RHSEOS - Japanese CV capable aircraft?

[1EyedJacks]

Hi all,

I just want to confirm that the following air units are CV capable:

Claude
A6M2 Zeke
Me109T Mike
A7M1 Reppu
A7M2 Reppu
A6M7 Zeke

Nothing else - right?

[el cid again]

Well - if you wish to leave out the carrier bombers - right.

Note the list is quite different in CVO and BBO - where you get A6M3 and A6M5 - don't get the Me-109T -
and I think you also don't get two A7 versions either. Interestingly enough, the A7M1 is not very good -
lacking the engine power the heavy design needs. But if it was available sooner - it would have been
better than an A6. In the event, they wasted too much time on this, and then skipped it - going directly to the 2
which was so late only one aircraft was completed during the war. Anyway - EEO uses different planning and
development choices - so both are availble sooner. Still - I don't think they are going to do extremely well vs
Hellcats, Corsairs, etc - particularly on the big later US carriers.

[Nemo121]

Yeah what you really need is the Ki-44 III. Compared to the planes it is going to face ( F6Fs mostly with a leavening of Corsairs ) the Ki-44 III is a very good match and relaly whatever it loses in terms of pure capability it gains in terms of strategic viability as it can outfit both IJA and IJN fighter groups and thus you get real benefits in terms of economies of scale.
 
Cid, why did you remove the Ki-44 III? I would have thought it would have been superior to the A7M1 --- especially when you take into account that it was available sooner.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Well - if you wish to leave out the carrier bombers - right.

Note the list is quite different in CVO and BBO - where you get A6M3 and A6M5 - don't get the Me-109T -
and I think you also don't get two A7 versions either. Interestingly enough, the A7M1 is not very good -
lacking the engine power the heavy design needs. But if it was available sooner - it would have been
better than an A6. In the event, they wasted too much time on this, and then skipped it - going directly to the 2
which was so late only one aircraft was completed during the war. Anyway - EEO uses different planning and
development choices - so both are availble sooner. Still - I don't think they are going to do extremely well vs
Hellcats, Corsairs, etc - particularly on the big later US carriers.

Ok - I just wanted to confirm which fighters were carrier capable. I was looking at the range available for these air units. Shouldn't it be longer? Except for the A6M2 Zeke, it seems to me the other carrier capable fighters won't have enough fuel for protecting TB/DB aircraft on stikes - right? Doesn't a carrier fighter need additional range/fuel for ecort missions?

Won't I lose a lot of fighters on escort missions just because they run out of fuel?

Claude ------ 225/300
A6M2 Zeke - 495/660
Mike---------- 150/200
A7M1 Reppu- 270/360
A7M2 Reppu- 195/260
A6M7 Zeke--- 195/260

[goodboyladdie]

I have an EOS question from the Allied side. When is it reasonable to base Corsairs on CVs and to be historic and/or fit in with the intentions of the mod designers what is the largest fighter and attack aircraft I can put on my CVLs and CVEs? This question is for you too Mike as what my opponent will accept is probably more important.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Yeah what you really need is the Ki-44 III. Compared to the planes it is going to face ( F6Fs mostly with a leavening of Corsairs ) the Ki-44 III is a very good match and relaly whatever it loses in terms of pure capability it gains in terms of strategic viability as it can outfit both IJA and IJN fighter groups and thus you get real benefits in terms of economies of scale.

Cid, why did you remove the Ki-44 III? I would have thought it would have been superior to the A7M1 --- especially when you take into account that it was available sooner.

Actually - I did NOT remove it - although possibly I should do so. I DID forget about it however. And it is a curious case treated differently in 'strictly historical' and 'Japan enhansed planning' scenarios.

The Ki-44 III is thought to be the aircraft JAAF intended for service on ARMY carriers. Since these are present in CVO and BBO - the aircraft is also present as a "carrier fighter" in those family scenaros. It is not, however, a NAVY fighter - so while it is a fairly impressive plane - it does not fill the bill of replacing naval fighters in the navy. It also is so late that it will never appear in most games - and indeed never was operational IRL. It was long believed that there were some of these produced late in the war - but it may be that did not happen - and that only one or two prototypes were actually completed. Since we cannot know about a game world, it is in RHS in case Japan keeps its development and production on track. While Army carriers (well - at least one - probably two - maybe three) did become operational, it may be they never operated fighters, and all we know for sure is that Ki-76 and Ka-1 operated from them.

In EOS we DO have the Ki-44 III - but like the II it is a land plane - not a carrier plane. Partly this is because an integrated joint planning commission "decided" that it is unwise to build Army carriers at all - something almost all analysts and commentators since the war have said.
Instead, these ships are mainly built in other forms (Oilers, amphibious ships, even miltiarized AKs) - and the Navy puts priority on truely naval aircraft carriers (both combat and escort - but not what would be called merchant in British terms - there being no similar US concept).
The Navy program does not focus on exotic carriers so much as on modest ones - mainly so they arrive in time to be operationally significant - and in EOS we also decide to focus on CVLs instead of CVS type ships (with the exception of a prototype or two). Not having any Army carriers, there is no empetus for an Army carrier fighter per se.

So instead, we put proper focus on a replacement for the A6M series. This DID happen early on - but got side tracked for various reasons - including lack of talent (because the Army would draft Navy industrial experts - and vice versa). In EOS we keep the A7M development on track, so the A7M1 makes more sense - the later engine is not yet available anyway - and the need for higher performance is not as acute.
When the A7M2 arrives - and it does arrive sooner than IRL (where it in fact never arrived at all - so any date is "sooner" - RHS has a system based on date of test flight and normal development time to estimate when it could be done) - it is a critical thing - something that might be effective if used well - and there are carriers enough to matter (which I regard as unlikely in most games). In EOS the A7M1 replaces the A6M5 - which was developed because it was known the A7M was going to be late - and it would not have been developed at all if the A7M was on track. In AE we will give you some other options - including an interesting A6M4 with a turbo supercharged engine. But Japan did not develop a lot of carrier fighters - and I don't think a focus on carrier air power in the Navy would have led to more - for industrial technical reasons. They barely could have done what we say they could have done in EOS family.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi all,

I just want to confirm that the following air units are CV capable:

Claude
A6M2 Zeke
Me109T Mike
A7M1 Reppu
A7M2 Reppu
A6M7 Zeke

Nothing else - right?

Also A6M3a.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

I have an EOS question from the Allied side. When is it reasonable to base Corsairs on CVs and to be historic and/or fit in with the intentions of the mod designers what is the largest fighter and attack aircraft I can put on my CVLs and CVEs? This question is for you too Mike as what my opponent will accept is probably more important.

In RHS you cannot "cheat" with early Corsairs - they are NOT carrier aircraft! Indeed, the first carrier capable one is probably the British one, which indeed was first - and why USN ultimately put them on carriers. F4U-1 (I think) is a land plane - but a later version (F4U-1D I think) is a carrier plane - as is F4U-4.

But you COULD "cheat" and put them on CVEs or CVLs - as you could do with other late war carrier fighters. This is gamey and impractical - but might barely be possible. The reason we put the FM-2 in the game is for such ships. But also, the F6F is small enough, and indeed did operate from CVLs, both regular and night fighter variants. I think FAA operated them from CVEs (this is very tricky - RN carriers change sqauadrons like fashionable women change shoes) as well. So F6F and F4 anything is reasonable.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi all,

I just want to confirm that the following air units are CV capable:

Claude
A6M2 Zeke
Me109T Mike
A7M1 Reppu
A7M2 Reppu
A6M7 Zeke

Nothing else - right?

Also A6M3a.

You are thinking of CHS I think. In RHS there is no A6M3a - just A6M3 - and only in CVO or BBO scenario families. EOS - about which he posted this list - does not have the plane - which is not enough better to warrant production. [It mainly has less range - hardly useful to a player - it has identical armament and no protection - and it is not enough better in speed or ROC to get significantly better maneuverability: RHS uses 28 for A6M2 and 29 for A6M3]

[Mike Solli]

The A6M3a is in stock.  Not sure about CHS.