Admiral Yamamoto's "What Might Have Been"

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


JUAN DESIGN QUESTIONS:
1. Once we have decided on everything including specifications and timeline how hard will it be to change over the Research and Development plants in Japan. Strikes me as fairly easy but I haven't messed with that side of the Editor.

2. What levels do we set the R&D at?

Very straightforward. you can edit the aircraft section to build the upgrade trees as you desire - these are the FACTORY upgrade paths. Also remember to change any engine availability dates as requires - I forgot to do this in one of my updates, and its a stupid thing to overlook.

Then you edit the airgroups to match the new aircraft paths you desire. This is probably the most time consuming part.

After this you alter the industry/R&D in the HI to what you want. This is again easy as all of Japan is in one section of the locations file, so you just have to go through each location to find the factories you want and change them as desired.

I dont not really have suggestions as to what to set the R&D at. I suggest looking at the current R&D totals for the Zero and Jack, and then dividing those as desired. For any aircraft more than 3 months out I suggest making them all disabled.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
armor, even less range than A6M3; cowling MGs are replaced with 2x13.2 in the wings, max speed 371mph , climb 4,800 ft/min ,

If that's what the game measures climb in, the number is too high. In AE only Shusei has climb greater than 4000.

Otherwise, I support your plan.

I'd suggest something around the 3000-3200 mark.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: JuanG
I've also noticed the issue of underrated cannons, or rather overrated HMGs, and my scenarios contain simple changes to correct this somewhat. I've worked on a more extensive redefinition of all aircraft weapons for the next version.

IMO, CL designation in the game does not adequately model advantages of certain planes as stable and accurate gun platforms. The number of barrels matters so much more. As a result, Ki-27s really struggle to bring down planes they historically were able to handle easily (Chinese SBs, for example), and Ki-43s have problems too. On the other hand, the rifle-caliber battery on Hurricanes works extremely well, as opposed to RL, because as you add more MGs, the firepower scales linearly.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

J5N1
Nakajima
Navy Experimental 18-Shi Otsu (B) Type Interceptor Fighter Tenrai

Was deemed a failure due to insufficient speed.

ORIGINAL: bklooste
J7W1/J7W2
Kyushu
Navy Experimental 18-Shi Otsu (B) Type Interceptor Fighter Shinden

Will be available very late even if the project succeeds.

ORIGINAL: bklooste
J8M1/J8M2
Mitsubishi
Navy Experimental 19-Shi Rocket-Powered Interceptor Fighter Shusui

This idea never really worked for Germans.

Other projects never got very far.

Historically, Navy also arranged to get a share of Ki-83s, once the production starts, and although this fighter wasn't designed as an interceptor, it, with a few modifications, could have worked well against 4E bombers. Too bad that it is also very unlikely to be available before 1945.

In general, I believe that IJNAF needed a 2E interceptor with capability for being modified into a night fighter in 1944 to adequately meet the threat of strategic bombing, at least in early stages, when B-29s operated without escort. Single-engine interceptors were insufficient, as became clear by 1944. Japanese certainly had a lot of projects but almost none actually made it to the units. Possibly because they had a lot of projects and resources were divided between them. Note that in-game the late-war 2E fighters is one of the obvious areas where a Japanese player can benefit from consolidating his research. I'll try to figure out if something like this could have been done in RL too (although in RL pooling the research resources is obviously not nearly that simple[:)]).

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

c. A6M4 in March 43 with Mitshubishi Kasei engine,

Mitsubishi Kinsei, one that was eventually installed on A6M8. Don't follow my bad example of confusion, please).

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
armor, even less range than A6M3; cowling MGs are replaced with 2x13.2 in the wings, max speed 371mph , climb 4,800 ft/min ,

If that's what the game measures climb in, the number is too high. In AE only Shusei has climb greater than 4000.

Otherwise, I support your plan.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
OTHER NAVAL AIRCRAFT:
As said in my first posts, we shall see the Naval Aircraft deployment dates move up across the board. Think I listed that at the beginning but don't plan to changing anything here except for when these planes come in...

Don't overdo it, even with better directed development Japanese industry cannot jump above its head. B6N, D4Y and G4M2 all can be moved slightly (1-3 months) forward as all these planes suffered the long transition from prototypes to production, the same goes for George. The latter (particularly N1K2-J) can be perhaps moved forward more significantly if A7M is abandoned in favor of it. But just handing out signfificantly earlied availability across the board will stretch plausibility.

1. Fixed Engine Name in above post.

2. Will shift climb rate to what is suggested

3. Other IJNAF planes are not advanced a huge amount of months. Just a bit here and there to reflect added interest.

4. Perhaps moving N1K2-J forward some would be appropriate with no A7M? Good thought.

[John 3rd]

Still need to settle the following question:
 
We need to settle on the armament for A6M4i: Cannon and Fifites or just Cannon?

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR
In general, I believe that IJNAF needed a 2E interceptor with capability for being modified into a night fighter in 1944 to adequately meet the threat of strategic bombing, at least in early stages, when B-29s operated without escort. Single-engine interceptors were insufficient, as became clear by 1944. Japanese certainly had a lot of projects but almost none actually made it to the units. Possibly because they had a lot of projects and resources were divided between them. Note that in-game the late-war 2E fighters is one of the obvious areas where a Japanese player can benefit from consolidating his research. I'll try to figure out if something like this could have been done in RL too (although in RL pooling the research resources is obviously not nearly that simple[:)]).

The Shinsen is in the game ( though late) so that may be enough. Maybe leave the B29 roll mainly to the army and we run with Zero varients till the Shinsen.

[bklooste]

It would appear that we are darned close to closing this topic.
1. The Naval Line looks excellent. Just to make sure on this line, we have the M2, replaced by M5 in Oct 42---so no M3a model---until we see M5b in 4/43, and finally the M8 in 4/44. Is this accurate?

You can have the M8 any time after 1/43 depending on engine demand .. I suggested 6-8/43.

2. Looks like we're close regarding the IJN Land-Based versions:
a. M3 in January 42 with 2 Type-92 Cannon and no other changes

b. A6M3b in June 42 that resembles A6M3b but more durable, one of 7.7 MGs is replaced with 13.2

Yep

c. A6M4 in March 43 with Mitshubishi Kinsei engine, armor, even less range than A6M3; cowling MGs are replaced with 2x13.2 in the wings, max speed 371mph , climb 3,100 ft/min , manuever values 20% less than A6M3a for 0-20000 , the same above 20000 ft. Max Alt 36,500 Feet.

Now in 1/43. ( Same as Dinah III) , max speed is 350 mph which is the limit of the air frame . I will go over the stats .

d. A6M4i in Sept 43 the upgunned interceptor, the possible variations include 2x30mm + 2x13.2mm OR 4x20mm

4*20mm will make it a good fighter but we want an interceptor. So 2*30mm +2*13.3.

e. A6M8 in April 44 where the player, again, can choose to stick with the interceptor version or to allow the upgrade to the well-rounded A6M8 model

.

There is NO reason for this plane not to appear in 1/43 but we can delay it till 6-8/43.

2. Need to settle of the interceptor version of the M8. Think we're not far apart here so we should be able to do that pretty easily.

I dont think we need it ... as its really the A6M4i , we could call the A6M4i the A6M8i.


I wouldnt just adjust planes by a moht here and there but focus on some types the Grace especially is worth attention being an upgrade path of your DBs and TBs.

[bklooste]

Ok here goes..Change A6M3b to have 1 armour though its still inferior to the Jack in all aspects except maneuver.
 
A6M3
As Historical but with the 20mm 99 II gun , all jack become A6M3
 
A6M3a 42/6
 
A6M3b 42/5;
Altitude 37000
Max speed 341
Cruise 240
Endurance 270 ( compare to 450 for a A6m3A)
Climb 2870
Armour 1 , Dur 25.
2  Nose 7.7mm , 2* 20mm ( dropped the extra 12.7 in favour of protection and balance)
Max load 441
Maneuver as A6M3A
1 * 150L Drop tank for redeployment.
1 * 30kg bomb
A6M3A internal fuel tank was 570 L , we reduce this by 230L to 370L 40%.
We Increase armour by 110kg
Overall weight is reduced by  150kg drop tank , 230kg fuel = 380kg (more if it takes of with bombs) and we spend 110kg
= 270kg or ~10%-15% lighter.
I have conservatively increased speed by 1.5% , climb by 6% and max altitude by 0.5% to reflect this.
 
 
A6M4 43/1(Compared to A6M8 with same engine)
Carrier capable
Altitude 38075 (+1000)
Max Speed :358 (+2)
Climb 2970 (+3%)
Cruise 230
Endurance 270 ( -15)
Armour 1 , Dur 27.
2 * 12.7mm , 2* 20mm
Max Load 441 (-600)
Maneuver as A6M8 (29)

A6M4i 43/8
Upgrade 20mm to Type 2 30mm Cannon.

[John 3rd]

To our other IJN Plane 'experts' does this sound OK to work with?

Anyone have an issue with any of the above?

If we are set on the fighter front then all that is left is the IJN Land Forces and Industry changes. I'll detail those later today.

This work within the Editor is going to require stuff I haven't done before. Can I enlist the help of anyone as we actually begin to create the Mod within the Editor? If so, what might you be willing to do? I ASSUME we can send the Scenario back-and-forth between us without issue...

[mikemike]

Here is something I found on Google Books: a book named Zero fighter by Akira Yoshimura.

There is the following about the Zero engine question and the beginings of the A7M project:

"A month later, on April 14, Horikoshi attended a conference at the Naval Aeronautical Engineering Establishment...The meeting was the first to study the 17-shi carrier-borne fighter (later called the Reppu)... Horikoshi insisted upon the adoption of the MK9A engine of larger power, now under development by Mitsubishi...But tha Naval Aeronautical HQ said it was their wish to use the NK9H engine by Nakajima (later developed as the Homare)...

At that time (April 1942), Horikoshi was asked by Lt Cdr Osamu Nagano, in charge of aero engines on the technical staff of the Naval Aeronautical HQ, if he was willing to exchange the Zero's Sakae 12 engine for the larger Kinsei engine by Mitsubishi. (The reason being mainly that the Sakae was in great demand and it was feared that production might be insufficient to satisfy demand in future, so the IJNAF wanted to switch the Zero to a different engine to avoid that bottleneck)

Horikoshi saw no reason to object, rather, he agreed strongly with Nagano. However, Horikoshi was not in a position to approve of this change.

...

Within the Nagoya Aircraft Works, responsible for so many projects, Horikoshi's own design group had a heavy load. They had to make improvements to the Zero in accordance with the requests of the battlefield flying corps, complete the J2M interceptor just developed, and newly design the A7M. And each of these projects had been assigned a first priority status.

This was a problem. The Navy made no distinction between aircraft projects ... All were called urgent. Every aircraft design group had to work with this clash of priorities. As a result, designers were fully taken up with their assigned tasks, and had no time to spare for new projects ... Of course, Horikoshi wanted to begin designing the installation of the Kinsei engine for the Zero and start on the A7M, too. But amid the clash of priorities, it was impossible to do so."


This was just before the Doolittle raid. You see what I meant about the Mitsubishi design team being overloaded. With the Navy unable (or unwilling?) to set priorities, what would have been necessary to get both the Kinsei-Zero and the A7M moving ahead quickly would have been dumping the J2M and leave the interceptor design to somebody else.

There is something on the A7M/MK9A combination as well. It seems the MK9 and the NK9 were on much the same development schedule. If so, the reason why the A7M had to wait on availability of the MK9A when switched to that engine may simply have been that the engine, due to lack of installations, had no production line set up, although it was already developed to production status some time earlier. This would of course not have been the case if the IJNAF had gone for the MK9 from the start, so this gives some scope for earlier availability of the A7M.

Besides, looking at the timescale, availability of a Kinsei-powered Zero early in 1943 looks quite plausible. Now imagine Mitsubishi telling the Navy, say, in May 1943: "That's it, we can't get more out of this airframe, if you want more performance, it has to come from the A7M". This would have given efforts to get the A7M into series production as soon as possible a mighty boost, because the IJNAF at that time would already have encountered the Corsair, possibly the P-38, and would soon be facing the Hellcat.

[John 3rd]

Wow.  THAT is interesting.  Does anyone know more on this subject?  Can anyone corraborate this information?
 

[bklooste]

A very interesting post Mike..
- Interesting that the Kinsei zero was considered, with the Jack team and an interceptor roll im almost sure it would have been adopted.
- re engines becomming available earlier if adopted. The Kinsei 62 could prob have gone into production into mid 42 if the demand was there . I have set the 1/43 date as that was when the Dina was released with this engine in production which also gives industry a chance to ramp up ( prob should be a free 10-20 size factory then) . This makes a lot of sense since it is a Wasp based engine which the allies found pretty easy to boost the power on .  That said the Mk9A had a LOT of issues , you can see this with the George build numbers and with the Gerorge the demand for the engine was there so cant really be accelerated much.
-  The Zero team will know in 42 that the frame is limited . In addtion with no Jack there is pretty much nothing the Navy fighter team has on after 1/43.  ( I see no point in podrucing any other varients after the A6M5 with the A6M8 out soon and the A6M8 being mainly based on the A6M4..
- The Mk9 engine had a lot of difficulties but you could build the new air frame with another engine, the Kinsei 62 is not bad at 1500hp.  The Mitsubishi's MK9 is a derivative of the Kinsei anyway though a litle bit more compact which led to many issues.
 
I still preffer the work on the George and the J7W1 and A7 for late 44 /early 45.  But there is a strong case for a Kinsei 62 based A7 in early 44 ( ie a zero style plane but with less limitations on the frame) which means the George is pointless.  Note the Kinsei 62 prob had power equal to most Mk9 as most early models were massively under spec.
 
This is getting kind of speculative though ..

[John 3rd]

It is an interesting thought though and DOES serve to substantiate all the thinking we've been doing that is based on having NO JACK helping speed production of other types.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: bklooste
The Shinsen is in the game ( though late) so that may be enough. Maybe leave the B29 roll mainly to the army and we run with Zero varients till the Shinsen.

Unless John going to postulate better cooperation between Army and Navy and also draw new plane pictures/planetops, IJNAF is stuck without good 2E fighters (until and unless the Navy variant of Ki-83, not currently in the game, goes into production). Ki-45 -> Ki-96 -> Ki-102 -> Ki-108 line was promising, but lack of interest on the part of the Army until late 1943 and repeatedly changing specifications held it back. Navy's Irving has failed (except as a night fighter) and so did its successor J5N1.

As about single-engine interceptor: the proposed "interceptor Zero" line has a somewhat misleading name, because it is just land-based Zeros that sacrifice range for weapons and armor. They, like all Zeros, have good climb, but no specific enhancements for high-altitude performance.

As about a dedicated high-altitude fighter, either a modification of George (N1K5-J was supposed to be a high-altitude fighter) can serve this role, or Kawanishi's J3K1/J6K1 is never replaced with George. Probably allowing Kawanishi to work on the existing airframe and not burdening them with extra projects is a better decision. Note, that if mikemike assessment in his illuminative post above (#210) is correct and MK9A engine had a potential to be produced earlier, that pushes forward a whole lot of designs, including, but not limited to, N1K5-J.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: mikemike
Besides, looking at the timescale, availability of a Kinsei-powered Zero early in 1943 looks quite plausible. Now imagine Mitsubishi telling the Navy, say, in May 1943: "That's it, we can't get more out of this airframe, if you want more performance, it has to come from the A7M". This would have given efforts to get the A7M into series production as soon as possible a mighty boost, because the IJNAF at that time would already have encountered the Corsair, possibly the P-38, and would soon be facing the Hellcat.

Thanks for these quotes (and pointing me towards Yoshimura's book). I would say, though, that betting on MK9A in 1942 would have been a great gamble (without hindsight, of course). There was no guarantee that the engine is going to work (early Homares were working well enough for test flight by the end of 1942, so Homare obviously seemed a safer bet). Also, I doubt that anyone is going to accept 1-1,5 years gap in fighter improvements during the wartime, so while removing part of the burden from Mitsubishi by abandoning Jack is plausible, improving Zero will remain mandatory.

It confirms a Kinsei-Zero indeed could have been created much earlier and delivered to combat units in 1943. I still think that concerns about range, which was extremely important for carrier pilot survival as well are likely going to hold back its universal adoption.

Of course, if we assume perfect hindsight the ideal decision seems to be to adopt Kinsei-Zero univerally by summer of 1943, produce only one major line of Zeros to streamline the production even further, switch to A7M-MK9A development entirely in middle of 1943 and use Shiden/George to cover the gap, until - assuming the best-case scenario - late autumn of 1944 when A7M can be deployed in combat. Kawanishi's proposal for using the airframe of their floatplane for a land-based fighter is accepted very early, they are not burdened with other projects, and Navy makes a major push for replacing Zero as a land-based fighter with N1K1-J, leading to earlier availability of Shiden. MK9A-Shiden interceptor also appears sometime in first half of 1945. Note though, that in no scenario A7M can completely replace Zero, as it is probably too heavy to fly from ligh Japanese carriers. And there is still no Jack, of course.

But this is a perfect hindsight scenario (that also assumes Japanese aircraft industry will actually be able to mass-produce MK9A and A7M, but as the vanilla AE also makes this assumption let's accept it). It requires the from decision-makers to be practically prophetic.

EDIT: This scenario also assumes no planes that do not already exist in AE, like A7M-Kinsei 62 proposed by bklooste below.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: bklooste
The Shinsen is in the game ( though late) so that may be enough. Maybe leave the B29 roll mainly to the army and we run with Zero varients till the Shinsen.

Unless John going to postulate better cooperation between Army and Navy and also draw new plane pictures/planetops, IJNAF is stuck without good 2E fighters (until and unless the Navy variant of Ki-83, not currently in the game, goes into production). Ki-45 -> Ki-96 -> Ki-102 -> Ki-108 line was promising, but lack of interest on the part of the Army until late 1943 and repeatedly changing specifications held it back. Navy's Irving has failed (except as a night fighter) and so did its successor J5N1.

Agree until the Shinsen (J7W1) anyway which is like mid 45....

As about single-engine interceptor: the proposed "interceptor Zero" line has a somewhat misleading name, because it is just land-based Zeros that sacrifice range for weapons and armor. They, like all Zeros, have good climb, but no specific enhancements for high-altitude performance.

Yes and no ...When introduced and designed 41 and 42 the only bomber threat is from below 20K feet and specifically to take out DB fast . The improvements ie lighter , slightly better arnament and armour ( eg vs B17) are appropriate for a medium ranged interceptor for 42 and 43. The J2 was also not a great high altitude "interceptor" until they added a turbo supercharger in August 1944 to the Kasei. The A6M4 has a max altitude of 38K feet and a faster climb compared to the A6M2m And A6M3 . You are correct if we dont have anything else such a plane will get an overhaul in 44 for high altitude i did consider this but it gets kind of specualtive . Note the same engine we are using in the A6M4 is used in the Ki102 ( Army designation Ha-112) ( though a twin) but how will the Zero air frame stack up at high altitude 35K+ ? Does the turbo charge improve high altitude performance on the Kinsei ( prob yes going by the Ha-112 ) but doess anyone know ? If we can answer this we can make a guess [:D]

As about a dedicated high-altitude fighter, either a modification of George (N1K5-J was supposed to be a high-altitude fighter) can serve this role, or Kawanishi's J3K1/J6K1 is never replaced with George. Probably allowing Kawanishi to work on the existing airframe and not burdening them with extra projects is a better decision. Note, that if mikemike assessment in his illuminative post above (#210) is correct and MK9A engine had a potential to be produced earlier, that pushes forward a whole lot of designs, including, but not limited to, N1K5-J.

I disagree the MK9K and C can be produced earlier but the Mk9A maybe but doubtfull, both the A7 and N1 both used 4 different engine types and esp the George this was from 43 with production numbers limited by engine issues ...these engines were all of similar size and weight ( though the Mk9k was smaller and had better aerodynamics) and if any engine was available they would have used it.

That said there would be a strong case for an A7 ( or an improved zero style plane) with the Kinsei 62 after they find out that by increasing power to weight by 60% the zero frame only allows a minor increase and becomes a major limitation ( prob in mid 42 this will occur). Such a plane powered by the Kinsei 62 can simply be upgraded to the Mk9A or Mk9K when it becomes available in quantity. The A7 looks very much to me like an enlarged and strengthened zero and since the program lacked resources according to that post it seems an A7 powered bt a Kinsei 62 at the start of 44 is a good possability though it wont perform like the historical A7 till a later varient.

[FatR]

Also, I think by now the fighter discussion is going to go in circles without a definite resolution. John, we've outlined various somewhat-plausible alternatives, just choose one you like.

[bklooste]

Just some edits on this as i dont think its reasonable to have a super charger on the Kinsei when its introduced. Complete naval outline.
 
Interceptor Path
A6M3  42/2 All Jack sentai become A6M3
 
A6M3a 42/6

A6M3b 42/5;
Altitude 37000
Max speed 341
Cruise 240
Endurance 270 ( compare to 450 for a A6m3A)
Climb 2870
Armour 1 , Dur 25.
2  Nose 7.7mm , 2* 20mm ( dropped the extra 12.7 in favour of protection and balance)
Max load 441
Maneuver as A6M3A
1 * 150L Drop tank for redeployment.
1 * 30kg bomb
A6M3A internal fuel tank was 570 L , we reduce this by 230L to 370L 40%.
We Increase armour by 110kg
Overall weight is reduced by  150kg drop tank , 230kg fuel = 380kg (more if it takes of with bombs) and we spend 110kg
= 270kg or ~10%-15% lighter.
I have conservatively increased speed by 1.5% , climb by 6% and max altitude by 0.5% to reflect this.


A6M4 43/1(Compared to A6M8 with same engine)
Carrier capable
Altitude 38075 (+1000)
Max Speed :358 (+2)
Climb 2970 (+3%)
Cruise 230
Endurance 270 ( -15)
Armour 1 , Dur 27.
2 * 12.7mm , 2* 20mm
Max Load 441 (-600)
Maneuver ? but high altitude should be significantly worse ( eg more like zero)

A6M4i 43/8
Upgrade 20mm to Type 2 30mm Cannon.

A6M8i 43/12
as A6M4i but add supercharger Maneuver should have decent high altitude
 
J7 3 months earlier
 
Fighter path
A6M5 42/10 ( no futher varients)
A6M8 62  43/6 ( note this is different from the A6M8 in the game)
A7A0  44/2 as A7 but Kinsei 62 engine. Also replace the George .
A7A1 as historical but 1 month earlier.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

A7A0  44/2 as A7 but Kinsei 62 engine. Also replace the George .
A7A1 as historical but 1 month earlier.

Doesn't work. The Kinsei 62 has only 1560 HP, and the A7M was underpowered with the Homare which had 2000 HP (speed was the same as the A6M5). The Kasei with its 1800 HP might marginally work and would fit the timescale, but performance won't be thrilling. You'll probably be stuck with the A7M1 armament which was the same as that of the A6M8 (2x13.2 mm, 2x20 mm), and even then the thing will be slower than the A6M5 except in a dive.

EDIT: An alternate powerplant could be the Mitsubishi Ha-104 that powered the Ki-67 Peggy; that plane had its first flight on 12/27/1942, so the engine (with similar performance as the Homare) would be available early enough. Still not enough power, but ...
This is of course real life, AE has the Homare as the Ki-67 powerplant.

[John 3rd]

Sorry for not being on but I've just got done working 18 of the last 24 hours.
 
It appears to me that we go with the established work from before the quote about the team.  Have I missed anything that changes this statement in the above posts?  The level of techinical knowledge here is so impressive.  Reminds me of the debating groups I had in college grad school when we would be going over the reading and making our cases.  The Jiro Team quote set off a great set of posts that really serve to promote our discussion.  Seems to me it simply justifies the work we have been doing on the development lines.
 
Want to read the posts more closely and see if I missed anything.