The J7W1

[SuluSea]

Guys, here's the request.

I ran a 20 run test on the J7W1 flying CAP at 100% against the B24D coming in on a bombing run at 7,000 feet here are the results.



First 10 runs

J7W1 results-
90 serviceable
23 damaged
12 write offs
75 air to air kills

J7W1 casualties
16 damaged
3 write offs
2 air to air losses

Second 10 runs

J7W1 results-
84 serviceable
30 damaged
21 write offs
152 air to air kills

J7W1 casualties
42 damaged
4 write offs
3 air to air losses

Totals

J7W1 results-
174 serviceable
53 damaged
9 write offs
77 air to air kills

J7W1 casualties
26 damaged
1 write offs
1 air to air losses

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Guys, here's the request.

I ran a 20 run test on the J7N1 flying CAP at 100% against the B24D coming in on a bombing run at 7,000 feet here are the results.

First 10 runs

J7N1 results-
90 serviceable
23 damaged
12 write offs
75 air to air kills

J7N1 casualties
16 damaged
3 write offs
2 air to air losses

Second 10 runs

J7N1 results-
84 serviceable
30 damaged
21 write offs
152 air to air kills

J7N1 casualties
42 damaged
4 write offs
3 air to air losses

Totals

J7N1 results-
174 serviceable
53 damaged
9 write offs
77 air to air kills

[&:] I get 227, not 77 total a2a kills when both are combined, Sulu Sea.

J7N1 casualties
26 damaged
1 write offs
1 air to air losses

Sweet! 227 B24D losses is crippling by any standards. If it's possible, though, I thought it would be even worse. With 4x30mm cannons in the attack, I'm surprised it's not head and shoulders above some of the Tojo IIc or George trials that you've run previously.

Thoughts as to why?

[SuluSea]

Let me look at the numbers again- I think I may have err'd in my copy and pasting...

First 10 runs

J7W1 results-
90 serviceable
23 damaged
12 write offs
75 air to air kills

J7W1 casualties
16 damaged
3 write offs
2 air to air losses

Second 10 runs

J7W1 results-
84 serviceable
30 damaged 
9  write offs 
77 air to air kills

J7W1 casualties 
26 damaged 
1 write offs 
1 air to air losses

Totals

J7W1 results-
174 serviceable
53 damaged 
21 write offs 
152 air to air kills

J7W1 casualties 
42 damaged 
4 write offs 
3 air to air losses

Yep, I had some of the totals and second runs mixed up with a copy and paste error.       Sorry for any confusion    [&:]

Doh, and to correct myself it's the J7W1, that's what I get for trying to do this with outside influences disrupting me..

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
With 4x30mm cannons in the attack, I'm surprised it's not head and shoulders above some of the Tojo IIc or George trials that you've run previously.

Thoughts as to why?

I thought it would be more losses but tempered my thinking some after taking in what Greyjoy about what he is seeing in regards to this platform in the other thread.



With the CL doubled we're still sitting at only 30 accuracy compared to CL weapons in the 50's on other platforms which would seem to account for the low number of writeoffs compared to other tests.

I guess when the 30mm cannon finds its mark more or less it's a kill.

Take a look at the Ki-84a, the 20mm cannon on the forward end has an accuracy of 28 to go with the 12.7mm MG accuracy of 58 on the CL.

[crsutton]

Which pretty much makes a good case for the Allied player not dilly dallying too long about destroying the Japanese economy. These things in numbers could be very nasty.

Say what you want about the weaknesses of the Japanese economic system, they did have some bang up aircraft designers. This is a brilliant aircraft.

http://youtu.be/hJs1O2HSosE

[SeethingErmine]

When I look at this model as a practical interceptor I always wonder if the poor climb rating compared other options reduces its effectiveness.  I see this test was at 7k - is that a typical altitude for 4E bombing runs?

[bradfordkay]

LeMay had the B29s coming in at that altitude or lower when conducting the famous fire bombing raids - but that was after they had learned that Japanese fighter opposition wasn't so tough. If they had to face hundreds of these boys the situation might have been different.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Which pretty much makes a good case for the Allied player not dilly dallying too long about destroying the Japanese economy. These things in numbers could be very nasty.

Say what you want about the weaknesses of the Japanese economic system, they did have some bang up aircraft designers. This is a brilliant aircraft.

http://youtu.be/hJs1O2HSosE

J7W1

Just like the Germans, and with this one got 1 prototype into the air on 3/8/45, a bit late.
Might have turned out a clunker for all we know.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Which pretty much makes a good case for the Allied player not dilly dallying too long about destroying the Japanese economy. These things in numbers could be very nasty.

Say what you want about the weaknesses of the Japanese economic system, they did have some bang up aircraft designers. This is a brilliant aircraft.

http://youtu.be/hJs1O2HSosE

J7W1

Just like the Germans, and with this one got 1 prototype into the air on 3/8/45, a bit late.
Might have turned out a clunker for all we know.

Probably would have been a clunker given the capability of Japanese industry at the time. But the design was still pretty amazing. Japanese aircraft designers seemed to be very competent.

[Chickenboy]

I agree. Even with time, I doubt the production values would have been what they needed to be. That front landing gear looked spindly and as though it would buckle with much stress. But I can't think of a more beautiful airplane in the war. Canard wings forward, rear vertical stabilizers, pusher prop: this was an advanced design. Very pleasing to the eye.

[Shark7]

Unfortunately, pretty didn't count for much in the situation they were in...bang for the buck did. They needed advanced airframes that could be produced quickly and cheaply (in terms of materials), and TBH, the Shinden was not going to fit that bill in 1945.

[obvert]

In terms of in game use, the kill numbers aren't much different than some other models you've tested against B-24s. The survivability numbers seem slightly better. This preserves your pilots and keeps more planes in the air for each subsequent attack and for the next day. Is this due to the greater speed modelling a slashing attack?

The real issue for me with this fighter is how it would do against other fighters. It's speed is higher than any other Japanese airframe and I believe all of the Allies at this time as well. Maneuver is poor, as is climb, but durability is not bad and it has armor.

So how critical would the speed be against fighters? The test of these planes for late war is not only how well they do against the B-24s and B-29s, but also how they do against the preceding sweeps. If you have a bunch of Ki-44-IIc up and they get mauled by P-47s and P-51s, they won't be there for the 4Es coming in after.

[Shark7]

It is an interceptor, not a dog-fighter. This plane shouldn't be dog-fighting, but rather attacking bombers with high speed 'slash and dash' attacks.

Again, I think it is important to have a mix of planes that are better at different things. You need manueverable fighters to deal with escorts, and fast, heavily armed (like the Shinden) to deal with bombers.

[TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum]

What I'd want to know is if it is worth accelerating an interceptor like the Shinden when there are other aircraft due at relatively the same time that pack slightly less of a punch (but with a higher degree of accuracy) that can still take bombers down but are much better at dealing with Allied fighters as well.

Not only that, but you can accelerate a number of other airframes with the same R&D and get a quicker return on your investment than with the Shinden since it has no earlier precursor and is a technological dead end after being researched (not that R&D is really too important by 1945).

For example, KI-61 R&D can be built up much quicker and earlier in the war and then be transferred for no loss down the line to the KI-100.

The KI-84 can also upgrade various models and is available much sooner from the get go, and that means you can get its latest model much faster and sooner than you possibly could get the Shinden all other things being equal.

If I had to choose a dead end airframe I wanted early, why not go all out and pursue the KI-201?

[GreyJoy]

In terms of fighter vs fighter the Shinden is worse than the KI-84r and also than the KI-83
 
So i guess The LoneGunman is right...probably if you concentrate your R&D on the Frank, KI-83 and KI-201 you can easily bypass the Shindens...not necessary imho

[Chickenboy]

Well, this is very useful information, SuluSea. Thanks again for running the tests to stoke this discussion. It's nice to have some realistic expectations for late war production aircraft.

Here's some lessons I've taken home:

Must have:

1. Ki-44 Tojo IIc

Very nice to have, but not irreplaceable:

1. Frank Ki-84 a-r
2. Ki-100
3. J7W1 Shinden

Plus or minus worthwhile:

1. Ki-61 Tony d model

Insufficient data:

1. Ki-83
2. Ki-201

Anyone disagree?

[TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Well, this is very useful information, SuluSea. Thanks again for running the tests to stoke this discussion. It's nice to have some realistic expectations for late war production aircraft.

Here's some lessons I've taken home:

Must have:

1. Tojo IIc

Very nice to have, but not irreplaceable:

1. Frank a-r
2. Ki-100
3. J7W1 Shinden

Plus or minus worthwhile:

1. Tony d model

Insufficient data:

1. Ki-83
2. Ki-201

Anyone disagree?

Well when you compare the Ki-61 with the Ki-84, the Ki-84 is overall a better aircraft since it can still take down bombers, but is much deadlier against Allied fighters. The only boon to the Ki-61 is that it is available much earlier and it's R&D carries over to the Ki-100.

I think personally, I'd invest most of my R&D into the Ki-84 to get it as quickly as possible, additional R&D would be diverted to the Ki-44 in order to get the IIc model developed ASAP. In the meantime, Ki-43s would serve primarily as bomber escort, but would be utilized for CAP and sweeps in emergencies and as a stop gap. Early model Ki-44s would do most of the CAP and sweep duties while the IIc is being researched.

Once the Ki-44 IIc is online, the R&D facilities that were previously dedicated to its development can be diverted to the Ki-83 or the Ki-201 since by this time they will be much closer to their actual development date and that will promote faster R&D rebuilding. The Ki-44 IIc takes over the role of the earlier model Tojos. Meanwhile the Ki-43s progress historically with no acceleration as they are not deemed to be critical. Newer models of the Ki-43 replace older ones in the role of bomber escort.

Once the Ki-84 is ready, it's gloves off time. The Frank should begin to phase out the Tojo as the Japanese Army Airforce's primary dogfighter, handling most if not all of the sweeps while the Ki-44 gets relegated to soley to CAP/Intercept duty. As Ki-84 numbers increase, it should also be able to handle the CAP/Interceptor role in a pinch.

Once all models of the Ki-84 have been researched, the R&D gets diverted to the Ki-201, since I'm assuming that the Ki-83 should be finished or nearly finished by that point.

If you focus on these few fighters, what else do you really need?

To me, the goal is to maximize the results from your R&D, and the best way to do that is to take advantage first of airframes that allow for a nice upgrade path, so that you can retain the fully built R&D facilities. Once those airframes are fully developed, then you can shift over to your late-model "dead end" research projects, and you'll be closer to their historical date so you'll see your R&D factories rebuild much faster than if you had tried to get them from Turn 1.

What do you guys think?

[TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum]

Looking over the late-war aircraft, I don't even think I'd bother putting R&D into the Ki-83. It's available only a few months sooner than the Ki-201 (although its range is awesome!).

Even though the Ki-83 has great range, I don't see it as a dogfighter, but as a plane whose sole purpose is to shoot down B-29s, something I think the Ki-201 could do just as well if not better, and the Ki-201 could hold its own with just about any enemy fighter at the time.

I'm also averse to dedicating too much effort to twin engine fighters, if producing both the Ki-83 AND the Ki-201 that's two seperate twin engine fighters you'd need to be producing. I'd rather rely on the single-engine Ki-84 in the meantime and benefit from its R&D carryover for accelerating newer models.

Streamlined R&D and production would make the air war easier for Japan, especially since with a narrow focus, you can bring better models out much more quickly to maintain an edge over the Allies into '44 and possibly beyond. It all comes down to planning.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

It is an interceptor, not a dog-fighter. This plane shouldn't be dog-fighting, but rather attacking bombers with high speed 'slash and dash' attacks.

Again, I think it is important to have a mix of planes that are better at different things. You need manueverable fighters to deal with escorts, and fast, heavily armed (like the Shinden) to deal with bombers.

This all sounds along the lines I would think would be correct. But we don't really know unless tests are done. GJ, Nemo, Pax Mondo, or PzB can tell us their experiences, which are probably the best out there without actual tests, but GJ also has unbelievably strong pilots in many cases, which might skew results.

The questions is not whether this plane should be fighting other fighters, but what happens when it does? It will have to deal with them. You (obviously) can't set fighters to only intercept bombers. If you have the ideal mix of planes, what if your bomber killers all get wiped out by fighters before the bombers get there?

Isolated plane tests are a good beginning, but fighter v fighter, and mixes adding bombers with escort v fighters, or sweeps + bombers with escorts v a mix of fighters is really going to get closer to real in-game situations.

LoneGunman

Looking over the late-war aircraft, I don't even think I'd bother putting R&D into the Ki-83. It's available only a few months sooner than the Ki-201 (although its range is awesome!).

Even though the Ki-83 has great range, I don't see it as a dogfighter, but as a plane whose sole purpose is to shoot down B-29s, something I think the Ki-201 could do just as well if not better, and the Ki-201 could hold its own with just about any enemy fighter at the time.

I'm also averse to dedicating too much effort to twin engine fighters, if producing both the Ki-83 AND the Ki-201 that's two seperate twin engine fighters you'd need to be producing. I'd rather rely on the single-engine Ki-84 in the meantime and benefit from its R&D carryover for accelerating newer models.

From all I've heard in GJ's game with rader and Jzanes game, also against rader, the Ki-83 is good all around against fighters or bombers. But without testing or using it ourselves, it'll be tough to really know. How we see things by the stats might work sometimes, but might not give a completely clear picture until tests are done.

PS - Some of the GJ tests might change thinking about effective CAP as well. Still interested in why this plane had fewer losses than others. Is it the speed? Or something else?

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: obvert

In terms of in game use, the kill numbers aren't much different than some other models you've tested against B-24s. The survivability numbers seem slightly better. This preserves your pilots and keeps more planes in the air for each subsequent attack and for the next day. Is this due to the greater speed modelling a slashing attack?

The real issue for me with this fighter is how it would do against other fighters. It's speed is higher than any other Japanese airframe and I believe all of the Allies at this time as well. Maneuver is poor, as is climb, but durability is not bad and it has armor.

So how critical would the speed be against fighters? The test of these planes for late war is not only how well they do against the B-24s and B-29s, but also how they do against the preceding sweeps. If you have a bunch of Ki-44-IIc up and they get mauled by P-47s and P-51s, they won't be there for the 4Es coming in after.

My personal experience is that speed is the best asset a fighter can have in game. All other things being fairly equal. Also, I am not sure that the accuracy vs speed aspect is modeled in the game. That is, don't know if the chance of hitting a slow bomber vs a fast fighter is the same. The reality was that 20mm and 30mm guns were much less suited for dogfighting and fighter to fighter combat as deflections shooting was much harder. But I don't think that is so important in the game.

Faster is better.