"Which Aircraft were difficult to maintain? and why?".

[Nikademus]

That RAF commander had better have slept with a guard posted outside..... [;)]

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

That RAF commander had better have slept with a guard posted outside..... [;)]

I don't think so. In the period considered probably less than 1% of RAF fighters flights met Japanese fighters in the air, so if the probability of crashing with a Spitfire on a rough surface was more than 1%, Hurricane were better. And they were better ground attack AC too, the main activity of RAF over Burma.

[Nikademus]

There was enough action that the Hurricanes were getting knocked around consistantly by Ki-43's. The pilots wanted Spits to help redress things.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

There was enough action that the Hurricanes were getting knocked around consistantly by Ki-43's. The pilots wanted Spits to help redress things.

I have to buy "Bloody Shambles" big time. Sounds like it is really detailed.

[1275psi]

Ron

Bloody shambles tells it exactly how it was -tracking each plane and pilot!

it puts you right there

best book/s on the air war Ive ever read!

[Howard Mitchell]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I have to buy "Bloody Shambles" big time. Sounds like it is really detailed.

It is. If you like Lundstrom's books you will like the Bloody Shambles volumes. Well recommended.

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Ron

Bloody shambles tells it exactly how it was -tracking each plane and pilot!

it puts you right there

best book/s on the air war Ive ever read!

No, I don't think so. In fact Shore is very good to describe air battles but doesn't seem to be very interested about air support and every kind of tactical help the air force may provide for the ground battle.

"Bloody Shambles" vol 1 and 2 are probably complete, but "Air war for Burma" is not IMOO giving the right impression about the Allied air superiority over Burma in 44-45. While almost every Japanese mission will be described, most of Allied ones are not. In fall 1944 hundred of tactical sorties were flown daily by the Allied airforce, the only sign of it in Shore's book being when such a sortie ended in a loss.
Without describing every mission, I think the book would have gained to give the number of Allied sorties for each day.

The same defect appeared in Shore's "2nd TAF" book serie. In this case as the main purpose of the command was tactical support, I find sorry to see that less than 5-10% of the book will be about this part of the Allied activity. Once again these books are great to describe all A2A battles, and list Allied and Axis aircraft losses suffered.

Last but not least: even with the above critics, "Air war for Burma" and "2nd TAF" books are the best available on these subjects, so I will also recomand them, but don't forget they are not complete. While Bloody Shambles describe 5 months of war in two books, "Air War for Burma" describes more than 3 years in one, so the detail level is not the same.

[Mike Scholl]

Problem is that if you ask the people that serviced them (often in miserable conditions) virtually ALL A/C were a pain to maintain. So finding "comparable data" to make such judgements on is difficult at best. For the purposes of the game, probably the best guidelines are the "servicability figures"---being basically the number of A/C "fit to fly" at any one place/period. These reflect not only the various problems with different A/C and designs, but the competence and skill of the serviceing crews as well.

There were a few that were a "beast" to maintain like the B-29. It was such a new and complicated A/C that it wound up having many of it's "teething problems" while actually deployed in combat. Most of the rest had idiocyncracies which could be solved by the ready availability of spare parts (if/when the parts were available). Some had structural/design problems. A few ran well under almost all conditions. Trying to break it all down by type is probably more trouble than it's worth....

[Cutman]

My opinion is even now it is difficult keeping older aircraft up 80 - 90 % depending on type of aircraft. I would try to find a number that is average for all aircraft and then base the rest off their own individidual aircraft type. Ron, I hope you can get this to work! One of the major problems with the game.

Cutman

[wdolson]

The major reason the B-26 was withdrawn from the Pacific was that it was too touchy to operate in the primitive conditions in the theater. It was an excellent bomber when operated from more permanent bases with longer runways and normal maintenance facilities. The B-25 turned out to be much more forgiving in harsh environments, so it became the standard medium bomber in the theater.

Bill

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: The Duke

I believe the Japanese had quite a few problems w/ the Ki-61 Tony engine, as it was Japan's only liquid-cooled engine, and poor production and maintenance techniques rendered the powerplant unreliable.

The Ki-84 (Frank), while an outstanding aircraft in normal circumstances, had problems across the board including landing gears snapping (poor heat treatment of high-strength steel in late war Japan), manufacturing quality control problems, and substandard fuel.

How do you represent these kind of problems if the Japanese player does very well and has huge oil reserves and a healthy industry? That kind of game would not have the IJ player resorting to pine tar for fuel and the enigne problems would likely not manifest.