Author Topic: More Japanese Planes!  (Read 901 times)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
More Japanese Planes!
« on: April 14, 2003, 12:11:30 AM »
We must have them! There must be more early and late stuff - both. Mid too.

CT: Free the F4U! :D

Whatever Key or Naj suggests, I'll back! :)

And until then .... sub in the La-5!

Offline palef

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2003, 02:34:59 AM »
Ki 43
Ki 84
Ki 100
D4Y
Retired

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2003, 03:25:08 AM »
Much debate has been going on lately with regard to PAC plane set's and Just what Japanese planes should be added. I beleave with Just two new planes( perhaps 3) and Two Varents, we could do much for the Japanese side and still be able to squease in anothe US ride,not that I think we nead another New US ride but their are many who want this so It may be ineavatble. Personaly I would rather see some a few Early War US Varients than say a P39 but one never know what's coming. So hear is the solution imo to the Japanese issue, trying to keep it as simple as possable and theirfore doable:

We realy Nead an A6M3 for our Solomns era setings in the CT, the added firpower of the Type 99MK II cannon with 100 rpg will realy help balance things out's air to air(as much as we could hope for), also it's improved High spead handeling traits will help the Japanese players manuaver at spead a bit better.

The Oscars would be nice to"flesh out" the plane set but their extreamly light aramement of only two 12.7mm Ho-103 mg's will make them Hanger Quees I think.

From a players prespective, looking at the plane list in the Virtual hanger the following would be most helpfull for a 42/43 slot/New Gunine Japanese plane set.

Ki 45, While I would personaly prefer to see the Ki 102, the Ki 45 would add much in the way of firpower to the Japanese plane set's for the CBI and SWPA in late 42 and 43.

Ki-61-1b,The Tony saw service entry along the North coast of New Gunnie in early 43, a good model to be included would be the one with the 20mm MG 151's cannons, as apposed to the 4 12.7mm MG's This early model of the Tony would make for a Very Nice Early War Japanese Army Fighter, much more servicable for the average player than the Oscar. With this adation we could get away from using the later model Tony we curently have and thusly avoid having to place out of place US machines in our Early war Slot set up's in the CT.

H8K, This would add so much I cant even begine to cover it's coolness.

I mentioned the A6M3 above.

D4Y2, small detchaments of the D4Y2 begaine to be placed on Japanese Cariers in the Autom of 42. This would Give the Japanese side a very Usefull Tool, the fastest Carier born Dive Bomber Of WW2 and a truly Fantastic airplane, it would add much to their arsenal.

Realy If we got the A6M3, the D4Y2, the early Tony and a Ki 45, all would well and good for the early Pac Plane set balance wise, while I like the Oscar it would not help anything in terms of plane set balance and would be little used, those 4 planes would all see much use.

For the Later War Perioud:

I would Skip the Jake, It was in all respect's inferiour to the George, and the Japanese Navy basicaly canceled it in Favore of the George, they are also prety much in the same time frame.

Obviously a Ki 84 is a must.

If we get a later model D4Y2, that could bridge the gap between late war and early war this would be great, since this plane is primarly a Ground/ship atack weapon using a later model would not be a big issue and it would kill two birds with one stone.

A Grace would be imo the Best all around late war Japanese Strike platform to hope for, great speead, Handeling aramamnt and a usefull bombload make this plane the only logical choice.

A Ki 102 would be nice as well.

Realist whishfull thinking would reduce this list to the Ki 84, and the Grace, for late war.

Over all best Choice for :

1 Japanese plane added: Ki 84 (politics it is wanted bad)

2 Japanese Planes added: Ki 84, A6M3

3 Japanese Planes added: Ki 84,A6M3,D4Y2

4 Japanese Planes added:ki 84, A6M3,D4Y2,Ki 61-1b

I cant even begin to hope for more than that in the next Vershion.

 The above From My post Punted on this Forum.

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2003, 04:17:11 AM »
Brady, perhaps you don't realize it, but an earlier model of Tony would likely perform slightly better than the model we have in AH.   That said, there is no signifigant difference between the one we have and the earlier Mauser-equipped variant, hence having a new model of Tony would add nothing to AH.  In fact it can be argued that the Tony, as modeled in AH, actually has more in common with the earlier Tonys than with the one it's supposed to represent.

I hope, when HTC eventually adds a 1942-era bomber to the Japanese planeset, they pick the Ki-49 "Helen" over the ever-flammable G4M.   Both the Helen AND the Betty carried bombloads greater than that carried by the Ki-67.  

(As an ironic side note, the Japanese Army actually didn't like the Helen, mainly because of performance penalties imposed by the substantial armor the plane was fitted with--the same armor which in practice made the plane somewhat survivable compared to the unprotected likes of the Betty or Ki-48.)


I'd consider the Ki-84 and A6M3 sure things for eventual addition.


As much as Brady hates US planes, I would hope that he'd agree with me when I suggest that an earlier P-38, such as the P-38G, is also absolutely vital for Pacific matches, far more so than some insignifigant "barely-made-it" plane like the Grace.

Strangely, I have yet to see a request for the Ki-51, which was Japan's major close support aircraft of WW2.  This is probably due to the fact that it was a piece of crap  :)

J_A_B

Offline oboe

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9805
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2003, 08:10:41 AM »
These would be all great additions, and personally I'd also like to see the J2M3 Raiden added.   But in all honesty when do you think the first new Japanese plane will be added?   Next October?   December?     2004?   You guys are very patient!

Offline frank3

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9352
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2003, 10:24:12 AM »
Some amfibian planes would be nice too, don't care what side we just need em!

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2003, 11:53:38 AM »
The H8K "Emily" flying boat, capable of carrying 8 x 250 KG bombs, would be the best possible Japanese "bomber", partcularly for MA use.  I didn't mention if above since AH doesn't seem to support flying boats just as of yet.


I think if we get any new Japanese planes by October, we're doing good  :)

J_A_B

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2003, 01:06:15 PM »
J_A_B,

H8K2 can actualy carry a heavier load than that, two 1,500kg bombs.


My prefence would be as follows:

A6M3a (brady, A6M3 had Type 99 Model I cannons, it was the A6M3a that introduced the Type 99 Model IIs)
G4M2 (I have to disagree with J_A_B on this, Betty would be more survivable than Helen.  The 20mm in the tail as opposed to a single 7.7mm machine gun more than off sets a slight loss of durbility)
Ki.84-I-Ko
B6N2


I'd like the H8K2, but just as I can't see the justification for giving the Germans a heavy bomber I can't see the justification for giving the Japanese a heavy bomber.  The Axis simply never really used heavy bombers.  That, and the huge amount of work it takes HTC to do a big four engined, multi-station aircraft.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2003, 01:34:07 PM »
Karnak--

Ki-49 had a 20mm in the dorsal position, and most later models had 12.7's in the other defensive mounts (AKAIK all but the earliest 150 or so had a 12.7 in the tail).  It would be a far more survivable plane in AH than the unarmored Betty.    I can understand not knowing this though since the Helen isn't exactly a widely-known aircraft.


I'd like to see both the Germans and the Japanese getting a heavy bomber because it'd be great for play balance and parity in an axis-allies type of matchup.  I don't tie myself to what they relied on in WW2--AH is a game first and foremost and so we don't need to repeat the mistakes that were made 60 years ago.  

J_A_B

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2003, 01:45:07 PM »
Yes, but the dorsal position is relatively useless in AH.  The dorsal cannon on the Ki.67 accounts for very few kills.  Almost all kills are obtaied with its two 12.7mm tail guns.  Even then it doesn't feel like a lot of firepower.  A single 12.7mm on a slower, more fragile bomber isn't going to do very well.

Also note that the G4M2 has a full 360 degree dorsal turret with a 20mm cannon, not a very limited arc, hand aimed 20mm cannon like on the Helen.

I'd rather have the chance to sacrifice one of my three G4M2s and take out the attacking fighter than have a little more durability, but not be able to kill the attacking fighter quickly enough to save my bomber formation.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2003, 03:59:29 PM »
There is a reason the G4M2 earned names like "The flying Zippo" and "One-shot-lighter", and provided several Allied pilots with ace-in-a-day flights.     The Ki-49 actually earned some respect from the Allies OTOH.

Either way, none of the early Japanese bombers would be all that great.  I just think that the Ki-49 would be the more survivable of the two, based mainly on past experiences I've had with the Betty in several other flightsims, and its horrible historical reputation.   No number of 20mm cannons (particularly the inaccurate, slow ROF 20mm guns in use at the time) can defend a big, unprotected flying gas tank.  

That said, data on the Betty is easier to obtain hence its more likely to be added eventually.

J_A_B

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2003, 07:41:55 PM »
J_A_B, I dont hate US planes, I just think their cup runith over, I have also said repeadatly That I would like to see more US Early War Varient's, in ither post's even this one:

   "not that I think we nead another New US ride but their are many who want this so It may be ineavatble. Personaly I would rather see some a few Early War US Varients than say a P39 but one never know what's coming. So hear is the"

  Those varient's would include a P38, B26 ect, planes I have requested befroe, varient's are easer to do and would help solve many problems with a lesser degree of work for HTC, hince my not wanting "New" rides for the US but Varient's.

 The Tony Varient I requested represent's the Earler part of the War when it gaing comparative domanance over the Allied plane types it faced in New Gunie, we have several varient of other planes in AH I see no reasion we can't have another Tony Varient, as mentioned above Varients are easer to do for HTC. Some 388 Ki-61-1b's were modified to cary the 20mm MG 151's, aprox, 1,380 Ki-61-Ib's were made, more than any other type, The earler model, was slightly faster, And Climbed better, and I suspect excelereted better than the later Model Tony we have in AH, it also came out aprox. a full year earler than the model we have in AH, The early Model F4U is Faster than the Later model's, So I dont see Why asking for the earler model is in any way bad, since it is the Best we could hope for in terms of preformance For a japanese Fighter for this time frame and their for worthy of adation, much more so imo than may US planes that have been added as varent's in the past.

 The Helen is not all that bad a choice when looked at aganst the Betty, but if you look at the differences, The Helen is about 35 mph faster, depending on the models you compare to 14 mph faster than the Betty, Both the Hellen and Betty caried the same bombload, in fact normal load for the Helen was 750 KG's while 1000 was normal for the Betty, the Betty was also torpedo capable, While the Hellen did mount a 20mm H0-1 cannon in a turet this was an awfull weapon being derived from an Army AT weapon it was slow firing so slow it was almost imposable to hit with it, it was replaced with the H0-5 in all subsuquent Japanese army Aircraft mounting's whear aplicable, the Ho-103's are Nice gun's to be shure. The G4M2 had 2 to 4 20mm type 99 MK I cannon's on board.
  It is kinda a toss up Frankely the Hellen look's good if HTC went with the overload Bomb weight, and looks good if modeled with the Ho-103's, since it would be faster better defended and better armored. the torpedo option is imo not a big thing, Howeaver the Hellen may lose out like the panther did for the Perk tank, a better Tank but not as well Know as the Tiger.
  I must say though that the bomber isue is moreover discused from my prespective simply for the sake of argument since I dont see HTC spending the time on modeling another Japane Buff at present, nore would I ask for another japanese buff at present, unless we get another early War alled one to set aganst it in the pac, like a Blenhim, or a B26.

 I dont realy think the B6N2 is good Choice, if were going down that road I would go for the Grace it was an armed Torpedo bomber, the Jill has no Forward gun's, and the Grace out preforms it and out manuaver's it and the two 20mm Type 99 MK II cannons firing forward would be "Usefull".

  The premis of my post was to highlight just 3 or 4 planes that would be easy for HTC to ad and would do much to add capabality's to balance out the Japanes plane set, of those 2 are varient's, keeping it simple is likely to make it more realistic, howeaver were all dreaming hear anyway:)

Offline Bullethead

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
      • http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2003, 09:19:22 PM »
Brady said:
Quote
4 Japanese Planes added:ki 84, A6M3,D4Y2,Ki 61-1b


I really hope we can avoid the Ki84.  I just have too many bad memories of it becoming about the only thing flown in AW3 towards the end.  I see the same thing happening in AH.  The Yak9U is bad enough.  Give the dweebs something with very similar performance but with 2 cannon and it's game over.  IMHO, that's why there's such a clamor to get the damn thing in the game now.  Most folks don't care about "plane set equality", they just want an uberdweeb ride.

The A6M3 is definitely a must-have.  Right up there with the Ki27 and Ki43.

I agree, we really need the D4Y, but wouldn't you rather have a radial-engined version?  Faster and no radiator to hole.  And if we get Judy, we should also get Jill (B6N) IMHO.

Like you, I think the Helen would work better in day-to-day arena life than the Betty.  OTOH, the Betty would be more useful in scenarios.  Why not get both?

I'm not so sure we really need another version of the Ki61.  Why not the Ki44 instead?

Offline palef

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2003, 09:28:44 PM »
A6M3 and Ki 100 have current models to be based on.

NO excuses :)

palef
Retired

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
More Japanese Planes!
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2003, 10:43:51 PM »
"Most folks don't care about "plane set equality", they just want an uberdweeb ride. "

Heh heh I would never even use the Frank (only Japanese plane I can stand is the Tony) and I still clamor for it  :)

As much as I loved AirWarrior, how a plane performed in AW wasn't necessarily based upon reality.  AW's total lack of accurate flightmodeling was its biggest drawback, and the biggest reason got little respect as a "serious" flightsim in the last few years.

The Ki-84 would fit right in here in AH--in most ways it'd be a little inferior to the N1K2.


Grace or the B6N, doesn't much matter which anymore....they had about the same historical signifigance (both are known mostly for flying from land bases during the Okinawa battle), and the B5N we already have in AH would be used for scenarios up to 1944, so sure, bring on the Grace.

Brady, did the Grace actually have armor protection, or was it unprotected like the D4Y and B6N were?

J_A_B