To THE-ELF

[Japan]

The D4Y Carries In Real Life a 500 KG (1000 Pound) Bomb as Defult, but in WITP it semes that it carrys
a 250 KG Bomb (500 Pound) as defult, We are a few who wounder if this will be corrected in AE ???

Also, the Kamikaze Defult Load out for the D4Y is with a 800 KG (1600 Pound) Bomb.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D4Y




Wounder if you will fix this in AE ???




[8D]

[DuckofTindalos]

There is no evidence that the vast majority of Suiseis flew with anything other than the normal load of one 250kg and two 60kg bombs, and that's what you're getting. The D4Y4 comes with an 800kg bomb in the special attack role.

[Japan]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Japan

I guess I can restate ... our research indicates that standard ordnance carried by D4Y was 250KG for strike missions.

[Japan]

Ok, check this sourses, they indicate its 500 KG as standard...



Francillon, René J. Japanese Bombers of World War Two, Volume One. Windsor, Berkshire, UK: Hylton Lacy Publishers Ltd., 1969. ISBN 0-85064-022-9.

Angelucci, Enzo (ed.). World Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft. London: Jane's. 1981. ISBN 0 7106 0148 4.

Huggins, Mark. "Falling Comet: Yokosuka's Suisei Dive-Bomber". Air Enthusiast No. 97, January/February 2002. ISSN 0143 5430.

Richards, M.C. and Smith, Donald S. "Aichi D3A ('Val') & Yokosuka D4Y ('Judy') Carrier Bombers of the IJNAF". in Aircraft in Profile, Volume 13. Windsor, Berkshire, UK: Profile Publications Ltd., 1974, p. 145-169. ISBN 0-85383-022-3.





[8D]

[jwilkerson]

Whenever we do historical research, we must follow the axiom of being true to our sources.

A number of these aircraft ordnance "debates" were quite extensive and we had to consider dozens of sources many of which contained contradictory information. Yet decisions had to be made. We obviously believe we made the correct decisions based on the sources we examined, but certainly we cannot be 100% sure in at least some cases. But, we must follow this historian's process: "Ask the questions", "find the sources" and "Answer the questions while being true to the sources". I am not aware of an exception to this process in the AE data.

This being said, if someone wants to change the data - that is what the editor is for - and it allows much more flexibility than stock, and I plan on using it myself to tailor things more to specific periods and circumstances (for smaller scenarios).

[Japan]

Ok mr. jwilkerson  good to here the values of the prodject, i hope and think that the historical data will be the data used,  it is very conforting to here that you have used extensive historicle recharch,  something that most "games" does not do.  This will then quallefie as a "simulator" rather then as a "game".

[jwilkerson]

While we have averaged 3-4 "programmers" on the project (since about May 06 when we officially started) ... we have also averaged about 12 "researchers" or "subject matter experts" during this same period. Some folks have performed both roles. And we have had about 6+ folks doing various types of "art".

So certainly the research aspect has been emphasized. The original OOB was far from "inaccurate" but we are amazed at the amount of things that have been added, changed, moved around, etc. I think we can at least say that we have pretty much "tapped the well" as regards english language sources, and a few of us have been able to dip across the language barriers, though we do not have any Japanese speakers on the team (something to be remeded for any future WITP project).

Is this a "game" or a "sim" ... well depends on your definitions ... being a guy who has written simulators for a living, I can say that it is actually both, as are pretty much all historical games. The idea that a "sim" must be 100% accurate being a wrong headed impossibility. Simulators in the real world are created for a purpose. The level of accuracy required being defined by the purpose (not some universal arbitrary standard).

I have written a simulator for a semi-conductor manufacturing tool that can be set up in minutes and run in seconds and it produces useful "what if" data for the pre-sales process. Another more detailed version takes hours to set up and runs in minutes ... it produces data that is accurate enough to base more costly decisions on. So level of accuracy per se does not make something a simulation. Both of the "simulators" I describe here are simulators. One is an order of magnitude more expensive to operate, but it is also an order of magnitude more accurate, but even the less accurate is just as useful to the business, though for a different purpose.

Whether a wargame is a "game" or a "sim" is a debate as old as the existence of wargames ... and the reason the debate is not usually resolved is because the debate occurs in a vaccum with no definitions. Provide a definition and then a decision can be made!!!

Anywho ... off the soap box (but anticipating rejoinders from others) ... we did try to improve the accuracy of AE vis-a-vis WITP in many ways ... but fundamentally we still sit on top of the WITP engine and so must live with the strengths and weakness we inherit. But mostly I think AE will offer those long time WITP players an experience where their WITP strategies will have to be rethought. So there will be a host of new problems to figure out - we hope it will be fun doing so!!

[Dili]

Well Japan just reading that cut and paste you posted i can tell you that your source is one of the many that are crappy around, i don't know what is it that book and who made it, i can tell it is crappy. There is no way that a plane that has a loaded weight almost half of Helldiver can reach farther and have a bigger load at that. So that is one many crappy books(99% of them - i never found an airplane encyclopedia that wasn't somewhat or totally crappy) that carelessly put best cases: Best weapon load, best range, best etc... mixes them all and present a wonder airplane.

I prefer get my numbers from airplane specific books and manuals and then normalise them myself. They usually are detailed enough to show that range X is with weapon Y, how much usefull load thay have. What is the empty weight, how much gas they can take and how all that adds up.

[kmussler]

My references for the D4Y-1 add that early versions of the aircraft had 'wing flutter', making it difficult to handle in a dive - not too good for a dive bomber (which may be one reason the IJN normally operated the aircraft at less than max load capacity).   It also seems to me that in many cases, max load weights listed by aircraft designers were never meant to be an encouragement towards standard use load weight.  This is implied in the statement in one reference, 'and was able to carry up to a 500kg bomb centerline'.  It's hardly an endorsement for standard use of the 500kg load. 

[Japan]

Well mr. Dili
As pointed out above, there is properbly sourses saying something, and sourses saying the compleate different..
This book: ISBN 0 7106 0148 4 is my favorite Aircraft Sourse, i like it alot.
[:)]

Im pritty sure the AE Team has done a very accurate job, just see how many men thay have used on the actual prodject.
[:'(]

[m10bob]

I have a few hundred books in my library, with many referance books. It is hard to find more than 3 "referance books" which will agree on every fact of a given aircraft. Worse, some of those books only copy what some other book said(without benefit of credit, nor research!).
The designer of a game must then pour over as many of these books as might be easily acessable, and try to determine the ones most credible, and most plausible.

Of course the P 47 was a great fighter plane, but it depends on which one.
The early 3 paddle blade prop was lousy and did not allow the plane to climb near as well as the later 4 bladed prop..

Referance books might show the range of the early P 47 to be "x" miles, but I can show you several sources that show EVERY EARLY P 47 GETTING TO AUSTRALIA was fitted with wing tanks built at a local Ford plant, patterned after the tanks on the P 38..(Here is an excellent example of a field expedient which was universally applied to EVERY early P 47 in Australia, but is never mentioned in referance books about the plane, because, the referance books rarely mention field-expedients, as the expedients were (normally) rarely adopted/fitted to a known model of plane.)

It is hard to represent the strengths/foibles of every single model, because there were even "sub-models" within a production run that might radically alter the qualities of a given plane.

[mlees]

I am not familiar with the aircraft in question, beyond what is in wiki. What was the hardpoints capability in the D4Y?

I have seen references made (usually involving multi-engine bombers) that give a total max bomb load, but dont mention the hardpoint setup. For example, the D4Y may very well carry 500kg of ordnance, but the bomb racks are only rated for 250kg. (And thus, can only carry a 250kg as a max size bomb.)

Edit: Never mind. Japan's book says a 500kg bomb internally. Carry on.

[dhuffjr2]

Consider the F18E/F.  The max weapons load is 17,500 lbs.   Sounds impressive.  Then you read that the interdiction package is 4x 1000lb bombs, 2x Sidewinders, and 2x 480 gal drop tanks.  Not even getting into range vs combat radius.  I always look at listed max weapons loads as fine if your goal is to fly across town and bomb something.
 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-specs.htm
 
Sounds like the team is making a good faith effort to make things as right as they can.

[TheElf]

One of the limitations we face in the WitP engine is that of load out. Could the Judy carry a 500 KG bomb? Certainly.

Using Duff's example of the Superhornet is a perfect way to explain this limitation. The Rhino can carry a seemingly endless combination of ordnance and fuel. Too many for me to list here. But imagine taking that capability and modelling it in a game that would only allow you to choose one, and that was for Air, Sea, and Land targets.

That is the "inheritance" Joe spoke of. We've tried to mitigate that with some code to allow different loads for different missions, but that still doesn't approach all the possibilities.

We had to pick the MOST representative loads, for all missions. Loads that balanced range, fuel, typical operating distances etc. It really is one of the most telling over simplifications of the game. But it has to be that way.

If you want to change it, one of our design themes was to make the Editor more userfriendly and increase the Mod-ability.

[Dili]

Well mr. Dili
As pointed out above, there is properbly sourses saying something, and sourses saying the compleate different..
This book: ISBN 0 7106 0148 4 is my favorite Aircraft Sourse, i like it alot.

You should be able by yourself to find something that is off, when the book is lying to you because what is telling you is an impossibility unless there is some specific technologic explaination since tech between countries wasn't so far off that miracles could happen. What your source is saying? :D4Y-I can range 2417 miles dropping 1650lb bombs half distance...do you think that is beliveable?

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Well mr. Dili
As pointed out above, there is properbly sourses saying something, and sourses saying the compleate different..
This book: ISBN 0 7106 0148 4 is my favorite Aircraft Sourse, i like it alot.

You should be able by yourself to find something that is off, when the book is lying to you because what is telling you is an impossibility unless there is some specific technologic explaination since tech between countries wasn't so far off that miracles could happen. What your source is saying? :D4Y-I can range 2417 miles dropping 1650lb bombs half distance...do you think that is beliveable?

Well, that the D4Y has 800 KG Bombs (1600 lbs) Bombload, and that it will carry it is already established as a fact, in AE it will have a 1600 LBS bonb on some missions. (Kami missions for example)... so, obviesly it will be able to carry a 500 KG (1000 lbs) bomb, how far is however another question.

[John Lansford]

First off, a plane carrying an 800kg bomb on a one way mission probably doesn't have to worry about stressing the airframe too much, or the overall performance while in the air, and the range probably sucks too.  What did they take out of the plane to get that 800kg bomb in it?  Defensive armament, radios, what else?
 
Second, did they carry one 500kg bomb, or two 250 kg bombs?  Was this a maximum loadout for very short range flights, or could they make their standard combat radius with it (doubtful)?  Way too many books claiming they've got stats for warplanes tend to grab the maximums and lump them all together in one table, giving readers the impression the plane was some kind of wonder weapon.  Heavy bombers tend to get this treatment all the time; a B-17 could carry 4000 lbs of bombs, but at the expense of most of their range, but typically you see them listed as having, say, a range of 2000 miles and "could carry 4000 lbs of bombs" in the same table.

[DuckofTindalos]

A dive bomber can't carry two bombs on the centerline.

[Dili]

Well, that the D4Y has 800 KG Bombs (1600 lbs) Bombload, and that it will carry it is already established as a fact, in AE it will have a 1600 LBS bonb on some missions. (Kami missions for example)... so, obviesly it will be able to carry a 500 KG (1000 lbs) bomb, how far is however another question.

My point is that the book makes an erronous picture of aircraft capability . None of that data in your book is false per se. What is false is assuming both data(weapon+range) is feasible at same time.

Empty weight of 5514lb + 440lb pilots + oil(70lb?) + other devices including amno(probably around 150lb)= 6174lb - 8270lb = remains probably 2076lb(2050-2100lb) for Fuel and weapons. For Kamikaze takes out amno, rear gun and the second pilot you can add probably more 300-400lb in Fuel/Weapons weight.