Author Topic: Japanese Planeset (Read 2142 times)

Widewing · « **Reply #15 on:** December 16, 2006, 09:42:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by EagleDNY
Ki-100 climbs faster, and although the top speed is a little less than the Ki-67, from all accounts I've read it manuevered a lot better and kept it together in a high speed dive so that they actually catch and shoot up some of that big blue American iron. They've got one example where a batch of Ki-100s shot down 14 F6Fs with no losses, which makes me certainly wonder what it's like to fly.

This myth has been debunked here several times...

The battle this bogus claim is referring to occured on July 25th, 1945 over Yokaichi Airfield. 18 Ki-100s bounced a group of 10 Hellcats. The Japanese were at 12,000 feet, the F6Fs were down around 5,000 feet, strafing and rocketing the base. In the ensuing fight, two F6Fs were lost. One in a collision with Captain Tsutae Obara. Both pilots were killed. Ensign Herbert Law's engine was hit by ground fire, causing the windscreen to be obscured by engine oil. Unable to see, he evaded long enough to crash-land his Hellcat. IJAAF Warrant Officer Shin Ikuta was shot down and killed by the F6Fs. Low on gas and ammo, the remaining 8 Hellcats returned to their carrier. Japanese pilots claimed 12 F6Fs destroyed. Navy pilots claimed 8 Japanese aircraft shot down or destroyed on the ground. Actual losses were 2 lost and 2 damaged for the Americans. Japanese losses were 2 lost and 3 damaged, one of which crash-landed on Yokaichi field. Several Japanese aircraft were left burning on the field resulting from the Hellcats strafing. Gun camera film revealed that 3 utility aircraft had been set ablaze by the F6Fs, and several more unidentified aircraft were damaged to some extent.

Over time, this engagement has been embellished to inflate the Japanese claims and ignore the fact that two Ki-100s went down and another shot-up Ki-100 was wrecked in a forced landing.

In reality, the Japanese force, nearly twice as large as the American force, attacked with the advantage of altitude. Despite being handed a significant disadvanage, the Navy pilots scored as well or better than the Japanese and were able to disengage at will.

The Ki-100 was a fine fighter for early 1942.. By 1945 (when it appeared) it was obsolete and little more than cannon fodder.

My regards,

Widewing

1K3 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 16, 2006, 09:49:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by parin
KI-43 iie desu!

dame desu. ki-44 ga hoshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii:D

Krusty · « **Reply #17 on:** December 17, 2006, 01:36:15 AM »

Widewing, you mean 50cal fodder, right?

Widewing · « **Reply #18 on:** December 17, 2006, 09:46:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Widewing, you mean 50cal fodder, right?

Literally speaking, yes.

I also agree with you that the Ki-61 negates the need for the Ki-100. The biggest difference between the two was simplicity of engine management and increased reliability of the radial engine. However, in AH2 our engine management is already as simple as it gets and engine reliability is not modeled.

The only advantages associated with the Ki-100 may be improved rearward vision and no radiator to leak coolant. Countering that is increased drag and reduced vision over the nose.

I for one would much rather see the J2M3 or J2M5 and the Ki-44, both of which would get plenty of use in the various MAs. HTC may well do the Ki-43 for CT, but it would probably see little use outside of the Early War Arena.

My regards,

Widewing

EagleDNY · « **Reply #19 on:** December 17, 2006, 12:03:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
This myth has been debunked here several times...

Over time, this engagement has been embellished to inflate the Japanese claims and ignore the fact that two Ki-100s went down and another shot-up Ki-100 was wrecked in a forced landing.

In reality, the Japanese force, nearly twice as large as the American force, attacked with the advantage of altitude. Despite being handed a significant disadvanage, the Navy pilots scored as well or better than the Japanese and were able to disengage at will.

The Ki-100 was a fine fighter for early 1942.. By 1945 (when it appeared) it was obsolete and little more than cannon fodder.

My regards,

Widewing

I didn't know the details on that battle WW - guess thats what I get from reading history off the internet

For certain we all know the tendency of pilots to inflate numbers.

Perhaps the better solution for the Ki-67/Ki-100 debate would be simply to upgrade the Ki-67-Ia to the Ki-67-II and give it the later model engine. The Ki-67 with the 1,175Hp (read Ha-40 / DB605 copy / Me-109E) engine I just don't see as getting much use. With the 1,450Hp (read Ha-140 / DB605A / early Me-109G) engine, and the upgraded cannons available on the -II models, maybe that would bridge the gap and the Ki-67 would see more widespread use.

Frankly, I think we have the best of the Japanese planeset now with the Ki-84 and the Niki, although I really would like to see the Ki-84-Ib and -Ic cannon packages available as well. The J2M5 I would give a try, but I think it would be inferior to the Niki in most respects.

The Ki-44 would be an interesting addition, but there are so many variants of it that would have to be modeled for it to be useful. The early models that they would need in the scenarios are badly undergunned, so you would need to model the later cannon-equipped variants as well if you wanted to see the ride get some use in the arenas. The good news is that there are a lot of interesting variants and cannon loadouts, so it would see a lot of action. I'm just not sure HT is up for modeling 5 or 6 different production versions of the Ki-44 for us.

EagleDNY
$.02

1K3 · « **Reply #20 on:** December 17, 2006, 02:46:43 PM »

The Ki-44 would be the finest interceptor we can have for the Japanese planeset. IMO this is basically a cannon-less Ki-84 with very high rate of climb and it doesnt suffer from shedding parts at high speeds.

Spikes · « **Reply #21 on:** December 31, 2006, 12:27:36 PM »

Hey Yoshi

I was hosting one of those too, I had to do

USAAF/USAF vs. Japan +USSR+Germany

killnu · « **Reply #22 on:** December 31, 2006, 01:48:05 PM »

Ki-84-Ib

okiebob · « **Reply #23 on:** January 01, 2007, 02:32:58 AM »

I agree i didn't read all of the posts but we do need more jap and russian planes. need the:

J2M3 Raiden "Jack"
Ki45 Toryu "Nick"
Ki44-IIb "Tojo"
G4M2 Model 22B "Betty"
At least
russian
dont know of very many
but the
yak1 and yak3
but they need more than we have

Loddar · « **Reply #24 on:** January 01, 2007, 06:42:54 AM »

I think HT have a problem to built Japanese and Russian planes because of
lack of resources. US, German and British sites are much more detailed than
sites of other countries. Is this the main problem ?

I don't think it is because HT don't like Japanese and Russian planes, right ?

VooWho · « **Reply #25 on:** January 01, 2007, 03:59:07 PM »

Just a list of some Japanese bomber during WW2.

Kawanishi H8K 'Emily' (Its a sea plane, but its got one heck of a defense, and carriers 4409Ib of bombs or 1764Ib of Torpedoes. Also a transport version.)
Mitsubishi G3M 'Nell'
Mitsubishi Ki.21 'Sally'
Mitsubishi G4M 'Betty'
Nakajima Ki.49 Donryu 'Helen'

Spikes · « **Reply #26 on:** January 11, 2007, 03:42:29 PM »

Info On Betty

Info On Betty

Info On Betty

BETTY SPECS

LOOK AT ALL THESE, it should get ya started HTC

Sikboy · « **Reply #27 on:** January 11, 2007, 03:49:42 PM »

No offense spikes, but I think HTC will be looking for primary sources for modelling aircraft.

-Sik

Spikes · « **Reply #28 on:** January 11, 2007, 03:52:33 PM »

none taken, but yea, was thinking about that after i posted, it gives him some type of start though

Wes14 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 11, 2007, 03:59:20 PM »

lol i would want the Oka MXY8 "Oka Kamikaze"

the mxy8 Model11 was powered by 3 type 4 rockets and carried a 2,200lb warhead:D