Japanese airframe production

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I didn't use the A6M3 much in Witp, but the M3a was a very different plane and well worth the upgrade.

Jury's still out for me in AE on the M3, but certainly not the M3a.

The M3 has a much better maneuver rating at higher altitudes than the M2 - I think about 5-10 points better in each band above 15k feet.

But those bands are rarely used by Allied strikes in my experience, making it a quite useless advantage.

[Kitakami]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I didn't use the A6M3 much in Witp, but the M3a was a very different plane and well worth the upgrade.

Jury's still out for me in AE on the M3, but certainly not the M3a.

The M3 has a much better maneuver rating at higher altitudes than the M2 - I think about 5-10 points better in each band above 15k feet.

But those bands are rarely used by Allied strikes in my experience, making it a quite useless advantage.

Hmm... what about P-38s sweeping? I do not see them loosing over a point in manouver in the 16-20K bracket, and they do appear mid-to-late in '42, before the A6M3a, no?

Just some thoughts... we will have to go through the theory and convert it into practice to know what, if any, of all we have said actually works [:)]

[Mynok]

Yes, P-38s sweeping might use the high altitude approach...and maybe even more so in AE than they did in Witp. We'll have to see.

It's going to boil down to whether the strafing after sweeping bug is gone. If it isn't, sweeps will be pretty useless because of flak traps.

[Djordje]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
Yes, P-38s sweeping might use the high altitude approach...and maybe even more so in AE than they did in Witp. We'll have to see.
It's going to boil down to whether the strafing after sweeping bug is gone. If it isn't, sweeps will be pretty useless because of flak traps.

Probably not the best place to ask this, but it is kinda related... In WITP ally player using P-38 could order sweep at max altitude that none of jap planes could reach, so effectively avoiding all cap. After A2A part of the combat was over P-38 would magically teleport to 100 feet and strafe airfields... For little to no cost they would be able to destroy many airplanes on the ground and there was nothing you could do (AA was not that effective unless in large numbers and if you brought many they would just change target to some other base).
I hope that magical teleport from max altitude to 100 feet is gone in AE.

[Mynok]

Yes, only the Allied player really has the ability to do a flak trap.

[Kitakami]

A note unrelated to anything else, but useful. If we change the production of any of the airframe factories in Maebashi and/or Gifu, we have to make sure we request more supply than what starts there or the factories will never repair.

[Gilbert]

[/quote]

The B5M1 Mabel is Max Speed +2, Cruise Speed +58, Max Alt - 2,560, Climb - 290, Manouver +5, Endurance - 111 compared to the B5N2 Kate.
Normal and extended radius are the same for both planes. But the B5M1 uses the Mitsubishi Ha-33 engine, while the B5N2 uses the Nakajima Ha-35, which is the most-used fighter engine. There is a 65(0) factory producing the Ha-33 in Nagoya, and a 180(0) producing the Ha-35 in Tokyo at start. Without too many factories to switch around, easing the demand for fighter engines sounds to me like a good idea, because we need to replace Claudes and Nates in LARGE quantities.

At start there is neither B5M1, B5N1, or B5N2 production, There is only a 0(0) B5N2 factory in Hiroshima. Changing it to B5M1 and then expanding it would not cost more than just expanding it, or would it? So, I am inclined to use the B5M1 Mabel, and see if I can accelerate production of the B6N1 a couple of months... but I will think about it in November '42 or so. That will depend on the state of the Japanese economy, early-war losses, etc.

Just my 2 cents [;)]
[/quote]

I have some doubts about B5M1 Mabel data regarding Manouver in AE. IRL one of the key factors for the IJN to select B5N1 was a superior manouver of the latter after OfficialTests in November 1937. Furthermore it seems to me that favoring B5M1 is a big gamble regarding B5N1-2 outstanding results in 1941-1942.

Just my two cents

Gilbert

[Q-Ball]

I kind of hate making Mabel instead of Kate, even if the Mabel is better.....it's kinda ugly, and just doesn't seem right. The IJN flew Kates. They must have picked it over Mabel for a reason, right? Maybe one the game doesn't model, like cheaper to build, or you can fit more in a CV hanger, or whatever.

[Kitakami]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I kind of hate making Mabel instead of Kate, even if the Mabel is better.....it's kinda ugly, and just doesn't seem right. The IJN flew Kates. They must have picked it over Mabel for a reason, right? Maybe one the game doesn't model, like cheaper to build, or you can fit more in a CV hanger, or whatever.

There IS an argument in favor of using the Kate instead of the Mabel... service time. The Kate is rated 1-10 days, while the Mabel is rated 5-15. I am conducting a test run of Scen 1, and that is one of the things I am tracking: refit time for CV-borne Mabels. Will let you know what I found after a few weeks of game time.

[jwilkerson]

Continue Nell production or convert to Betty?

Given all the other things that seem to need converting - and the expense of doing so - I'm definitely considering leaving the Nell's in production.

Balance between Sally and Helen?

In my last stock game, I built no Helens, only Sallys, I now think this was a mistake, just because of the engine aspect, better to spread out the engine consumption. In AE, the Sally looks like the better bomber, except for the armor aboard the Helen. Need to do some testing. But it would cost 1000s of supply to convert the Helen factory over to Sally's and those points could instead be spent building the Helen factory up to a higher level. I'm leaning in the direction of building up the factory instead of converting it.

No naval transports till 44 - other than the Mav/Em - that hurts - wasted slots!

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Continue Nell production or convert to Betty?

Given all the other things that seem to need converting - and the expense of doing so - I'm definitely considering leaving the Nell's in production.

That's definitely my plan. An additional factor is that the Nell uses the Ha-33 engine, and the Betty uses the Ha-32 engine. Both engines are also used by other planes. I like the idea that I can adjust the proportion of betty/nell production depending on the engine availability that's left over from the other plane builds. Sally's taking a beating? Build Bettys. Need more Vals? Build Nells. It's not just the flexibility, it's reducing the chance I mis-analyze something and end up painting myself in a corner.

[vonSchnitter]

Well, call me names, but I just could not leave TimToms statements on Airgroup spawning alone.

Here is what I did:

Scen 1: Betty, Nell, Zero pool set to empty, Betty, Nell, Zero production set to none.

One group on Nells with AC available and reserve - spawning 9.12.41
One group of Betty with two AC damaged - spawning 9.12.41
One group of Zeros with nothing, zero , zilch - spawning 9.12.41
Claudes are set to upgrade to Zeros with the original pool.
No Replacements for the scenario.
I choose the second day into the scenario to avoid any unknown day one issues .....

Results:
Nells: Spawning with the complement of AC specified
Betty: Spawning with 2 damaged AC
Zero: Spawning empty.

From my end this looks like this: Regardless of available AC, groups will spawn with exactly the numbers shown in the editor. And as the case may be, for free - including the engines.
If the secified numbers are zero, the group will spawn regardless.

Availabilty of older AC in the upgrade path is ignored.

Conclusions:

Granted, I used in-production ACs, but there are some Airgroups spawning before their AC go into production, which are supposed to show up regardless, considering prior information.

Unless there is something hidden lower than I choose to dig - airgroup withdrawal ? - it looks safe to draw these conclusions:

a)Airgroups spawn regardless of production, pools or some such
b) AC listed as available, damaged or probably in reserve come for free - including engines.

Which translates into:
No need to produce or R&D AC you do not care for - unless they are part of an upgrade path.
When calculating ac production needs, "only" attrition and spawning understrength groups need to be accounted for (my tables - minus attrition - do just that)

Taking late war or other R&D factories to research earlier models - just to make them productive earlier - looks tempting.
Just keep in mind: R&D factories cannot switch to productive ones, and productive ones not to R&D.
Whether the last is a real problem, is another issue.

Cheers

[Kitakami]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Continue Nell production or convert to Betty?

Given all the other things that seem to need converting - and the expense of doing so - I'm definitely considering leaving the Nell's in production.

Balance between Sally and Helen?

In my last stock game, I built no Helens, only Sallys, I now think this was a mistake, just because of the engine aspect, better to spread out the engine consumption. In AE, the Sally looks like the better bomber, except for the armor aboard the Helen. Need to do some testing. But it would cost 1000s of supply to convert the Helen factory over to Sally's and those points could instead be spent building the Helen factory up to a higher level. I'm leaning in the direction of building up the factory instead of converting it.

No naval transports till 44 - other than the Mav/Em - that hurts - wasted slots!

If resources were not the limiting factor, I'd probably opimize more. But as things stand, and after all our discussions, I am inclined to do as follows:

- Keep both the Nell and the Betty in production, but increase Nell production.
- Keep both the Sally and the Helen in production, and increase the production of both.
- Keep both the A6M2 and A6M3 in production, and increase the production of both.

As you mention, the supply used for converting a factory is better used at expanding it. Besides, if we have to big a surplus of a plane, we can stop production for a while.

At the same time, there are certain factories that might be better used by converting them to produce other airframes:

- The Nate factories converted to A6M2 (Harbin) and Oscar (Maebashi) production. I'd rather have Zeros and Oscars than Nates...
and I am willing to pay the supplies for it.
- The Ki-36 factory converted to Oscar production. The Ki-36 is not needed, more Oscars definitely are.
- The Ki-51 factory converted to Ki-48 production. The Ki-48 becomes armored soon, and can replace most/all of the light bombers.
- the Ki-56 factory converted to whatever is needed the most... or to C5M if nothing else.

Just my 2 cents and, as I said before, I have changed my mind quite a few times. I undoubtedly will do so again. But I do believe I will be a much better player due to these discussions, thanks guys! [:D]

[Elladan]

Have you guys checked which air groups can convert to A6M3? I have found just one and somehow cannot find this group again. All others can convert to A6M3a but not to A6M3. This has significant effect as the A6M3 is the only version in this line which is able to upgrade to J2s or N1s.

[n01487477]

yep

[vonSchnitter]

these ones ?

10 Genzan Ku S-1 0 0 27 420401 609
172 6th Ku S-1 6 0 45 420401 609

Edit:

At the start, there is only one group to upgrade to the M3 - a Claude group - should be easy to find.
Massagin databases is not the ticket everytime [;)]; [8|]

With PDU on, probably 3 groups may convert to M3 plus the one spawning with the type.
Does not make much difference in numbers - and certainly has not much bearing on long term capacity planing - but kudos to elladan - this sort of detailed question shows that the dachshund is pretty much alive and well. [:D]

[SireChaos]

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Continue Nell production or convert to Betty?

Given all the other things that seem to need converting - and the expense of doing so - I'm definitely considering leaving the Nell's in production.

Balance between Sally and Helen?

In my last stock game, I built no Helens, only Sallys, I now think this was a mistake, just because of the engine aspect, better to spread out the engine consumption. In AE, the Sally looks like the better bomber, except for the armor aboard the Helen. Need to do some testing. But it would cost 1000s of supply to convert the Helen factory over to Sally's and those points could instead be spent building the Helen factory up to a higher level. I'm leaning in the direction of building up the factory instead of converting it.

No naval transports till 44 - other than the Mav/Em - that hurts - wasted slots!

If resources were not the limiting factor, I'd probably opimize more. But as things stand, and after all our discussions, I am inclined to do as follows:

- Keep both the Nell and the Betty in production, but increase Nell production.
- Keep both the Sally and the Helen in production, and increase the production of both.
- Keep both the A6M2 and A6M3 in production, and increase the production of both.

As you mention, the supply used for converting a factory is better used at expanding it. Besides, if we have to big a surplus of a plane, we can stop production for a while.

At the same time, there are certain factories that might be better used by converting them to produce other airframes:

- The Nate factories converted to A6M2 (Harbin) and Oscar (Maebashi) production. I'd rather have Zeros and Oscars than Nates...
and I am willing to pay the supplies for it.
- The Ki-36 factory converted to Oscar production. The Ki-36 is not needed, more Oscars definitely are.
- The Ki-51 factory converted to Ki-48 production. The Ki-48 becomes armored soon, and can replace most/all of the light bombers.
- the Ki-56 factory converted to whatever is needed the most... or to C5M if nothing else.

Just my 2 cents and, as I said before, I have changed my mind quite a few times. I undoubtedly will do so again. But I do believe I will be a much better player due to these discussions, thanks guys! [:D]

I´m doing the following in my current PBEM as Japan:

- Keep both Nell and Betty in production, but increase Betty production to about 60-80
- Increase A6M2 production to perhaps 100; slowly convert A5M4 squadrons to A6M2 while keeping up a reserve for the carriers
- Increase B5N2 and D3A1 production to about 40-50 each (and convert the B5N1 factory to B5N2); land-based squadrons are equipped with Mabels and B5N1 to use up the existing stocks and save B5N2 for the carriers
- Convert/expand float plane production to 20-30 E13A1, 10-15 F1M and 5-10 E14Y1; set all non-submarine-based squadrons to convert to 2/3 E13A1, 1/3 F1M (the E13A1 is a far better scout, but the F1M can double as a float fighter)
- Convert all Army fighter factories to Ki-43-Ic; set all Army fighter squadrons except those in China and Manchuria to convert to Ki-43-Ic
- Convert and expand Army bomber factories to produce ca 100 Ki-21-IIa and 30-40 Ki-48-Ib (which has the added bonus of these upgrading to better versions for free later on); set squadrons outside China/Manchuria to convert to 2/3 Ki-21 and 1/3 Ki-48
- Convert Army recon factories to Ki-46-II Dinah, and set all squadrons outside China/Manchuria to upgrade to this
- Convert Army transport factories to MC-21; set most squadrons to upgrade to this, but keep a few to use up remaining Ki-57-I stocks

As the war goes on, I plan to:
- Keep the A6M2 as a long-range escort, but expand A6M3 production when that becomes available, to be able to produce the superior A6M3a in larger number when it is ready; I might convert the A6M2 factory to A6M3a by then
- Convert D3A production to D4Y models when available
- Convert B5N productionto B6N models when available
- Ultimately convert all patrol production to latest H8K model
- Convert all naval transport production to H8K2-L
- split Army fighter production about 20/40/20/20 between Ki-43-IIa, Ki-45-KAIa, Ki-44-IIa and Ki-61-Ia; ultimately most of these will convert to Ki-84 production
- split Army bomber production about 40/20/40 between Ki-48-IIb, Ki-21-IIb and the Ki-49 models, with Ki-21 and Ki-49 production later to convert to Ki-67 models
- let Army recon production automatically upgrade to Ki-46 III
- convert Army transport production to Ki-49-II KAI

Of course, all of this is from studying the numbers in the database and WitpStaff; the realities of war might change some or all of this.

[Kitakami]

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Have you guys checked which air groups can convert to A6M3? I have found just one and somehow cannot find this group again. All others can convert to A6M3a but not to A6M3. This has significant effect as the A6M3 is the only version in this line which is able to upgrade to J2s or N1s.

Premise: PDU is OFF. With PDU on, there is no need for this, as we can do almost anything:

1. A6M3: 2 Hikotai convert to this plane: Genzan Ku S-1, and 6th Ku S-1.
2. A6M2: 5 Hikotai convert to this plane: Yamada Det S-1, Yokosuka Ku S-1, 1st Ku S-1, Okamoto Det, and 381 Ku S-1
3. A5M4: 2 Hikotai and 1 Chutai keep the model: Sasebo Ku S1, Yamada Det S-2, and Kawai Det

The rest are fitted with A6M3a and newer models.
Interestingly, the CS to CVL conversions come with the A6M2, which are scheduled to convert to the Sen Baku, not to the A6M3a.

My personal preference is to play with PDU on, but the above should be taken into account by anyone playing with PDU off.

[Elladan]

I had PDU on and A6M3 didn't show as an option for most of the groups. Haven't checked it thoroughly as it was very late yesterday.

[SireChaos]

ORIGINAL: Elladan

I had PDU on and A6M3 didn't show as an option for most of the groups. Haven't checked it thoroughly as it was very late yesterday.

I think A6M3 is not carrier capable; that might be it.