There are a lot of different types of wear and tear. As mentioned yours looks like it's been pouded by the elements or underwater for 50 years.
There's sun bleaching, there's sand blasting, there's fading from age, there's a number of things up to and including peeling/chipping.
Now, what the Japanese paint did was peel/flake. It came off. What you're doing is mixing about 10 different types of paint wear and tear that really don't mix. You've got a very heavy splotchy pattern mixed with multiple faded colors then mixed with paint that looks like it's been rinsed off. etc..
I think it's overly extreme and not realistic at all. It's about the logic of the pattern you see. The weathering you have applied isn't logical. No set of circumstances would have combined to give you what you see there. I think it's a good start as many would tend to UNDER-state their first attempt at weathering. That can be hard to overcome and now you don't have to worry about it.
I think what you need to do is go back and check out the pics you looked up for similar planes and take a good look. Dollars to donuts if you find paint chipping/peeling it will be almost crisp. It won't be faded or blotchy in most cases with IJA/IJN and you'll find a harder "edge" to where the paint disappears.
The Japanese paint lacked adherence. That is it didn't stick, and parts came off if it didn't stick. Often along flexible joints, access panels, places of high traffic (walk areas, etc). Now, faded paint denotes a long-term exposure or heavy use. If the paint has stuck around long enough to fade, it isn't going to fall off like that. Scratches are another thing -- they can be on both old or new paint jobs, but will look a little different. Often scratches do not go down "to the bone" and show metal. They also are centered only on areas that would be scratched by ground crew or pilots. For example you use them to break up patterns all the way out on the wings and back. There's not much reason for scratches here unless the ground crew were flogging the ship with palm fronds all day long.
Something a little more realistic is something along the lines of this:
and:
But my question is: Why? You have a clear photo of how the real plane looked. You can see clearly, plain as day, it doesn't look anything like that. All the other planes on the line next to it, as well as similar planes in other units painted the same color, share none of these weathering traits.
Naturally weathering can be subjective, but IMO you can't just go and strip half the paint off a plane that never showed that kind of display in real life. The point is to simulate or replicate the historic profile you have chosen. There are others out there missing half their paint, so I would suggest find some good references, then do
that skin if you want to do one beat-to-heck.
Smaller notes:
Bullet holes are a silly thing. No airframe is going back into battle with unpatched bullet holes. They cover and seal the holes when they repair any damage the bullet has done.
Also, the Hinomaru were hand-painted and maintained as a matter of national/cultural pride in most cases. You would never find them in such a sad state on any flying IJA/IJN aircraft.
P.S. Just for reference material:
http://www.ijaafphotos.com/jbwki841.htm
