HELP, Jap aircraft

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

[There is no "Short" range that would allow extra load in place of fuel. Be happy with this as if you want a "short" range, it will apply to *both* sides, not just your Val. Wonder how many bombs you can stick on a B-29 for a short range attack?

You've opened a can of worms Frag....next it'll be demanded that the B-29 be modifyable to pull out all the armament so that the loadout can be increased by up to 65% for firebombing raids.

[Mr.Frag]

The normal range load on the Val was 370Kg.
The extended bomb load was 250Kg or occasionaly 240Kg or 120Kg.
The short bomb load was (1) 500kg bomb.

Prove it.

There is absolutely no such thing as *normal* vs *extended* vs *short* when dealing with aircraft.

Planes have variable range.

Things that can be changed is fuel, guns, ammo for guns, number of aircrew, number of bombs, altitude, weather.

This produces a complex load calculation. This silliness about fixed numbers jsut drives me nuts. Normal and Extended are abstracted concepts in WitP, they have absolutely no basis in reality yet you folks seem stuck on them as real hard numbers. You want something changed, prove it is wrong. Do not just say it could have been different as that is simply an opinion and everyone has one of them.

[Lemurs!]

Not from me;
I just want a good standard bombload & an extended bomb load.

And I have it.

Mike

[Lemurs!]

Nik,

Show me any evidence that the bomb load was NOT used.
You have failed to do that. Because an author fails to mention something does not mean it does not exist.
Your alleged ability to read has not been proven to me as yet.
I have read most of those authors and i do not remember them saying the Val flew without 60kg bombs.

So prove that you can read. And then prove you exist.

You have a bunch of after the fact allied accounts; were they on the Jap carriers at the time? I doubt it.

I, on the other hand, have read their operational manual on the use of the Val in carrier operations and read about the dropping of 60kg bombs in the Indian ocean.

Give me one specific book that says the Japanese changed their doctrine and never used the 60Kg bomb from carriers and i might care, until then you are wasting my time with your pomposity.

Mike

[Lemurs!]

Frag,

Now what are you babbling about?
Did I say these are fixed numbers? Do you have any knowledge about aircraft?

Any ANY reliable source on Japanese carrier aviation will show that
'standard' load was 1-250kg SAP & 2-60kg GP bombs, if that could not be carried due to range they carried either 2 or 4 60kg GP bombs and in case of short ranged raids they could, and did, carry a single 500kg bomb.

Now if that is not 'short' 'medium' and 'long' i do not know what is!
Absolutely nothing i said was my opinion and i wish people would quit putting words in my mouth!

Mike

[Lemurs!]

Frag,

And again, I did not ask for any changes!
Anything i do will be in my scenario only.

I will admit that i don't think any Val launched from a carrier ever used the 500kg bomb; but i am not sure. The Kate did use the 500kg for ground attack. The Val did use max bomb load in '44 from the Phillipines.

Mike

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Nik,

Show me any evidence that the bomb load was NOT used.
You have failed to do that. Because an author fails to mention something does not mean it does not exist.

In every major naval battle the Val participated in....not one hit by a 60kg is recorded. If every Val (which can carry two x 60kg in theory) attacked with it....its reasonable to assume there would have been one. Thats why i asked if you had new evidence that shows it. Apparantly you cant since all you've been doing the last sevearl posts is claim you read it in a manual somewhere and attack me personally.

Your alleged ability to read has not been proven to me as yet.

I apoligize. I didnt realize this thread was about determining my ability to read. I'll see if i can dig up my old grade school certificates on Reading and Writing.

So prove that you can read. And then prove you exist.

I think....therefore I type. Do i exist yet?

[Mr.Frag]

Any ANY reliable source on Japanese carrier aviation will show that
'standard' load was 1-250kg SAP & 2-60kg GP bombs, if that could not be carried due to range they carried either 2 or 4 60kg GP bombs and in case of short ranged raids they could, and did, carry a single 500kg bomb.

That is why there is not a single recorded hit anywhere right?

It's a big Allied conspiracy no doubt to hide the truth from us because they are ashamed to admit that they won the war I guess.

Just because one can strap xyz onto a plane does not automatically mean it happened, but I guess because you read it somewhere that you *could* strap a pair of 60kg bombs onto the wing racks that it must have been done because we all know Japan liked flying 120kg light on fuel forget about leaving out everyone but the pilot and tossing the rear gun out to allow the plane to fly far enough to get to the target eh?

"I read it somewhere" just doesn't cut it. Prove a 60kg bomb hit something. Until you do so, you are just shooting the breeze.

[Lemurs!]

I don't consider lack of acknowledgement of hits by 60kg bomblets while there were larger bombs and torpedoes all over the place as truth.
Besides, i just quoted one battle where they did hit.

You know, several British fighter pilots reported shooting down He-113s in the BoB. Does that mean they do exist?

When you actually have something worth calling evidence tell me.

Mike

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

NICK I don't quite understand this argument. Sounds as if you are saying that if the
design was good, it shouldn't matter that Japanese Industry lacked the tools, techniques,
skilled labor and wherewithall to manufacture it to specs. At least not in a production
line setting. I'm not talking bomb damage, I'm talking a basic weakness in the Indus-
trial base itself. It simply wasn't broad enough, deep enough, or well-supported enough
to handle mass-production of high-tolerance machining and metalurgy. A great design
is only as good as it's construction..., and in Japan's case that was a major stumbling
block.

Let me put it this way.....would it be fair to conduct flight tests using a top mint Ki-84 in comparison against a P-51D that was shoddily built and poorly maintained? If the P-51 then scored poor marks against the Frank as a result, would it be fair to state that the Ki-84 was a "superior" design to the P-51?

This situation is what marrs the F2A vs F4F comparison. Was the F2A really inferior? or was it the victim of mismanagement by Brewster?

[Lemurs!]

So every Japanese carrier operational guide is just wrong?
they were just dumb bastards that rolled over for us after all!

Again, mistakes were made all the time over what the other side was doing. by every country. Lack of comments about bomblet hits is not evidence.

Seen any snipe?

Mike

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

I don't consider lack of acknowledgement of hits by 60kg bomblets while there were larger bombs and torpedoes all over the place as truth.
Besides, i just quoted one battle where they did hit.

Fine....you dont, I do. Your welcome to that opinion and i dont see a need to attack you though the same cant be said of your conduct towards me. As for your 'battle' are you referring the quote on the Hermes battle where 4 of the bomb hits are unidentified. On what basis do you conclude that they are 60kg? I' read the same quote months ago. I do not make the assumption that because they are not identified they have to be 60kg. Thats an example of "weak evidence" by the way

When you actually have something worth calling evidence tell me.

I did. You replied by quoting what i already knew....that the plane could carry 1 x 250 and 2 x 60. I guess this proves that i can google search as well as read and type. You then said you read it in a manual somewhere. Again, this has been hashed out in the past. So i asked you to present evidence of its ACTUAL and REGULAR use in naval engagements. Your answer is to say that i haven't answered you....or that i cant read....or that i dont even exist..... ?????

huh....maybe i'm as etherial as all those 60kg hits that must have happened......[;)]

[Hoplosternum]

Lemurs!

The reports in books like Lundstrum are fairly detailed saying what damage each bomb did and the effects of near misses. Plus eye witness accounts of what it was like. I am not saying there were definitely no 60Kg bombs dropped but I am surprised they are never mentioned.

The doctetrine seemed to be to drop the 60kgs as AA surpressents, presumably to help other Vals in their bomb run. But that takes a second pass because if they are dropped with the main bomb why not just drop a larger bomb? Dive bombers don't want to get a wide spread but a clean hit). The thought of wasting pilots doing a second dive run vs US flak is crazy. It would not surprise me if the IJN didn't ditch that idea from the manual very early on....

Your own scenarios can have whatever the editor will let you put in them. But if you do consider the effects of the 250/2*60 load out in UV. The 60s are usually worthless. They do damage Transports and Sub Chasers but bounce off CVs and most warships. Yet they are recorded as 'bomb hits' in the battle reports. i.e. they just create a lot of extra Fog of War to those not patient enough to watch the combat all the way through. Personally I would not bother to add them. But the choice is yours whether you do or don't.

Edit for Typo

[Lemurs!]

Nikademus,

Actually what you and Frag are handing out as evidence is actually called lack of evidence. It is a piece of the puzzle but not the whole thing.
I love how you two ignore all of the things you don't have answers for.

All you've stated, is that you have read an alleged Japanese "manual" which allegedly states that the Val always attacks naval targets with the 3 bomb loadout. We have only your "word" for this. This is not "factual" evidence

You were talking about personal attacks... hmmm. didn't you just call me a liar here? I did not appreciate that lack of professionalism or courtesy.

Frag,
Again, are you being deliberately obtuse? Did I say anyone lied?
Janes said before the war that Japan only had old cast off aircraft from Europe in the '20's and '30's. Does that make it true?
Several British pilots claimed He113's as kills. Does that mean Germany secretly produced them and its all a big lie that they were never built?
No, it does not, it is called a mistake... which happens.
So, were you just confused or were you being deliberately rude to me?

Now on to people who can actually be polite and come up with something constructive.

Hoplosternum,

yeah, i am unsure if it was dropped as an idea as well.
I know they were planned as AA surpressers but they would limit the range and speed so i am unsure.

The question i have for everyone but Nik & Frag is what do you think about the reports from the sinking of the Cornwall, Dorsetshire and Hermes. If there is only one kind of bomb falling why say 9 - 250kg and 4 unknown? I don't understand the point.

And if it was 13 - 250kg hits from 14 bombers that is better than the surprise attack at Pearl.

That is my question. Do you have some thoughts on this?

Mike

[Mr.Frag]

Feel free to ignore me, but after you have finished editing the planes and wonder why the extra bombs don't drop, remember this post [;)]

[Lemurs!]

So the game is set up for carrier type bombers to only drop a single bomb?

Okay, thats cool, makes the rest of this rather moot.

Mike

[Mr.Frag]

So the game is set up for carrier type bombers to only drop a single bomb?

Because the the logic built in to have aircraft automatically switch bombs around based on target type. Not much choice without an entirely additional layer of code and it is sad enough watching the 250kg bombs ping pong off USN armor without having the humor of 60kg/30kg being dropped too. I highly doubt you'll want to have your aircraft drop the 250kg then climb back up, deal with the cap again then dive again and deal with the AA again to try and put something even more useless on the target.

I think you *can* get away with kicking the Judy to 2x 250kg should you want to try that. It is the same bomb and slot so it should work but I have not tested it. Since the poor Judy never really saw action except as a land based bomber, it is pretty up in the air as to whether rocket assist sleds would be in enough numbers to have them flying off CV's with that load during normal operations. We know the bomb bay could hold the weapons, it is a question as to would it have been the norm.

[Lemurs!]

I think the standard used on the Judy was 1- 250kg.
It's rated bomb capacity was smaller than the Vals for what its worth.

Does anyone know a good article or book about the licensed build of DB engines in Japan?
I have never figured out why the Japanese had so much trouble with that engine in both of its corporate manifestations. The Germans & Italians certainly did not.
I know the Japanese did manage to bring the horsepower up nicely by '44 and that main bearing problems were a problem for the Allison in New Guinea as well but the throwing oil problem is weird.
Since they had bought production tooling from Germany and this was already being worked on before the Pacific war started it wasn't a lack of tool&die tradesmen.

Mike

[mdiehl]

Okay, this has just gotten stupid as you have only proved that you are incapable of reading another persons post and that you don't even pay attention to what you have posted earlier.

That's precisely what I was thinking about you.

You did not list 'dozens' of sources; you listed 2.

I said dozens exist.

The first was a fairly amateur encyclopedia and the other was the Smithsonian which in general has used Gustin's work.

Right. David Donald is an "amateur." [8|]

My other "one" source that i have listed is the theater interagation documents from NARA. That is 200,000 or more pages right there. I was overwhelmed, but luckily they have a fairly good indexing system and it didn't take too long to find what i was looking for.

And it is indeed so obvious from your internet handle and extensive peer reviewed publishing record that I should take your word for this over the word of an editor and author of numerous books on aviation? I'll bite if I can look up your record of peer-revied publications on this matter. If you haven't established such a record, you've got some nerve calling someone else's work "amateur." If you have, you can convince me.

On Octane.... Guess what, a Cessna 172 is not a high compression engine! I realize you will gain 2-6 Mph on a fighter plane using 100 octane... at least until the intakes clog with unburned fuel and your plane starts to backfire! You have to be about 12 and you read lots of articles on the internet so you think you know something about engineering. Well guess what? You don't!

That was rather non-sequitur. Again, you're the one who brought the Cessna into this, and you're the one who says it runs poorly on 87 octane. A claim I won't dispute. What you have not demonstrated is any real knowledge of how octane affects engine performance. The reason why high octane does not (much) impair the efficiency of an engine designed for low octane is that the primary cause of reduced efficiency in that particular circumstance is trace quantities of uncombusted fuel. That does not produce knock, it just produces and inefficent use of fuel. If you put 87 octane, however, in an engined designed for higher octane, you get knock because of premature combustion. Getting back to your orginal assertion, it does not follow that putting 100 octane (or even 103) in an engine designed for, say, 93 octane, is necessarily going to reduce performance by much. I heard it said that if you put 100 Octane in an automobile (Sunoco used to sell 100 Octane, which I used to put in my Saab many years ago because it was designed for leaded gas), you can lose fuel economy by up to 3%. I am not sure how that translates into lost RPMs, but assuming a 1:1 correlation, and a/c capable of, say, 420 mph designed for, say, 87 octane (no such aircraft engine was ever made) might in theory be capable of 3% greater speed... say 432.6 mph. But I don't know, maybe someone with a little more information and a little less bluster than yourself can speak to the issue.

I have never at any point said the Japanese did not gain their horsepower from greater compression... However, the Japanese did not make their engines with a compression of a Pratt & Whitney because they did not have the fuel to burn in it and premature explosion tends to be bad for the engine.

We're getting somewhere at least. Given that you seem to agree that greater compression is the way that they achieved greater output, does it not now follow that using a higher octane fuel is less likely to cause premature explosions? If so, does it not then follow that putting 100 or even 103 Octane in the engine would not have adversely affected the Ki-84 test aircraft's engine because of knocking (premature detonation) as you originally suggested? Or did you not mean to suggest that? Seems to me that you implied that putting good US fuel in the engine would cause knock, resulting in a test aircraft that underperforms vis a vis the operational one? If you did not mean to imply that my bad, then, (but I'll bet I'm not the only one who read your post who was confused by your language).

Oh, yeah, the Americans were always outnumbered! eek! there are thousands of them! yikes! Thats an old story. You may have noticed that i said 'starting in late 1942'. Oh, but you don't bother to read anyones posts.

I do not agree that the Americans had a numerical advantage starting in late 1942. If you can make a good case for it I'm willing to hear you out. I guess we're primarily talking about the Solomons, New Guinea and, err, AVG for primary sources of air combat data.

'If you slow down you lose' No, that is your & the American airforce's assumption. That is not my assumption. I have already said that i agree that speed is the most important thing; it however is not the only thing and i have mentioned an occasion when another airforce showed that speed could be a disadvantage as the British F2's turned inside the Americans, evaded their missles and then 'shot' them down.

No problem. All I wonder is why the F16s in the mock engagement were not presumed to shoot at the F2s with their 30mm? If you only allow missiles, and if in MODERN WARFARE (which I specifically stipulated is different from the gun-only combat of WW2.. ;eaving aside a few trivial things like 5" rockets fired at B17s) aircraft can fox a missile by turning, then the missile-only armed aircraft is at a disadvantage. The US learned as much IIRC during the early stages of the Viet Nam war. Again, IIRC, there were some missile-only armed US a/c that foud themselves needing guns.

In WW2, however, you don't have missiles. There's some ability to evade by turning, but an aircraft approaching you with superior speed will tend simply to break off and come around for another high speed pass, unless (and only if) you are talking about the interval from, say, 8 December 1941 through March 1942 in the New Guinea area. In those circumstances the primary problem was that P-40s did not use "boom and zoom" and so found themselves in energy-burning turning engagements that, with sufficient time, gave Japanese a/c an edge. If your down to 220 mph IAS in a P-40 the Zeke can out-turn and out-accelerate you (so you can't just run away).

But that would NOT be the circumstances of employment in general for any late war Japanese or American a/c. in general, now, would it.

Mike: No, that is not a weird comment! You answered your own question if you could bother to think it through! The airforces without 100 octane fuel available limited the compression on their engines to avoid exactly what you have just said!

Um, HOW, exactly, do you imagine that the Ha-21-25 series developed 1900 HP without using higher compression? IIRC, the Japanese effective late war octane for SOME fuels produced via hydrogenation was something like 93-97 octane, but there were problems with quantitityand purity. Are you claiming that the Ha-21 was operating at the same compression ratios as, say, the engine in the A6M2?

More to the point, a Ki-84 pushing 390 mph is not going to suddenly just shed 90 mph to get into a flight profile where it can out-turn a P-51 going 390 mph. In the time it takes the Ki-84 to slow down enough to establish roll and turn characteristics that will allow the Ki-84 driver to lead the P-51 and shoot it down, the P-51, if properly flown, will be LONG GONE. It will literally be a mile or more away. THAT IS WHY THE FASTER AIRPLANE CONTROLS THE FIGHT. And that is why the entire post-ww2 history of a/c development drove fighters to greater speeds up to what amounts to the current practical limit of a/c speed in combat. IIRC that's somewhere around Mach 2. Since missiles can go quite a bit faster than almost everything (leaving aside the SR-71 for example), we now have, unlike WW2, circumstances in which maneuverability really does increase the survivability of an a/c.

Of course, if someone comes up with a missile that can outmaneuver a/c then we'll be back to trying to solve the problem with increase airspeed or perhaps shooting the missiles down.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Nikademus,

Actually what you and Frag are handing out as evidence is actually called lack of evidence. It is a piece of the puzzle but not the whole thing.
I love how you two ignore all of the things you don't have answers for.

Have you found proof yet that those 60kg bombs were standard issue for most/all naval attacks? I'm listening....you have my undivided attention.

You were talking about personal attacks... hmmm. didn't you just call me a liar here? I did not appreciate that lack of professionalism or courtesy.

Perhaps you could post the quote where i call you a "liar".