A6M

[BnZs]

I knew a guy who was quite good with the katana and did a lot of SCA events.  he said that a European longsword and shield combination was extremely difficult to overcome for the katana and almost impossible if skill was equal.

That said, the katana was a very good dueling weapon.  Japanese armies pain yari (Japanese spear) men and naginata (short Japanese halberd, basically a wakizashi on a 5-6' pole) men more than katana men for a reason though.

Yes, there is a reason why they strapped those boards to their arm...the combination can be rather difficult for any single weapon to face. It was even possible for crack groups of sword&buckler men to pass the points of pikes and break up disciplined formations.

Two-handed sword evolution in Europe only began in earnest when head-to-toe mail and the beginning of plate additions made armor effective enough that a shield was less necessary and a two-handed weapon more desirable.

The katana was introduced in the Muromachi period when the maximum length of sword that could be carried was restricted by law. During the earlier warring periods, the Tachi and No-Dachi, swords more equivalent in length to European longswords/doppelhanders and more appropriate to the battlefield were the norm.

Back-swords/single edges-If you'll notice, the advantages or lack thereof of single-edge vs. double edge designs depends on cross-sectional blade geometry. If your blade is going to have a relatively thick ridge in it, then a single edge design will have  a somewhat less obtuse edge geometry. If the cross-section is going to be relatively thin and flat, then it doesn't make any difference. The Liechtenauer (sp?) school of German swordplay makes heavy use of the false edge. That said, if I had to hazard a guess as to why symmetrical double-edged swords originally came to be standard in Europe, it would be for the very practical reason that you can simply turn the sword over and strike with the other edge when one becomes dulled. 

Oh, this is kind of interesting. Here are a couple of late Medieval/Early Renaissance European swords of the type called "grossmesser" or "kriegmesser", depending on who you ask.

[BoilerDown]

The other P47 models all have the same gun packages and the N.  The D-40 can carry the same ord.  The other three can all out-turn and out climb the N. 

Really, the N has longer range and slightly higher speed w/ WEP.  I dont think that warrants a 5 ENY while the D-40 (the nearest the same as the N) earns a 20 ENY.

Also don't forget that the N model lacks the dive brakes that the D-40 has.  So really the D-40 is the best Jabo of all the Jugs, the only exception being if you need to climbout with N model WEP performance or need more fuel than the D-40 can carry, which are both extreme cases.

I'd say the N should rate a 15 ENY, assuming the other Jugs are correctly valued.

[BnZs]

Also don't forget that the N model lacks the dive brakes that the D-40 has.  So really the D-40 is the best Jabo of all the Jugs, the only exception being if you need to climbout with N model WEP performance or need more fuel than the D-40 can carry, which are both extreme cases.

I'd say the N should rate a 15 ENY, assuming the other Jugs are correctly valued.

I'd say about 8-10. It is arguably the equal of the P-51D in the bnz niche. Performs about as well on WEP, better roll rate, heavier armed, better turn radius.

Really, it is the OTHER end of the ENY that gets me...something like the 109K or Yak-9U carrying 20 ENY, that seems ridiculous.

[flatiron1]

the A6M is a great plane.

[Lusche]

I'd say about 8-10. It is arguably the equal of the P-51D in the bnz niche. Performs about as well on WEP, better roll rate, heavier armed, better turn radius.

Really, it is the OTHER end of the ENY that gets me...something like the 109K or Yak-9U carrying 20 ENY, that seems ridiculous.

I do agree with the K-4 ENY being too high (in my opinion), but not on the Yak-9U
While being a good all-round plane performance wise, it's not stellar in any category. Most fighters do have at least one single facet in which they match or excel the yak-9, be it pure speed, climb  acceleration turn rate.
But the biggest drawback is it's armament. One 20mm and one 12.7mm with only 10 seconds firing time - you need to be a dam good shooter to make good use of that tiny package. In my opinion, ENY 20 isn't wrong for the -U

A more general word on ENY: While I do think there are some planes which should have it'S ENY value examined again  by HTC ( Hurricane II in EW!!), you will never be able to get that list right for everyone. There's no way to get a completely objective ENY value for all the planes when compared against each other. There will always be some irregularities.

[Anaxogoras]

you will never be able to get that list right for everyone. There's no way to get a completely objective ENY value for all the planes when compared against each other. There will always be some irregularities.

Uh-oh.   Here we go again.  While I agree that there will never be the perfect ENY value for all planes, I think it would be possible to have some independent standard by which to rate them, rather than "this one seems like a 20, this like a 10."  I'd rather the errors be the result of something impersonal than someone's ad-hoc judgment.

[Lusche]

Uh-oh.   Here we go again.  While I agree that there will never be the perfect ENY value for all planes, I think it would be possible to have some independent standard by which to rate them, rather than "this one seems like a 20, this like a 10." 

This has been suggested a few times. However, no one has come up with some objective standard yet.

[BnZs]

This has been suggested a few times. However, no one has come up with some objective standard yet.

One of my squaddies has. But it involves math, so I can't exactly explain it properly and do justice myself. 

[Lusche]

 

[BnZs]

But basically turn performance, rate of climb, top speed, acceleration, range, weight of fire, firing time, roll rate, zoom climb, ordinance load*, muzzle velocity of rounds, all are things for which we already have solid numbers or could easily test.

It would be complex, it would involve a huge number of calculations, to apply all the numbers one would like to get to all aircraft in AHII. And it still would involve some judgement calls, but would probably arrive at something closer to the truth. Like I say, a squaddie of mine began applying a process like this to a few planes awhile back, with a few surprising results. For instance, just charting the basic attributes of the P-51D against other LW aircraft, it would seem it's ENY deserves to if anything be HIGHER...

*One important choice would be whether or not we want to one category to rate a given plane as a fighter, and then give it a separate attack rating, or all that is relevant for both fighter and attack together.

[palef]

For those that STILL don't get it, the Spit XVI is a late model Spit IX with a US built Merlin.

The XIV is a Griffon engined and more than 2000hp vs the 1700-odd hp of the XVI's Packard Merlin.

[BoilerDown]

This has been suggested a few times. However, no one has come up with some objective standard yet.

Easy.  Just use market forces.  Evaluate how much each aircraft was used in the previous tour and set the ENY for the next tour accordingly.  The more an aircraft is used, the lower the ENY gets.  The less its used, the higher its ENY gets. 

So some virtual planes will become "bargains" and savvy people who want to get some perks will fly it more, and if that catches on its ENY will get lower until its fairly valued.

After a number of tours each aircraft will achieve an equilibrium ENY that market forces will have dictated.  Obviously it will fluctuate a bit based on what History Channel is showing on TV and what's going on in the special events arenas, but a little fluctuation is good as it gives bargain shoppers something to do and encourages people to try new rides.

Best of all it isn't something that HTC would have to do all kinds of analysis on, once the initial system was set up and working.

[SmokinLoon]

The standards for "rating" a plane should be obvious and it should be universal to all fighters (bombers are another monster).  Three issues exist:  First, what is the medium in which all planes are judged by.  Second, just how broad is the scoring belt (currently, I think the basics are 5 to 50 ENY), and at what altitudes are we rating these aircraft at, or are we averaging the low, med, and high alts (5k/15k/25k)??? 

IMO... here are the categories and relative importance, IMO:

1. Speed
2. Turn rate
3. Armament *ability*
4. Ordnance *ability*
5. Climb rate
6. Range

Three very important categories have been left out of being scored because I am not sure how a statistical value could be assigned: Roll rate, ease of use, and Mg absorption.  Fighters like the 190D-9 rely heavily on the roll rate, some fighters will allow a dead man to fly it, and some aircraft can take what seems to be tons of Mg while others seem to fall apart with a brush of .30 cal MG's.  Those things are hard to rate due to the absence of hard data (to the public, anyways). 

Also, most (but not all) of the fighters have the ability to perform both air to air and air to ground (attack) modes.  For this purpose, air to ground = ability to carry ord no matter how small the ords are (FM2 w/ two 100lb bombs, etc).  The planes that are air to air only (P40B, Spit1, Spit9, 190F-4, etc) should have a slightly different OBJ score than those that were multipurpose.  With that being said, aircraft like the P40E, Spit 8, and 190A5 should be scored differently than the Typhoon, the later P38's/P47's/F4U's.   

There have been seperate threads on this stuff before... but it appears, as usual, that it has fallen deaf ears.   

[Karnak]

1. Speed:  Spitfire Mk XIV: 448mph at 27,000ft, 358mph on the deck, La-7: ~380mph at 27,000ft, 380mph on the deck.  Which one is higher rated?

Climb rates follow similar patterns.

P-51D handles fine at 437mph, Bf109K-4 is suffering heavy controls at 452mph.

Ki-84 and Mosquito shed parts in a dive.

IMO... here are the categories and relative importance, IMO:

That is why no system will escape being subjective.  Re can matematically give values to each aspect of performance, but we cannot do so to the relative values of those performance aspects and thus turn to subjective values.

[Lusche]

1. Speed:  Spitfire Mk XIV: 448mph at 27,000ft, 358mph on the deck, La-7: ~380mph at 27,000ft, 380mph on the deck.  Which one is higher rated?

Climb rates follow similar patterns.

P-51D handles fine at 437mph, Bf109K-4 is suffering heavy controls at 452mph.

Ki-84 and Mosquito shed parts in a dive.


That is why no system will escape being subjective.  Re can matematically give values to each aspect of performance, but we cannot do so to the relative values of those performance aspects and thus turn to subjective values.

Exactly. As soon as you give a weight to each category, your getting subjective. And if you do not weigh them differently, but give the same importance to every category.. you might be in for some surprising results. In any case, people will start to argue again about the sorting.

Go to http://www.jcsautomation.com/AH_View_Planes.asp and you can do almost any weighted sort you like. See how the results do change. Have fun!