Japanese Profiles.

[Greebo]

Thanks Lyric1, some nice looking schemes. I'll skin the 381st NFG's 81-181 for sure.

The bare metal A6M5 is interesting, presumably that was done locally to gain a few mph. Anyone got any history on it?

[Krusty]

The BMF photo has TAIC on the tail. That's the testing authority. They came up with the tested performance values that went into manuals and such. Not a combat paint scheme.

I would be doubtful of the orange tails until you could show some better photo evidence. AND prove they were combat schemes. I don't see it too well in the photo you showed.


It's one thing to hunt down the brightest most colorful schemes, but IMO they're misleading because 99.9999% of the time they never flew combat or were specialized training schemes or what-have-you. The reason you don't fly bright planes into combat is they get picked on first and get shot down first. Camouflage was to blend in, not to stand out.


EDIT:
http://books.google.com/books?id=NFjEKC2RNbUC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=TAIC+A6M&source=bl&ots=R9K4pryFOV&sig=JlCF4K2iZTa1O9ntJQEpbmnsC5Q&hl=en&ei=ptguTrugPOfhiAL7-b0r&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=TAIC%20A6M&f=false
One of many paint schemes (rather, lack of a paint scheme) used during its US captivity tests, according to this Osprey book.

[Megalodon]

A bunch of very cools stuff from this link I found in a round about manner from info that Megalodon had mentioned on the captured P40.



http://japaneseaircraft.multiply.com/photos?&=&album=&page_start=0

 Great find excelent pics 

[lyric1]

I would be doubtful of the orange tails until you could show some better photo evidence. AND prove they were combat schemes. I don't see it too well in the photo you showed.


It's one thing to hunt down the brightest most colorful schemes, but IMO they're misleading because 99.9999% of the time they never flew combat or were specialized training schemes or what-have-you. The reason you don't fly bright planes into combat is they get picked on first and get shot down first. Camouflage was to blend in, not to stand out.

Close up of the second partial photo that I had previously posted of that unit's tail markings.





Clear demarcation line on two aircraft where vertical stabilizer starts. A single horizontal stripe with numbers above it. As far as colours are concerned in most cases when no colour photos exist profiles & documented known squadron markings are typically the bench mark.

I don't know a lot about this unit so far except what the plastic model has about it. Phillippines in 1944 A little far from home to be a trainer unit I think?

As far as the camo is for hiding type comment   Yeah I would tend to agree with that except there are always exceptions,squadron leader markings,lead aircraft formation leaders. The Japanese where not afraid to use some colour when needed. As for example lets look at this D3A at Pearl Harbour.





Safe bet this guy stood out like a soar thumb on the first day of WWII against the USA.

Try a new approach.
Lets look at the Naval air group 381ST.


http://niehorster.orbat.com/014_japan/navy-co/air-groups.html

Leader of this group from above link.



381 Naval Air Group
   activated 10.43
   disbanded 9.45
      • Capt Kondo Katsuji (46) 10.43 – 10.44

Capt Katsuji some info on him.



http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/K/o/Kondo_Katsuji.htm

http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/px46.htm#r015
A very distinguished career to say the least & CO of a fighter group.

381ST had carrier fighters & night fighters so I would say no trainer unit here.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/oob/jap.php?unit=381_Air_Group#381_Air_Group

I will dig around some more on this.

[Greebo]

Good spot on the TAIC logo Krusty. Also the Japanese did move a lot of their training south as fuel was easier to come by there.

Osprey's "Imperial Japanese Navy Aces 1937-45" has a brief mention of the 381st in it: "Established 10/43. Fought over Biak, Borneo, Celebes and French Indochina. Disbanded at the end of the war." It does not mention any action over the Philippines, but that does not necessarily mean the squadron was not on active service there. At least one of the 381st's squadrons was also the first to receive the J2M Raiden in late 1943.

I don't believe an aircraft actually has to have seen combat for it to be allowed as a skin, it just needs to have seen front line service. The combat issue is for whether a plane gets included in the game in the first place.

I'll hold on this one for now and see if anything else turns up on it.

[Krusty]

Combat is implied. Used in harm's way. No training skins. No unarmed recon. etc...

[Greebo]

You can skin unarmed recon planes (Mossie 16s), what you can't do is skin an unarmed recon scheme onto an armed aircraft. Besides unarmed recon aircraft were frequently put in harm's way so its irrelevant to the topic here anyway. These Zeroes have open gun ports which would probably have been taped over if the guns were removed, so I would say it is likely they were armed.

The issue here is not whether the 381st's A6Ms saw combat in this scheme. It is whether they were considered by the IJNAF to be an operational squadron at the time. In other words, if the USN had turned up in the Phillippines in April 44 when the 381st were there, would they have been sent up to intercept?

[Krusty]

You can skin unarmed recon planes (Mossie 16s), what you can't do is skin an unarmed recon scheme onto an armed aircraft. Besides unarmed recon aircraft were frequently put in harm's way so its irrelevant to the topic here anyway. These Zeroes have open gun ports which would probably have been taped over if the guns were removed, so I would say it is likely they were armed.

The issue here is not whether the 381st's A6Ms saw combat in this scheme. It is whether they were considered by the IJNAF to be an operational squadron at the time. In other words, if the USN had turned up in the Phillippines in April 44 when the 381st were there, would they have been sent up to intercept?

I disagree, on many levels.

The Mossie16 is an exception to the rule because it is a very recent addition to the fold. But to the rest I think that's not an accurate representation of the aircraft that fought. Just because a unit is active doesn't mean it engaged in combat. There were many "active" units that never saw combat. Training units and such. Unarmed recon squadrons were active. The Luftwaffe had many active squadrons that were there for myriad training and evaluation purposes. The way these craft are used in-game is only as fighters, bombers, armed front line weapons of death and destruction. If the skin you fly is a non-combat set of markings it really is a disservice to the game and the people that know better. It's one thing to strive for the colorful or unique marking (I myself tilt that way) but to add them simply for color is a little too arcade/quake/Ubisoft for Aces High. This game is a level above bright markings just "because" or anything like that.

The spirit of the rules is that the skins fought. Just to be stationed somewhere for unknown reasons with questionable combat deployment? IMO that's not good enough. Either you can show they engaged in combat or you can't.

That academic discussion aside.....


To the markings in question: I don't know myself, not having delved into the unit history. What I do say is that looking at the photos there I don't see what looks like orange tails. I say that knowing IJN/IJA patterns of camo no other planes had orange upper sides (or under sides) that were front line combat units. Orange was a training color. I say that the photos don't show it, the traditional and well-established norm contradicts it, so I say the orange tail is a fabrication or false intrepretation, and not historical. I say if any craft had some orange tail like this (which so far I am unconvinced) it was not a combat airframe any more than the Blue Angels or the Red Arrows.

That's all I'm saying in this specific set of markings.

[Fencer51]

IMHO its armed up and on a flight line with others also bombed up.  Its in a fighter group, not a training group.  I say do it.

[lyric1]

To the markings in question: I don't know myself, not having delved into the unit history. What I do say is that looking at the photos there I don't see what looks like orange tails. I say that knowing IJN/IJA patterns of camo no other planes had orange upper sides (or under sides) that were front line combat units. Orange was a training color. I say that the photos don't show it, the traditional and well-established norm contradicts it, so I say the orange tail is a fabrication or false intrepretation, and not historical. I say if any craft had some orange tail like this (which so far I am unconvinced) it was not a combat airframe any more than the Blue Angels or the Red Arrows.

That's all I'm saying in this specific set of markings.

So the bright orange D3a is not pertinent because the orange training colour is on the fuselage & not on the upper or lower surfaces?






That paint scheme was put in to combat on day one of the war for the Japanese & we know there is instances that the orange scheme was still being used at war's end. So can you at least concede that there,might be,maybe,could have,possibly,been used at some point during the war as well?

Plus that D3a aircraft is very very well documented in regards to it's appearance.

Plus I find it a tad hypocritical here on this post when you are talking in absolutes in terms of colours when in the P40 thread about the yellow nose P40 you said this.

Sadly, no you cannot make such a comparison with black and white shades. It doesn't hold up. Different films show different colors a certain way, and while he may have a yellow flight suit, a suit of tan, or of beige, or of "sand" may all appear the same on B&W. You can get some generalization from the photos, such as color differences, but you cannot equate colors when there isn't any color present.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316356.75.html

Sorry Krusty but I have to take you to task on this one. You skipped over the point I had made prior in this thread about exceptions & this unit just may be one of those. I am still digging & I have found more information at this point it still is not enough though. I have a few books on the way that may shed more light on this unit.

[lyric1]

Some new info another squadron photo of this unit not a very clear one as it is out of a Japanese magazine. The second plane from the right shows a demarcation line on the vertical tail.

[lyric1]

After digging about for some KI-84 information. I stumbled across some good books online & have found some photos that match profiles that I long suspected as fictional.
Thought I would stick them in this thread if any one wants to do them for future reference.

 520th Temporary Interception Regiment.





http://modelingmadness.com/scott/decals/es/es32067.htm

182nd Shimbu-tai.

This is a Kamikaze aircraft  Is it though if the pilot & aircraft survive the war?
I would say it could be skinned.














Another Kamikaze squadron I think we already have one in game from this squadron.

57th Shinbu-Tai.









http://www.internetmodeler.com/2005/may/new-releases/decal_aviprint.php

Army transportation unit 2nd Hikotai.






More to come later.

[Krusty]

Lyric, from my research and understanding back when I did the 57 Shimbu-Tai skin, these aircraft were the top cover and escorts for the actual kamikazes. So... technically they were part of a kamikaze unit, but were not the planes used for the deed, if you see what I mean.

As for the last images... Very interesting, but "transportation unit" altered the markings and these were what you might consider post-war captured airframes and the paint schemes modified by the captors. On the one hand it mentions orders to paint the airframes, then says this wasn't painted in a solid color -- I'm not clear on the wording. Were the blotches already there? Or were they added by the captors taking possession of it?

The mystery of the Ki-84 model in "fantasy markings" may be inspired by tales of this paint scheme, though. I wonder if this is what inspired that particular idea.

[lyric1]

As for the last images... Very interesting, but "transportation unit" altered the markings and these were what you might consider post-war captured airframes and the paint schemes modified by the captors. On the one hand it mentions orders to paint the airframes, then says this wasn't painted in a solid color -- I'm not clear on the wording. Were the blotches already there? Or were they added by the captors taking possession of it?

Actually this is legit. Read the first profile on the decal sheet it has the history.
Did it see combat like this though?

" This aircraft was flown by 1st Lt. Shuho Yamana, Army Air ferry Command, 2nd Hikotai in 1944. He picked it up in Nakajima's Ota factory and flew it to Saigon."

http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=15446.0

http://www.aviationofjapan.com/2015_03_01_archive.html

[lyric1]

10TH Rensai Hikotai.









72ND Sentai 3RD Chutai.