Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on August 26, 2008, 02:02:35 PM
-
According to the National Museum the N1K2-Ja could carry four 250kg bombs. If this is accurate, it seems to me that it would be a very good change for the N1K2-J as one of the largest balance issues between the US forces and Japanese forces in semi-historical setups is the lack of a Japanese fighter bomber that carries a competitive warload. This would address that. As such, I suggest changing the N1K2-J to an N1K2-Ja.
KAWANISHI N1K2-JA SHIDEN KAI (GEORGE) (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=525)
TECHNICAL NOTES (N1K2-Ja):
Armament: Four Type 99-2 20mm cannon and four 551-lb. bombs
Engine: 1,990 hp Nakajima NK9H Homare
Maximum speed: 369 mph
-
:uhoh
-
If the information is accurate I will support this 100%, and would suggest moving this one to the wishlist Karnak. Seems to me (bearing in mind my coding ignorance) that it should be easy to implement.
<Salute>
-
If the information is accurate I will support this 100%, and would suggest moving this one to the wishlist Karnak. Seems to me (bearing in mind my coding ignorance) that it should be easy to implement.
<Salute>
Point taken. I will repost it there.
Skuzzy, if you see this feel free to lock it.
-
Was it a field modification or was it set up from the factory to carry that load out?
Many aircraft, including my beloved p38, were able to carry much more ord than they were rated by the factory but we go with factory settings, historically.
-
N1K2-Ja,Model 21A
"Shiden Kai" 「紫電改」
Fighter-bomber version.
Constructed by...
Kawanishi: 393
Mitsubishi: 9
Aichi: 1
Shouwa Hikouki: 1
Oumura Navy Arsenal: 10
Hiro Navy Arsenal: 1
This is the most common land-based variant of N1Ks.
-
Was it a field modification or was it set up from the factory to carry that load out?
If the data is accurate it would be a factory model.
-
Isn't all N1K2s the Kai of N1K1s ?
Kai 「改」 means revision. The N1K2 is the revision, improvement, and the simplification of the original N1K1 Shiden.
-
Given the advantage the object damage model gives to cannons, the N1K2 in-game is the equal of any U.S. fighter in an attack configuration, save the F4U-1C or the late model Jugs.
-
*throw his mosquito away*
-
Given the advantage the object damage model gives to cannons, the N1K2 in-game is the equal of any U.S. fighter in an attack configuration, save the F4U-1C or the late model Jugs.
I disagree. The N1K2-J is slower and much more vulnerable to defensive fire while the damage from its cannons takes very much longer to apply. US aircraft can get in and get out very fast, doing the damage all at once.
Noir,
I am not talking about taking up the N1K2-J myself. I try not to look at the game through too myopic a lense.
-
I disagree. The N1K2-J is slower and much more vulnerable to defensive fire while the damage from its cannons takes very much longer to apply. US aircraft can get in and get out very fast, doing the damage all at once.
Your OP states that the imbalance exists because the U.S. fighters have higher payloads of ordnance and didn't mention speeds. I was merely commenting on total weight of fire as a combination of bombs, rockets, and guns/cannon. When merely looking at total ordnance capablity, the N1K2 currently in-game is a match for all U.S. fighters except the F4U-1C and the bubble-top Jugs.
Strangely enough, most Jabo sorties in the MA, and even the most successful Jabo sorties in the SEA rely upon cannon armed fighters, and not bomb trucks.
-
Does the total damage come out the same?
I know when I tested the Mosquito VI, Bf110G-2 and P-38L the Mosquito didn't come close to matching the P-38L's destructive capability and was less than 50% of the Bf110G-2's.
-
To be honest, I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing that within a certain percentage, the F4U-1D, F6F, & P-51D are all roughly equivalent to the N1K2 when taking the cannons into account. I didn't really think about the P-38 since I feel its a terrible attack fighter (against a defended target). Since it has such a vast potential ammo load for the guns and 5" HVAR capability, the P-38L may go in with the F4U-1C and bubble top P-47's. The P-47D-25 would be debatable since it can't carry 5" HVAR, but still has 3200 rounds of caliber .50.
However, and not to be obtuse, but in order to narrow the focus of the discussion to your OP and not let the thread wander, I didn't make the comparison to any British or German aircraft. You compared the N1K2 to U.S. aircraft only. Comparing the capability of the N1K2 to the Mosquito or 110 would be a totally different comparison, and one in which I feel the N1K2 would lose hands-down.
-
No, I wasn't comparing it to the British and German aircraft. Just referencing my tests on those three as I had actually tested them.
The Mosquito carries 700 rounds of 20mm and four 500lb bombs, which is similar to the museum's claim on the N1K2-Ja. For my part I have always put the F4U-1D, P-51D and P-38L all in roughly the same category for striking power with a mix of rockets and 1,000lb bombs.
-
Somewhere there's a reference that lists each rounds destructive power in game, relative to a single M2 .50 cal round. If I remember correctly, a P-47 with 3200 rounds of .50 cal can knock down a single hangar with simple MG fire only. In my experience, it takes 4 or 5 long passes with convergence set to D650 to do it, as the hangar hardness is something like 2800 or so. 6 5" HVAR is roughly equivalent to 1000 lbs of bombs, since HTC models the weight of the rocket (~150lbs) instead of the HE value of the warhead (5" Naval HE round of 40-50 lbs of explosive). I don't know the destructive value of the N1K2 20mm in game, but its probably somewhere in the area of at least 3 times or more of the .50. So the 900 rounds the N1K2 carries is going to be roughly equivalent to 2000lbs + of destructive power in game. Couple that with the bombs it carries, and you have roughly 2500-3500 lbs of destructive power on a single N1K2. An F6F can carry 2000 of bombs and ~ 1000 of rockets, plus the .50 cal, so you're pretty close. An F4U-1D gets two extra rockets, so its 300 lbs better than an F6F. P-51D has roughly the same as the F6F.
My math gets pretty screwy here since I'm working off a lot of approximations, but unless I've grossly over or underestimated something, you can see that they're all pretty close. Only when you get to the aircraft like the Jug that can carry 2500 lbs in bombs plus 10 rockets and guns can you get into a severe difference in the ordnance capability. Obviously the F4U-1C with the massive load of 20mm and bombs/rockets would be even greater.
I'd have to crank up a spreadsheet with the exact numbers to do this properly, but hopefully you get my drift.
-
Yes. The issue I see is how long it takes the N1K2-J (or P-47) to apply the damage from its guns compared to the one pass and haul bellybutton that the bombs and rockets allow. For the N1K2-J to take down a hangar it has to put itself at more risk than the other aircraft. When it comes to tanks the 20mm cannons may as well not be there.
I do see your point, but I don't think it actually pans out that way in gameplay. For taking down towns, yes (perhaps even superior), hangars, I don't think so and definitely weaker against GVs.
-
Just looked up the relative value on the Fighter Comparison Page. N1K2 20mm is 3.3 times as effective as .50 cal.
-
It's pretty easy to kill all four ord bunkers on a medium airfield in a P-51D or a Hellcat in a single diving pass. I doubt it would be very easy to do in a N1k. And coming back for more passes increases the likelihood of being shot down by the ground fire. So no, I don't agree that the N1k is roughly equivelant as-is to the American fighter-bombers. It's not just about porking ords, but porking ords is a good example to use for comparison. The time spent over smothering AA fire is an important factor, and as others have said, the N1K has to spend a lot more of it to dish out its damage.
-
*throw his mosquito away*
:lol :rofl
Don't do that, Mossies are awesome!
-
hi Karnak.
It's answer, N1K2-Ja can't have 250kg bombs x4.
N1K2-Ja can only, 250kg bomb x2 or 60kg bomb x4.
because, N1K2-Ja's bomb rack of outside were for only 60kg bomb.
but, this improvement have already been improbed to N1K2-J.
If you have chance to see N1K2-J on champlin fighter aircraft museum and smisonian museum, you can see this improvement.
This N1K have 4 bomb racks.
-
hi Karnak.
It's answer, N1K2-Ja can't have 250kg bombs x4.
N1K2-Ja can only, 250kg bomb x2 or 60kg bomb x4.
because, N1K2-Ja's bomb rack of outside were for only 60kg bomb.
but, this improvement have already been improbed to N1K2-J.
If you have chance to see N1K2-J on champlin fighter aircraft museum and smisonian museum, you can see this improvement.
This N1K have 4 bomb racks.
Thanks for that information Pkun.
<S>
-
As allways somebody comes out against improvements in the Japanese plane set .....any request for new Planes or improvements in Japanese planes is opposed at all times by somebody. ...yet the same people press for some obscure sub-varient of a USA plane we allready have several versions of
Since nobody but karnak and I seem to care, maybe we should just eliminate all the Japanese planes all together? ....I mean really ...who needs 'em??? ...Thats what i see on this BBS ....over and over
....this continuous bias to USA planes never ends ...
anytime there is any post about any Japanese plane....some people seem to act as if it is their job to log in and tell us how we NEVER EVER need ANY New Japanese planes or improvements?
.....the classic line is "It wont revolutionise the LW area" ....so therefore we don't need it
I say! hogwash
Helm ...out
-
As allways somebody comes out against improvements in the Japanese plane set .....any request for new Planes or improvements in Japanese planes is opposed at all times by somebody. ...yet the same people press for some obscure sub-varient of a USA plane we allready have several versions of
Since nobody but karnak and I seem to care, maybe we should just eliminate all the Japanese planes all together? ....I mean really ...who needs 'em??? ...Thats what i see on this BBS ....over and over
....this continuous bias to USA planes never ends ...
anytime there is any post about any Japanese plane....some people seem to act as if it is their job to log in and tell us how we NEVER EVER need ANY New Japanese planes or improvements?
.....the classic line is "It wont revolutionise the LW area" ....so therefore we don't need it
I say! hogwash
Helm ...out
Funny . . . I didn't see any anti-japanese aircraft statements in this thread at all.
But your anti-american bias is loud and clear.
-
Funny . . . I didn't see any anti-japanese aircraft statements in this thread at all.
But your anti-american bias is loud and clear.
I have no anti American bias ....the numbers speak for themselves 30 USA to 8 Japanese planes .....that's pretty "loud and clear" to me....my oppion is based solely on these numbers
Helm ...out
-
It is kind of an odd thing. Based on the number of aircraft build, the Japanese should have a low number and the US a high number. But based on the number of types built, both should have fairly high numbers. Unless I am mistaken, the Japanese fielded the second highest number of combat aircraft types in WWII, trailing only the USA. The reason is the same for both Japan and the USA, our Armies and Navies both had nearly completely different inventories of aircraft.
-
Ha! I'm the sure all the 109 subvariants far outnumber the different types of all aircraft built by the USA in WWII. :D
-
Ha! I'm the sure all the 109 subvariants far outnumber the different types of all aircraft built by the USA in WWII. :D
I wasn't counting subvariants. The Bf109, Spitfire, Fw190, Mosquito and Ju88 all count for one each when talking of individual types despite the great number of subvariants each had.