EOS Oscar-I vs Oscar-II

[1EyedJacks]

Why does Oscar-II have 2X range of Oscar-I - drop tanks?

[el cid again]

Actually no, they both carry the same drop tanks.

The Oscar II is a significantly different aircraft, with a different power plant, and a much greater
load capacity. If it does not carry its sinificant bomb load it can carry enough fuel to matter for
such a light aircraft. It also is better protected. Its main problem is it lacks powerful cannon armament.
In many respects the I is a superb classical fighter (complete with two MG weapons - oddly enough usually
1 .30 and 1 .50 cal - but it could be two of either) - while the II is more of a fighter bomber - since even
though it is faster - by the time it appears it is not nearly as much a challenge as the I was in 1941. The
Oscar has few buffs - but it should: "it was nearly as great a technical surprise as the Zero" (Francillon) -
in no small part because we thought the Ki-10 was the main fighter and the Ki-27 was the high end fighter of
JAAF. We also believed their pilots were awful - and they fed us reason to think so at air shows - sending the
washouts instead of the best like other nations. They barely could fly and it was obvious - so expectations
were very low.

For a good account of what happneed in the critical early campaigns, see Bloody Shambles. The Oscar (Ki-43 to
the Japanese) should have fans - it was a credible fighter in its day - and the II was much better in most respects than
the I - range included.

[m10bob]

By early 1942 the Oscar had a field expedient to remove the .30 cal MG and replace it with the larger .50 cal.. There was apparently no uniformity as to which planes were given the conversion, so planes within a squadron could have both types.
Both Oscars were more maneuverable than the A6m2 and while they had poor pilot protection, the strength in the plane was that with a good pilot, the plane would not be in an opponents gunsights for long.
While it was of course under-gunned, it only takes a single round in the right place to bring any plane down, and the Hayabusa was an excellent gun platform.
Until RHS, the plane has always been given the short-shrift within WITP compared to its' historic counterpart.
In fairness, given that it did only have the 2 MG's, it is rather difficult to design a comparable game component with the same results.
Nearly all of the Japanese Army aces flew this plane.

http://au.geocities.com/thefortysecondi ... -oscar.htm




http://www.aviation-history.com/nakajima/ki43.html



http://www.dmbcrtaf.thaigov.net/aircraf ... 7/ki43.htm

[el cid again]

Some commentators say that the one and one configuration (one 30 and one 50) had certain advantages - the .30 had more rounds and a higher ROF - while the .50 had more punch. The .30 made it easier to aim (the tracer came more often) and the .50 made it easier to do damage when you did get on target.

It does indeed appear that this plane was used by most JAAF aces - but one reason for that was that it was mass produced compared to the Ki-44 - which might have been preferred but simply was not available to most units. Certainly the Ki-44 was better than the Me-109 - its competator - or the He-100 - both of which existed in Japan - both of which were licenced for production in Japan - and both of which had senior German production engineers in Japan to facilitate their production. Indeed, both used the same engine, and that engine WAS produced in Japan (for the Ki-51 for one thing). The Japanese mistake was not to use the Me-109 E early - replacing it with the Ki-44 later - possibly replacing that with a later Ki-51, a later Ki-44, or a Ki-84. This latter was itself a "later Ki-43" - just as a Ki-100 was a "later Ki-51" - and in Ki-84 form the Ki-43 at last shows its potential (sort of like the P-47 shows the potential of its ancestor with a different designation). By waiting for the Ki-44 instead of doing the Me-109 (as in RHS) the Japanese lacked a true interceptor early in the war - and the Ki-43 I was not ideal in that role. Nor was the A6M.