied flyers don't pick which models are introduced, and I'm sure you're happy with what you get.   But believe me, it would be in your best long term interest to also encourage HTC to give the Japanese flyers better equipment and choices in the game, because frankly its pretty discouraging.   You guys could end up with no dedicated opposition in the PTO.

Good grief, the LW is so far developed they're down to getting the Me163 rocket plane, and the IJAAF is STILL without its best fighter of the war.

[Löwe]

Originally posted by ergRTC
I think the problem here is a little deeper than just what the planes were at the time of a midway scenario.
After 1943 the ijn and ija were spanked, they had crap fer planes, and crap fer ground crews.  It didnt matter if a ki 84 rolled down the line cause it couldnt be kept in running condition in the field.  
Planes like the kate, or the ki 43 are important becuase those are the planes that the ijn and ija kicked our tulips with.  Planes like the ki 84 dont matter cause they couldnt keep em running, and we had a huge numerical and strategic advantage at that point in the war.
Should we start 'reliving' late war battles?  Lets say every other japanese plane suddenly has 1900 pounds of explosives added to it, or the engine only make 2500 rpm.  
.

Erg these are good points you make. However we all tend to forget one thing. This is a game, people do it for enjoyment.The guys flying on the IJ side deserve the best possible planes the IJ has. Just like the guys on the Allied side. The historical arguements you bring up are true, but then again you don't fly with a case of malaria, or jungle rot. Your never sea sick on the CV, and when we die we all get new airplanes, and new lives.
So.............. I think giving the Japanese pilots the best possible planes the Japanese had is the right thing to do for a GAME.

[ergRTC]

Your right lowe, and the rest of you too.  I guess my view is for scenarios and the CT only.  Where  I see any late war match up as a 'what if' not a real setup cause the numbers and such are all screwed up  (an army of nik2s and ki84s and ki67s).  Early war means we can field every plane from that era and not make the scenario 'weird'.  I guess we do need some earlier allied metal.   We would still    kick   your   scrawny  little        ijn     arses!

[Löwe]

Originally posted by ergRTC
We would still    kick   your   scrawny  little        ijn     arses!

I'll have you know I am very well fed!:p

I'm not saying your wrong, your not. Then again since this is a game, and the line between realistic, and playable will always be up for debate. Besides soon as the IJ get some new toys and more people fly them, Jester and I will get a chance to fly F6's again!:D

[Squire]

Im still not convinced that a Ki-44 was a better fighter than a Ki-61 I think we would need the Ki-44 modelled in AH to really make a good comparison.

I will also point out that the Ki-61 series was fighting in the SW Pacific onwards while the Ki-44 was in China/Burma/India and the Ki-84 was still being tinkered with untill 1944, along with the N1K series.

It fought alongside the A6M in the toughest campaigns, and in many parts of the Pacifc war, was the best they had available. The "other" fighter usually being the Ki-43.

Later

[ergRTC]

i have heard so many stories about the incredible acrobatics of the ki-43, I just want them to model it so I can try it!

[cajun]

Originally posted by Karnak


Balderdash.

There is no way in hell that you can excuse giving the Japanese 1937 and 1938 models of the aircraft while giving the USN 1943 versions of theirs.  You grossly oversimplfy what is happening here.

Whay give the Japanese the less produced 1937 D3A1 rather than giving them the greater produced 1942 D3A2?

At the same time the USN gets a 1943 version of the SBD which is 40mph faster than the 1942 SBDs that fought the Battle of Midway.

And you gloss over that with the inane statement that they were in service at the same time?  Well so were the SBD-5 and the D4Y, or the SBD-2 and D3A2.  The particular combination selected maximizes the US's advantage.

We get the 1938 version of the B5N, not the armed 1939 version (this may change, but the model shown lacks forward guns).

Balanced against this the USN gets the TBM-3 which was just entering service in mid-1942 and served for the rest of the war.  

Contrary to you're statement we do not have the TBF, if we did it would be uncharacteristicly balanced.

To balance against the TBM-3 the Japanese should have gotten the B6N2.  That is also a Japanese torpedo bomber that would have eliminated the need to sub in the TBM, but it might acyually have stood a snowballs chance in hell of reaching the target.

And no, the Ki.61 was not the best IJA fighter before the Ki.84.  That would have been the Ki.44.

Karnak, first of all stop saying the B5n1 was not armed because it was, it had a rear firing 7.9 mm machine gun! Though that may not seem like much you would be surprised at what the rear firing gun in the val can do.

And the reason I think they didnt add the B6n2 is because the b5n1-2 is much better for CT setups and Scenarios (since it was used from first of the war untill nearly the end) which was prolly why they added it in the first place, not to fly in the MA.

And even though we are getting earlier war aircraft then the US, I find it very easy to shoot down a good number of fm2's and sbd's in a6m2 or val be4 diying/landing.

[CurtissP-6EHawk]

Speaking of the KI-43...were is it? Sure the guns suck but so do the 202's. My point being that is gives a good fight with the P-40E much like the 202 does :-)!!!!! BAck to the 202, wish we could get the two 20mm pods!!!!

November 1943; Ki-43-IIb, Twin wing mounted 12.7mm armament, clipped wings which made the Hayabusa's manoeuvrability EQUAL to that of ANY OPPOSING ALLIED FIGHTER. only in firepower was the Ki-43 still deficient, however, the Navy's Zero fighter was tested against the Ki-43 and was the better "all-around" performer eventhough on paper, the Ki-43 was superior to the Zero. You must "fill-in" the blanks with type A/C that were available at the above givin dates of testing!!!!! Total all types built 5,751.

[CurtissP-6EHawk]

oh yeah, someone may have already said this but......
The B5N2 started service in 1940 and had TWO foward fixed mounted 7.7s and one OR two rear 7.7mm guns on a moveable mount....according to my book! 103 bomb-carrying B5N1s were accompanied by 40 B5N2 torpedo aircraft from the Sorvu and other carriers during the attack on Pear Harbor.

The B5N2 were largely or totaly responsable for the sinking of the Yorktown, Lexington, Wasp, and Hornet! during the battle of Midway.

Totaly agreeing with many of you, we need other aircraft for better game play but the Kate is a must for historic missions in the CT or other arenas.

[brady]

The Oscar's two 12.7mm guns are Ho-103's the same guns on the Tony, and they are a far better 12.7mm gun than the Breda, much higher rof and letheality, so in effect they would be easer to kill with than the 202.

 The KATE had NO forward firing guns, non of the models did, the books that list this are incorect, even Mitsu has stated so.

 Yes the Early war Japanese CV planes did a fair share of damage, I beleave the Val alone was responsable for singing more allied ships than any other plane type, fielded by any country aganst the Allies. The Kate certainly has a place as well, but that was never realy the issue, the issue was at what price was she deleaved to us at.