The Reluctant Admiral

[John 3rd]

My last Post before leaving for Lost Wages:

1. FatR--Your thinking regarding aircraft weaponry sounds excellent and well researched.

2. I think the horrid truth is that we MUST lower ship experience across the board. Would it be strange to reflect anticipated sinking by making the worst crews in 1942, slight increase in crew quality in 1943, and decline again in 1944-45? Might be weird but the Naval sinking will produce survivors that move into new construction.

3. Be wary of too many changes to IJA. Increased cooperation is the direction we're going with through Yamamoto's popularity and charisma. Some changes but not too many. The rationale I've been reading regarding airborne weaponry is very good in accounting for this.

I'll check in during the next couple of days but won't be reliably on the Forum until late Monday night. Keep up the solid work. Always appreciated!

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: FatR


As about crew problems. Japan was so critically short on trained techical personnel, it's sometimes hard to imagine today. Hiroshi Ichimura, in his book on Ki-43 aces, mentions that radios on 64th Sentai's Oscars generally did not work because there was no one skilled in repair and maintenance of radio equipment among ground crews. As we know, the situation with maintenance of inline engines used on Ki-61 was only slighly less dire. As about the fleet, crews of the new Japanese carriers that were sunk in 1944 often get accusations of performing damage control poorly. Skilled submarine crews also were in short supply. Crews of late-war destroyers and kaibokans still often performed admirably, though (as far as conditions allowed), probably because their training was easier to streamline. So, can I totally see lower crew experience levels on extra ships, particularly on large ships.

Based upon Tameichi Hara's descriptions in his book, late war smaller ships had a cadre around which to build upon. Training was intensive and earnest. Larger ships, this would have been more difficult to achieve.

Ergo, I agree with your comments. Large ships should start with reduced exp if we can manage.

[FatR]

As about cannons, there's not much to improve. IJN was ahead of IJA in 20-mm cannons development until the appearance of Ho-5, and Ho-5 appeared on mass-produced aircraft only in 1944. Administrative and logistical inertia makes the switch to Ho-5 at this point rather implausible. By the time awesomeness of Ho-5 is clearly realized, IJN shall have excellent 30mm Type 5 close to production and plan to use it on almost all perspective fighters. Although, thanks to the generally better Army-Navy cooperation, furthered by dire late-war circumstances, limited quantities of Ho-5s can be borrowed from the Army for equipping homeland defense units, flying less-than common aircraft like J1N1-Sa (the latter historically was stuck with weak Type 99, probably thanks to being underpowered).

Also, it seems that IJN had no effective 30-mm gun until the availability Type 5 in 1944. Type 2 (not even in the game) was sorely lacking in all aspects, and reached even combat testing only thanks to political clout of its manufacturer. Plus, only a handful of them was produced in 1943. This means that interceptor versions of Zero cannot really have 30mm guns. I changed their armament to 4x20mm.

[PaxMondo]

I think that the Ho-5 was available far earlier, but the Tony was the first to go into production with it only due to design.  I think the original work as all completed in 1937, just that the Army thought 7.7mm was big enough until about 1942 when they started to lose a lot of Nates and Oscars and had no response to the B-17.  ie, with appropriate foresight and focus, it could have gone into production at any time in our game.  Certainly, by 6/42 IJN knew they needed a better bomber killer.  Using the Ho-5 over the Type 2 in the George would simply make the plane that much better.  In fact choose the Ho-5 over most any arment from '43 on until the late war 30mm is developed.
 
Ho-5 compared to the Type has a huge advantage of almost twice the ROF, high muzzle velocity, larger charge ... only slightly heavier.  Very much technologically on par with the hispano.  Granted the hispano was even more powerful, but also very much heavier.  On a weight for effect basis, the Ho-5 is a very competitive weapon.  To say it was on par with the ShVak is high praise to me.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

My last Post before leaving for Lost Wages:

1. FatR--Your thinking regarding aircraft weaponry sounds excellent and well researched.

2. I think the horrid truth is that we MUST lower ship experience across the board. Would it be strange to reflect anticipated sinking by making the worst crews in 1942, slight increase in crew quality in 1943, and decline again in 1944-45? Might be weird but the Naval sinking will produce survivors that move into new construction.

3. Be wary of too many changes to IJA. Increased cooperation is the direction we're going with through Yamamoto's popularity and charisma. Some changes but not too many. The rationale I've been reading regarding airborne weaponry is very good in accounting for this.

I'll check in during the next couple of days but won't be reliably on the Forum until late Monday night. Keep up the solid work. Always appreciated!

2. John think very carefully about this ... exp is the number one determinate in combat i would rather have less ships but with more experience. And besides it hasnt been shown whether these shortages were due to land or merchant navy requirements. With these BC comming in against experienced US CAs in 44 they will beat your BC even on a 1:1 basis what is the point in having or building them ? Im sure if Shinano was converted so would these.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

As about cannons, there's not much to improve. IJN was ahead of IJA in 20-mm cannons development until the appearance of Ho-5, and Ho-5 appeared on mass-produced aircraft only in 1944. Administrative and logistical inertia makes the switch to Ho-5 at this point rather implausible. By the time awesomeness of Ho-5 is clearly realized, IJN shall have excellent 30mm Type 5 close to production and plan to use it on almost all perspective fighters. Although, thanks to the generally better Army-Navy cooperation, furthered by dire late-war circumstances, limited quantities of Ho-5s can be borrowed from the Army for equipping homeland defense units, flying less-than common aircraft like J1N1-Sa (the latter historically was stuck with weak Type 99, probably thanks to being underpowered).

Also, it seems that IJN had no effective 30-mm gun until the availability Type 5 in 1944. Type 2 (not even in the game) was sorely lacking in all aspects, and reached even combat testing only thanks to political clout of its manufacturer. Plus, only a handful of them was produced in 1943. This means that interceptor versions of Zero cannot really have 30mm guns. I changed their armament to 4x20mm.

Why wouldnt they use an Army 30mm gun , im sure if you put an order the factory will give a new Navy designation like all the others . Also with 4*20mm they may be better versus fighters and worse vs bombers esp with the low acc of 30mm. Is a 25mm derived mount viable ?

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: FatR

As about cannons, there's not much to improve. IJN was ahead of IJA in 20-mm cannons development until the appearance of Ho-5, and Ho-5 appeared on mass-produced aircraft only in 1944. Administrative and logistical inertia makes the switch to Ho-5 at this point rather implausible. By the time awesomeness of Ho-5 is clearly realized, IJN shall have excellent 30mm Type 5 close to production and plan to use it on almost all perspective fighters. Although, thanks to the generally better Army-Navy cooperation, furthered by dire late-war circumstances, limited quantities of Ho-5s can be borrowed from the Army for equipping homeland defense units, flying less-than common aircraft like J1N1-Sa (the latter historically was stuck with weak Type 99, probably thanks to being underpowered).

Also, it seems that IJN had no effective 30-mm gun until the availability Type 5 in 1944. Type 2 (not even in the game) was sorely lacking in all aspects, and reached even combat testing only thanks to political clout of its manufacturer. Plus, only a handful of them was produced in 1943. This means that interceptor versions of Zero cannot really have 30mm guns. I changed their armament to 4x20mm.

Why wouldnt they use an Army 30mm gun , im sure if you put an order the factory will give a new Navy designation like all the others . Also with 4*20mm they may be better versus fighters and worse vs bombers esp with the low acc of 30mm. Is a 25mm derived mount viable ?

You lost me here ... not sure I understand. Anyway, I think 4*20mm better than any 30mm until very late war and I haven't read anything to suggest there is much rationale in suggesting that the 30mm Type 5 be available much earlier than historical.

Going to a 25mm would be all about munition development and I am not aware they had anything in the works. The Ho-5 was derived from a German design (Ach, what was I thinking, this was based upon the US Browning M2 50 cal), I forget which right now, as was its munition. I think it was a VERY good design for them trading weight very nicely for punch.

The Ho-5 comes in at 37 kg (including ammo) while the Hispano II comes in at a whopping 50kg. The 20x110 cartridge used in the Hispano is a bit more powerful than the 20x94, but the Ho-5 fires 14 RPS versus the Hispano 10 RPS (Browning M2 50 cal fires 13 RPS and weighs 29kg). Bottom line is that the Ho-5 is a world class 20mm, as good any in the war. Not the most powerful, but trades off weight and power very nicely. For IJA/IJN aircraft designs which were mostly underpowered, this is a VERY good trade-off.

(Yes, I do like the Ho-5 design. Just a very elegant adaptation of a fundamentally sound design that from an engineering perspective is optimized in the correct direction.)

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
You lost me here ... not sure I understand. Anyway, I think 4*20mm better than any 30mm until very late war and

Yes they are better and this plane is an interceptor designed against bombers if it is too good against allied planes it would have major repercussions which we have not allowed for.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: bklooste
Why wouldnt they use an Army 30mm gun , im sure if you put an order the factory will give a new Navy designation like all the others . Also with 4*20mm they may be better versus fighters and worse vs bombers esp with the low acc of 30mm. Is a 25mm derived mount viable ?

Army got its own 30mm late in 1944. As about a 25mm aircraft cannon, it was tested and rejected because it was too heavy and slow-firing for its killpower.

As about Ho-5, I really don't believe it was available for production before the war. In early 1942 the industry still struggled with reliability of Ho-103 and its shells. And they were forced to install a much inferior Ho-1 cannon on Ki-49. Similarly, Ki-44s never used Ho-5, except as field mods, instead they were stuck with the 40mm "automatic grenade launchers", even though Ho-5 had similar weight and was smaller. This all suggest lack of/extremely limited availability.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: bklooste
Why wouldnt they use an Army 30mm gun , im sure if you put an order the factory will give a new Navy designation like all the others . Also with 4*20mm they may be better versus fighters and worse vs bombers esp with the low acc of 30mm. Is a 25mm derived mount viable ?

Army got its own 30mm late in 1944. As about a 25mm aircraft cannon, it was tested and rejected because it was too heavy and slow-firing for its killpower.

As about Ho-5, I really don't believe it was available for production before the war. In early 1942 the industry still struggled with reliability of Ho-103 and its shells. And they were forced to install a much inferior Ho-1 cannon on Ki-49. Similarly, Ki-44s never used Ho-5, except as field mods, instead they were stuck with the 40mm "automatic grenade launchers", even though Ho-5 had similar weight and was smaller. This all suggest lack of/extremely limited availability.

The Ho-1 is not inferior to the Ho-103... Speaking of the Ki-49 i thought they used the Navy 20mm ? Lastly the other mounts in the Ki-49 were swivel mounts , Ho-5 was rarely used as a non fixed wing mount though im not sure why they had issues in non fixed mounts.

I dont see why struggling with the Ho-103 should affect the Ho-5 . The technology is straight forward it is just the implementation at the factory , practical procedures & policies etc which affect that . Also the Ho-103 they played around with some weird Vickers cartirdge and attempts to increase the ROF while the Ho-5 just used a shortened Hispano catridge. Note im not saying that Ho-5 should be earlier just the difficuly with the Ho-103 is not a factor.


one thing is interesting
'
The Kawasaki designers had forseen this problem. The Japanese Ho-5 20 millimeter cannon wasn't available at the time, but the Japanese obtained 800 Mauser MG-151/20 20 millimeter cannon from Germany in August 1943, and modified 388 Ki-61-I airframes on the production line to carry the German weapons in place of the two 12.7 millimeter wing guns. The cannon had to be mounted on their sides to fit into a wing, with an underwing blister for the breech, and some reinforcements were added to the wing to absorb the increased recoil. "

Are these in the game ?

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

The Ho-1 is not inferior to the Ho-103...
I meant, it is inferior to Ho-5.

Speaking of the Ki-49 i thought they used the Navy 20mm ? Lastly the other mounts in the Ki-49 were swivel mounts , Ho-5 was rarely used as a non fixed wing mount though im not
sure why they had issues in non fixed mounts.

Francillon states that Ho-1 was used on Ki-49 and Mikesh adds that this gun had a mechanical turret.

ORIGINAL: bklooste
I dont see why struggling with the Ho-103 should affect the Ho-5 . The technology is straight forward it is just the implementation at the factory , practical procedures & policies etc which affect that . Also the Ho-103 they played around with some weird Vickers cartirdge and attempts to increase the ROF while the Ho-5 just used a shortened Hispano catridge. Note im not saying that Ho-5 should be earlier just the difficuly with the Ho-103 is not a factor.


one thing is interesting
'
The Kawasaki designers had forseen this problem. The Japanese Ho-5 20 millimeter cannon wasn't available at the time, but the Japanese obtained 800 Mauser MG-151/20 20 millimeter cannon from Germany in August 1943, and modified 388 Ki-61-I airframes on the production line to carry the German weapons in place of the two 12.7 millimeter wing guns. The cannon had to be mounted on their sides to fit into a wing, with an underwing blister for the breech, and some reinforcements were added to the wing to absorb the increased recoil. "

Are these in the game ?

Yes, for Ki-61-Id only.

[bklooste]

Does Mikesh also show it as Ho-1 ? Mondey (Axis aircraft) shows it as using the Navy Type 99 20mm thats for the Ki-49-II

IIa definetly Ho-1.
Some uncertainty on the II Either it caried the Type 99 or some sources are wrong.

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: bklooste

The Ho-1 is not inferior to the Ho-103...
I meant, it is inferior to Ho-5.

Speaking of the Ki-49 i thought they used the Navy 20mm ? Lastly the other mounts in the Ki-49 were swivel mounts , Ho-5 was rarely used as a non fixed wing mount though im not
sure why they had issues in non fixed mounts.

Francillon states that Ho-1 was used on Ki-49 and Mikesh adds that this gun had a mechanical turret.

[RedLancer]

My attempt at a B7A3 - have streched the nose a little to accommodate the Homare 23 engine.

[RedLancer]

For the NIK4A Shiden I am simply adding a standard George but in different colours.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: FatR
As about Ho-5, I really don't believe it was available for production before the war. In early 1942 the industry still struggled with reliability of Ho-103 and its shells. And they were forced to install a much inferior Ho-1 cannon on Ki-49. Similarly, Ki-44s never used Ho-5, except as field mods, instead they were stuck with the 40mm "automatic grenade launchers", even though Ho-5 had similar weight and was smaller. This all suggest lack of/extremely limited availability.

You may be correct, I am working from memory and that isn't what it used to be. [8|] I can't find my source on the Ho-5, although I recently moved and everything is still in boxes, scattered to the 4 winds.

I know the Ho-5's issues were all about metal strength (like so much of JAP war industry) and they had to keep re-developing the cartridges for the lower quality barrels.

I have remembered/confirmed that it was based upon the Browning M2 50 cal, so this means started pre-1941. I just wish I could find my source on it's development history. Oh well.

[RedLancer]

A6M3b......

[RedLancer]

G3M4-Q (I decided in the favor of purely patrol version. In RL Nells were used this way from early 1943. An outdated airframe can't get proportional benefits from more powerful engines, and there is simply no space to place adequate defensive armament in G3M frame.)

Stanislav - Can you give me an idea how you think this might look. In particular what sort of turrets and the nose - solid or glass?

Do you still want a Q2M1 Taiyo?

I've now done the side art of all the aircraft on the wishlist - are there any other requests before I start to add them to the main plane side file?

[John 3rd]

The artwork looks good Red Lancer!  PRETTY!
 
Am getting ready to go get re-married but thought I would check in and see the discussion.
 
Keep up the work and I really enjoy the heavily technical discussion regarding the MG and Cannon.
 
Ship experience is going to be interesting.  Will have to provide some serious thought as we get closer to releasing the Mod.  The one thing that occurred to me about the BC is that the Japanese will certainly have lost some CA, BC, and BB by late-1943.  Perhaps these crews would be placed onto the new ships as the cadre to begin with.  If this is correct then the ships would not start in too bad of shape.
 
I should put in some sort of provision about converting these to CVs, however, I don't really know if I want to...
 

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
Stanislav - Can you give me an idea how you think this might look. In particular what sort of turrets and the nose - solid or glass?

Turrets will probably remain the same. The nose is glazed, particularly lower nose (a number of early G3M prototypes had glazed nose, so it is tecnically possible).

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
Do you still want a Q2M1 Taiyo?

No. The project was stopped at early stages, and shortage of modern bombers late war means that its mass production is not very plausible.

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
I've now done the side art of all the aircraft on the wishlist - are there any other requests before I start to add them to the main plane side file?

Looks like no. Thanks for the excellent work!

[FatR]

As about 4x20mm armament for A6M4-J and A6M8-J being too good, I reduced their flight characteristics to compensate. A6M4-J also has only Type 99 cannons, not Type 99-2.

Currently, I did almost everything discussed here and revised air groups + industry accordingly. The total capacity of research factories remains the same, but is redistributed to accomodate new planes and changes in upgrade trees.