Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Karnak on October 28, 2002, 08:06:50 PM
-
Is this setup considered balanced?
IJN/IJA:
A6M2 (1941)
B5N1 (1938)
D3A1 (1937)
vs.
USN/USAAF/RAF
Boston Mk III (1942)
F4F-4 (1941)
F4U-1 (1942)
Hurricane Mk I (1940)
Hurricane Mk IIc (1941)
P-40B (1940)
P-40E (1941)
SBD-5 (1943)
TBM-3 (1942)
If it is, please tell be how and why. If it isn't, please explain the adding of the B5N to the already weak Japanese planeset. Adding the B5N actually acomplished something that was quite difficult, it weakened the Japanese from a hopeless position to a punching bag position.
As AH presents it, the Pacific War would have been over in mid-1942 or early-1943 because the Japanese are so completely outclassed.
-
Atleast its a step closer to a complete plane set:) Hopefully more is on the way, Mitsu is still lobbying hard.
-
I do In general agree Karnak, howeaver I must say this:
Politics, the fleshing out of the Pearl harbor plane set is good for the CM's, we all saw Tora Tora Tora, and Mate Damon was just so cute in the pos movie Pearl harbor, the setting is a popular one, and those three planes the Val the Kate and the A6M2 were the primary tools with which the Japanese Navy wreaked it's destruction in the early part of the war in the Pac.
Pyro: In his defense he was damned no mater what plane he chose for Japan, that is If he only chose one to add this patch, their may be more. He did do somthing by chusing this plane he filled the Early war Japanese CV planeset, and made it possable for the CM's to do a number of events that represent with far more imershion battles that are very prevelent in the American psychie.
Personal: I fear we may be stuck with the Kate, what I mean by this that we may not see the Jill, or the Grace, since we alread have a Japanese torp bomber. Clearly the Jill would of been a better Balancing choice when set aganst the Mid war US CV planes we have at present, and Ultimately the Best choice for Main Areana utility would of been the Grace.
Balance, the imbalance curently could be construed as more of an issue that the US does not have early war planes(or models) to set oppset those being represented by Japan, for some the mear fact that this is a reality could be considered a slap in the face. Howeaver I can not see how on earth this could be intentional.
It's kinda like that Tiger tank we got, she was not the best German tank, certainly the Panther was far more deadly and produced in far greater number's but less well known, it is the Hollywood efect.
-
Matt Damon was not in Pearl harbor
It was Heath Ledger.
-
Slash27,
For the reasons brady states, I doubt there will be a new Japanese torp plane added in the next two years.
By getting what from all appearances is a B5N1 we will be stuck using a completely outdated piece of crap in all Pacific Theatre setups for the forseable future.
Why the heck does HTC add 1930s versions of Japanese attack aircraft, but then add 1943 versions for the USN? It completely jacks any possibility of balance. There is simply nothing that the Japanese can do to overcome this kind of arbitrtary handicap.
Why can we not get Japanese aircraft that would actually start to redress the balance issues?
In the early war we are stuck with no usable offenive aircraft and must defend against a bomber that is faster than our fighter, and F4F-4s that are modeled so wildly optimistically that the A6M2 can barely out turn them and so tough that a single F4F can absorb nearly all of an A6M2's ammo.
In the late war we are persistantly saddled with our fastest fighter barely hitting 360, mediocre turning, a crappy climb rate and poor acceleration. At least it can struggle into the air with two 250kg bombs, but it handles its ordanance worse than any other fighter in the game. Against this we have aircraft that carry 2,500lbs of bombs, ten rockets and go 430mph.
On top of all that, we are almost always outnumbered two or three to one.
And HTC's solution is to give us the B5N1? I am practically laughing in disbelief.
-
"In the late war we are persistantly saddled with our fastest fighter barely hitting 360, mediocre turning, a crappy climb rate and poor acceleration."
Karnak are you saying the N1K2-J has mediocre turning and poor climb? Because if you are then, and I honestly don't mean to offend you, but you need to practice a lot, and then some more and yet again some more if you can't get that plane to turn well or accelerate in a dogfight. Sorry but that statement of your's is incredibly bizzare if you talk about the N1K2-J.
However I agree that the F4F4 seems to turn far too well in comparsion to the A6M2, especially at slow speeds and in vertical manouvers. Yes eventually the A6M2 will win but the F4F4 is incredibly close to zero in that regard, and certainly has none of the startling manouverability weakneses in those areas as discussed in WW2 combat accounts.
The high speeds of the A20, B26, and even the B17 were noted by Japanese A6M2 pilots early in the war and seem accurate. However they still mention the fact that A6M2 could catch these bombers in an extended tail chase but I have had little success in even keeping up with US bombers when flying the A6M2 sometimes, let alone catching them .
In the meantime please reconsider your niki statement or at least arrange some good old practice time....
-
Doh...Ben Hafleck....Sory gents after crying on my therispts couch and muttering kate kate kate all day she uped my medication....i am not well:)
-
GRUNHERZ,
No, I am refering to the Ki.61-I-KAIc. In the CT we rarely get the N1K2-J as it is seen as too "dweeby" and "MA". I agree with you that the N1K2-J turns, accelerates and climbs very well. It also handles it's two 250kg bombs quite nicely.
The problem with the F4F-4 vs. the A6M2 is that before your A6M2 eventually wins, the F4F-4's wingman will inevitably use the great muzzle velocity on his six .50 calibre guns to turn your A6M2 into confetti in a tenth of a second. In the reverse the F4F-4s can take many seconds of fire from your 7.7mm guns and the crappy muzzle velocity on your Type 99 Model Is means you need and incredibly close shot to hit.
The problem with bomber speed in AH (and this is true of all bombers) is that they all run at full throttle. In reality that wasn't possible and bombers had to use lower cruise settings. This needs to be fixed in AH in order for the bomber / fighter relationship to resemble the WWII bomber / fighter relationship.
-
****************************************************
As far as making this game more fun to play, the IJN/A needs better planes, realistic or not!
****************************************************
sorry Karnak, HA and all other current flight sims are allied bias, always have been always will be, however..............
By luck the allies smashed the Japanese carriers at The battle of Midway June 1942. This hurt the Japanese as the same would have happened to the Americans if the Japanese would have sank the US Carriers. It wasnt untill October 1942 that the Americans had fully evolved tactics to counter the Zero.
The Japanese ruled the Pacific based on Knowlage and Experiance not "Fighter Power"! There are many stories about Japanese pilots not even using MGs because they wernt much good yeat the 7.7s could bring down several F4Fs and P-40s. The allied pilots didnt know how to fight the much experanced IJN pilots.
(In WWII the P-38 so called shot down more planes than any other allied fighters combined. The F6F was the best carrier fighter) In AH its always the F4U!!!!
Forget the plane sets, even with the proper plane sets, the IJN/A needs the allies to be ignorant just as they were in 1940, early 1941. Once the allies learned the Zero wasnt so tuff, and learned how to fight it, (by 31 Oct, 42) it was all down hill from there.
For a good ballanced early war CT set-up, this is what the IJN/A would need:
A6M2
Val
Kate
F4F
P-40B
P-40-E
TBF
HANDI-CAP based on early war allied pilot ignorance on dogfighting skills vs the Zero.
1. ease up on the tuffness of the allied "Tanks"!
2. hender the dive, climb and turn capabilities of alliedfighters
3. 5 to 1 odds (the Japs always overwelmed thier opponets)
4. or always let us use the Nick!!
This will never happen in a flight sim, but this is what would have to take place for a real "Historic-like" early war set-up. After that, we're toast!!
****************************************************As far as making this game more fun to play, the IJN/A needs better planes, realistic or not!
****************************************************
-
CurtissP-6EHawk,
The skill problem cuts both ways. You give us Japanese the Ki.84 in late war setups and we'll do far, far better with it than the Japanese did historically because we aren't all clueless newbies. The Ki.84 can nearly match the fast Allied rides in speed up to 10,000ft or so, and it has the performance to beat them in other areas too.
The Japanese built 3,500 Ki.84s.
-
oh yeah, that too ;-)
-
Hawk! When was the Battle of Midway?! You better fix that error, bud.
The deck is certainly stacked against the Japanese here. I have alot of hope for v1.11 that the Japanese will see some relief with more late war planes coming. The Ki.84, the J2M3, the Ki.100,
would help and be appreciated alot.
The A6M3 and the Ki.43 and Ki.44 would add depth to the mid-war planeset, and the Ki.45 would give us some much needed ground attack punch, with its 2 20mms and a 37mm in the nose.
I fear a mass defection of Japanese flyers to Target:Rabaul once it goes open beta, but HTC could stave this off by concentrating on the late-war planes that T:R won't be modelling for some time.
-
I too think the Japanese plane set needs a good ground attack plane like the ki102 with the 57mm cannon package but I can live with the ki45 or any thing at this point.:)
-
:rolleyes:
-
That'd be great setup, cant wait to have a val/kate mission :D
Just take out F4u1 and hurri 2c (or at least enable them at only 1 base in the back), and add Ki67...
Were british fightin in the pacific in 41-42 though?
-
The problem with bomber speed in AH (and this is true of all bombers) is that they all run at full throttle. In reality that wasn't possible and bombers had to use lower cruise settings. This needs to be fixed in AH in order for the bomber / fighter relationship to resemble the WWII bomber / fighter relationship. [/B][/QUOTE]
I would love to see engine over-heat modeled in here.
Jospe
-
lol oboe, that was an honest typo..hehehe
I would very much like to see some better late war IJA fighters and bombers for better game play!!
-
The IJN needed the B5N because it was their primary torpedo a/c in the early war, especially Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway, and into 1943.
SBD , TBF, and F4F were in service at the SAME TIME as the A6M2 Zeke and the D3A Val and B5N Kate. Btw ALL those US types first flew BEFORE Pearl Harbor too.
Im sure late war IJ a/c are coming, I for one think they should be a top priority, but the IJ needed a proper torp ac (no more TBF subs) for their Carriers, and now they are getting one!
A6M2
A6M5
Ki-61 < best IJAAF fighter before Ki-84 >
Ki-67
D3A Val
B5N Kate
N1K2
Thats at least a good start? Wasnt long ago all you had was the A6M5 and the N1K2. Be happy.
Regards.
-
posted by jospe2, The problem with bomber speed in AH (and this is true of all bombers) is that they all run at full throttle. In reality that wasn't possible . I am probally one of very few people that dont run bombers at full throttle I usually run them at 75-80% I am not even sure if that is historical or not (if any one knows let me know so I can adjust accordingly)only in climb out to 7k and as soon as I release bombs am I at full throttle once away from field I cut back to 50% unless enemy a/c near by then keep at 80% and start a slight down angle about 750 fpm to keep speed till out of enemy territory and cruise home hopfully. Dosen't work all the time but I have a pretty good track record with this method.:)
-
cajun, Ya the Brits were fighting in the Pac, in 41/42, one of the bigest defeats the British Army ever suffered was Singapore during this time, they Lost the Two Battleships to long range Betty's and Nell's, lost Burman the mayla penusilia, And commonwhealth forces faught in New Gunnie, the south pacific in general, including the famed Slot.
One thing we must remember is that the CM's have a slightly different nead than we do, while the CT may nead a plane set that is more ballanced in nature to help us create week long plane match up's that are both historical and fun to play. The CM events are of shorter duration but they are Big draws, so withen that framework plane preformance issues like mid war US planes(models) VS peral harbor Japanese models is less of a factor. That is to say the preformance issues present would not be as noticed when fighting squaderon sized battles for 5 to 10 min of engagement time after flying around for 45 min looking for love. In the CT this is the compleat oppset, we fight all the time all week long and these issues become very apparent, and are examplified in the Kate.
-
Originally posted by Squire
The IJN needed the B5N because it was their primary torpedo a/c in the early war, especially Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, Midway, and into 1943.
SBD , TBF, and F4F were in service at the SAME TIME as the A6M2 Zeke and the D3A Val and B5N Kate. Btw ALL those US types first flew BEFORE Pearl Harbor too.
Im sure late war IJ a/c are coming, I for one think they should be a top priority, but the IJ needed a proper torp ac (no more TBF subs) for their Carriers, and now they are getting one!
A6M2
A6M5
Ki-61 < best IJAAF fighter before Ki-84 >
Ki-67
D3A Val
B5N Kate
N1K2
Thats at least a good start? Wasnt long ago all you had was the A6M5 and the N1K2. Be happy.
Regards.
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.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Hawk! When was the Battle of Midway?! You better fix that error, bud.
The A6M3 and the Ki.43 and Ki.44 would add depth to the mid-war planeset, and the Ki.45 would give us some much needed ground attack punch, with its 2 20mms and a 37mm in the nose.
Actually Oboe-san the A6M3 would help the early war plane set too. The A6M3 was on the IJN carriers at the Battle of Midway.
No doubt this sim needs more Japanese iron immediatly if not sooner.
-
I have seen the problem from both sides having flown Navy birds with VF-27 Hellcats and the Japaneses birds with the 27th Sentai and I can tell you for a FACT that the Japanese plane set is the one getting the "PROP SHAFT."
What we need, IMHO, are more late war Japanese birds like the FRANK & JACK fighters & the JUDY & GRACE (that's for you Brady ) bombers.
Before you say it - I know we have the GEORGE (Niki) but folks lets face it - it's not a FRANK and the paper ZERO's and early carrier bombers are basicly a joke. Good for an early war set-up but only fit for "target practice" & Kamakaze runs in the late war set ups.
There does seem to be an Allied bias (intended or not) with the Allies getting the later model planes while the Japanese side gets the early model versions of planes. D3A-1 VAL instead of more produced D3A-2 is a glaring example. Frankly it is hurting the CT because most players simply refuse to fly the Japanese plane set.
I for one would LOVE to see the Japanese get some better planes. This would make the combats in the arenas more intense and would open more late war scenarios for the CT like the Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima or even the Battle of Japan. It might also accidently draw more folks to the Axis side in the CT therefore making flying there more exciteing.
IMO the Allied side has "more than enough" planes in their hangar for the moment. The Axis is the side that needs a real boost.
We really need to see are some of the following A/C first in 1.11:
JAPANESE: (First priority)
FRANK (First and formost!)
JACK
TOJO
JUDY
GRACE (ok, ok Brady I got it in! )
or
JILL
(And quit taking the GEORGE out of the plane roster or banishing it to the boondocks during every PTO scenario.)
-
I agree with Karnak completely.
We have the A6M2 version of the Zero, which was being replaced by the A6M3 as early as mid 1942. I believe there were A6M3's at Midway although I'm not sure of this. The A6M3 was certainly far more important overall than the A6M2, yet we have the "2". The A6M5 we have is the worst possible A6M5 in terms of performance because of weight added (A6M5a would have been better IMO).
The F4F-4 we have wasn't in common use until mid 1942 (Midway....the older F4F-3's were still in use at Coral Sea). While there wasnt much of a performance difference between the two, the F4F-3 didn't have the 6 .50's. In general CT setups we end up with the worst-possible 1942 Zeke fighting the best 1942 USN fighter. We also have the latest, best version of the F6F fighter (as opposed to the worst possible A6M5).
The TBM we have has 2 .50's firing forward, as opposed to the single .30 carried by the 1942-era TBF. So we have the best possible Avenger and apparenty the worst Kate (judging by the pictures). Even the best Kate would still be, at best, roughly a match for the TBF (NOT the TBM).
We have the best possible SBD and the worst of the D3A series (this one makes no sense at all). Personally I would have added a Helldiver and Judy in place of the Dauntless and Val (more useful in AH environment), but those were added on the basis of that poll we had awhile back. Why they added the D3A1 instead of the D3A2....who can say?
The early-war Japanese planeset is definately out of whack.
J_A_B
-
I am quiet certain that the Kate had no offensive gun's.
-
Indeed, the Kate lacked offensive weapons. While some sources list it as having a pair of light machine guns above the engine, photographs show this as being untrue. The Kate we're getting is the worst possible because there is no WW2 Japanese torpedo plane with worse performance. It is the Japanese equal to the TBD Devastator--famous, but the worst of its kind.
The later B6N also lacked forward-firing weapons. However, later B6N's were equipped with a 12.7mm gun and also had a ventral weapon, giving them comparible defensive firepower to the TBM, and they could also match the Avenger's speed (I believe they were actually faster at low levels). From a performance AND a historical perspective, the B6N model 12a is the best match for the TBM.
Here's to hoping we eventually get one :)
J_A_B
-
True, the Jill had the Navy 13mm MG which was prety much the same gun as the US 50cal(it was a coppy, looked like it even), not like the army vershion on the Tony or the Ki 67, which was scaled down somewhat.
The Jill also had a top speed of around 300mph, about 70mph faster than the Kate.
-
I think the problem here is a little deeper than just what the planes were at the time of a midway scenario.
The japanese didnt lose the war because there planes sucked. The lost the war because they couldnt maintain them, keep trained pilots in them, or have the foresight to see that boom and zoom would mean more than turn fighting.
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.
Now if you want to recreate 'important' battles of the pacific, that means 1943/42 and earlier. The slow f4f vs the fast a6m2 is a nice match up. If you are alone in either vs. two of the opponent you are both screwed. .
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.
Those of you that think the f4u1 vs the 190 is an easy or even fight (I remember the first couple of ct setups the vf27 were in, OUCH!! we got our tulips handed to us night after night by the luftwaffe, just ask lowe), or the f4f vs the zero is an even fight should join the hellcats for a while. The only way we keep flyin the blue planes is coordination and wingman tactics. Thats how they survived in the war too.
-
ergRTC, with all due respect I think you may be over simplafing things a bit.
It was not as black and white as u paint it in the later war perioud, most Japanese planes were lost do to allied atacks on their airfields destroying plaens on the ground, and not all plane types suffered from cronic engine or maintance issues, clearly the same argument could be used aganst the Luftwaffe in 1944 Germany, espichaly late 44 and 45 yet we have tones of German plaens from this perioud, and the US faught Japan in the CBI as well.
The Japanese deserve the same consideration plane modeling wiese as the Germans do, we have lots of late war US Navy planes, it would be nice to have lots of late war Japanese planes to fly aganst them, or at least a few.
-
* 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 250 mph 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.:)
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
even Mitsu has stated so
Guess that solves that dont it?
Brady I agree, we should have had something worth while before the Kate or rather, had the Kate in the first beta releases!!!!!
-
Try to find a photograph of a Kate with guns in the nose.
Books can be wrong.
J_A_B
-
"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"
It had far better manueverbility before the -II version as well, it didnt need clipped wings. Nothing could touch a Ki-43 in low speed handling.
Just remember though, its slow in comparison to Allied fighters, even slower than a Zero. P-40s and F4Fs that hold their speed can fight them, but a well flown Ki-43 could still be a nasty opponent.
Later
-
"If you Allied types don't want any opposition, that's fine. You're coming dangerously close to achieving your goal."
Last I checked, "us Allied types" weren't creating the planes for HTC.
I would love to see the KI-43 and KI-84 added. They are much needed additions to your planeset. The 43 being quite the capable little jabo plane, and more than an annoyance to early war Allied rides. The KI-84 was by far one of the more popular planes in WarBirds, giving a BnZ capability to the IJ guys. Those that thought they had a 400 mph zeke in their hands soon found themselves in a flat spin. :)
We all want and welcome the competition. One sided fights are about as much fun as killing the drones offline. The more tools you guys have to work with the better. I don't welcome comments like "Allied conspiracy" etc. They are pointless and only get peoples dander up. (well, mine anyway :))
All that being said, I am glad to see the Kate's arrival. It opens up a whole new realm of possibilities for scenarios, real honest to goodness early war scenarios.
We have enough low production wonder planes already; it's nice to see things moving the other way.
-
Squire-
even slower than a Zero
Not the A6M2....but then again everything I read except this UBB seems to be wrong!
-
That was a generalisation, but what Im saying is that version to version, for both a/c, the Ki-43 is usually the slower, I leave it to you to look up all the #s.
Its true that the later Ki-43-II was a tad faster than the earliest Zero (A6M2).
Its main opposition was the P-40E, P39D, and P-38F, and F4F over New Guinea, and the Solomons. In China it fought right up untill the end against the USAAF and the RAF although by wars end it was hopelessly outclassed by faster allied types.
Interesting side note, The AVG "Flying Tigers" are oft quoted as fighting "Zeros" over China. Truth was they were fighting Ki-43s, but realised it only much later. China was left up to the IJAAF and the IJN had almost no presence in the CBI war.
Later
-
Oh yeah, my main reson but failed to mention is that although it may be slower than the zero or faster in later models, nevertheless, it manouvers better at those higher speeds than the Zero! Ever try turning with a fast Ki-43 while chasing it in a Zero? But then again I am refering to my WarBirds days!