Tojo or Tony

[Q-Ball]

Miller's point earlier got me thinking. I wonder if he is right about Oscar being better than Tojo. This is an important question, because you need to plan ahead on fighter production, and changing it is pretty much impossible once you commit.

First, on Tojo v Tony, it's not easy to dissect, because the different versions come on at various times. Off the bat, you get a TOJO 5 months early. TONY comes with armor in early '43, but is otherwise inferior. So, how important is the armor? Then, Tojo gets armor later in 1943, and THEN is a superior plane. Until the Tony get an upgrade in weaponry. Etc. etc. This is very complex, and someone need to break it down, weighting what is important vs. what isn't. Which one is better? It depends on which month you ask.

To make it more complicated, the OSCAR isn't trash anymore like in WITP. Us old timers made our last Oscar in July of 1942, then stopped. Is the OSCAR better than the TOJO? Tojo is still faster, but that means less in AE. The armament is almost equal, because the 7.7mm mg sucks pretty bad. OSCAR is more maneuverable, and in May'43 the IIb model gets armor. As always, the range is much better, capable of escorting Bettys. So how important is armor again? Etc. etc.................

WITP was pretty straightforward; TONY/TOJO came in the same month, and were almost equal. Now it's alot more complex! Someone please break it down for us!

[vaned74]

To follow up on Q-Balls points.  Fighter production needs to be planned early.  I always try to come up with a production strategy for the war as early as possible - now, realistically this is actually unrealistic b/c we really shouldn't know the performance properties of aircraft in R/D, but, not much way to overcome that knowledge in the game w/o losing some historicity.  Both sides are operating with 20/20 hindsight.

On the Tony vs. Tojo - it really isn't until 9/43 that the armament issue is that different - at that point the Tony gets 2x 20 mm cannon which are better than the two 12.7mm MGs.  As well, this is only a 6 month problem because in 4/44 the Frank becomes available and it is far superior to the Tony or the Tojo.  At that point, I would be replacing all production with Franks to the extent supplies allow.

Lastly, I would state that engine production is far more complicated now than in WitP - a 1941 engine will not work on a 1944 advanced fighter.  With supply production for Japan much lower than in the original WitP - this retooling of factories is a critical cost analysis.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Tojo is still faster, but that means less in AE.

I thought speed meant more in AE - have I been going on the wrong assumption?

[Athius]

Reading this discussion I think I'll go with my original plan: use 40% of my R&D capacity on the Ki-84a to bring the plane forward to mid 43 and stick with Oscars (IIB at that point) for the time being, supplementing the oscars with ki-45's for bomber interceptions

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Athius

Reading this discussion I think I'll go with my original plan: use 40% of my R&D capacity on the Ki-84a to bring the plane forward to mid 43 and stick with Oscars (IIB at that point) for the time being, supplementing the oscars with ki-45's for bomber interceptions

Ki-84 in mid 43?[8|] Hope your playing the AI because it wouldn´t care...

I hope this isn´t possible in AE anyway.

[xj900uk]

IMO when it comes to JAAF fighters take the following points into account :
 
(1). Early war the Oscar (any model) is tons better than the Nate.
(2). Oscar is also the most manoueverable plane in the entire campaign.  It is also, however,  just about the most lightly armed or armoured.
(3). Tony was a fine plane with decent armour and armament (for its time) but suffered from servicability problems (represented in the game) general unpopularity, and also is an entirely new R&D path which requires a lot of valuable resources to be developed properly.
(4). Tojo has the major advantages of heavier and more flexible armament + uses the tried & trusted Ha-35 engine (also mounted in the oscar & Zero, so for the Jap player it's easier to produce)
(5). Frank is probably the best all-round IJAAF fighter of the war, which first entered service in 4/44.  With some decent R&D you could get it a little sooner & then switch over mass production to it as soon as it is available

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Roko

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: Roko

There is something wrong with Ki-44 in game.

2x7.7 + 2x12.7 was used only on prototypes and Ki-44-Ia ( 9 planes )
and Ki-44-IIa ( 3 planes ) - together only about 23 planes ever built
Ki-44-IIb used 4x12.7
Ki-44-IIc used 2x12.7 + 2x20
2x12.7 + 2x40mm was used on Ki-44-IIc KAI, first built May 1944

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/986/shoki.jpg

Is that Francillon? If it is, the AE aircraft guru Timtom said following:

'Cos they're directly or indirectly channeling Francillon, who in turn is channeling the prone-to-errors 1st edition of the 8-volume Japanese language "Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft 1900-1945".

According to him, AE Ki-44 armament is correct.

Its from Richard M. Beuschel - Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki in Japanese Army Air Force Service.
Similiar data in John F. Brindley - Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki.
But who's right ? [&:]

Thanks, but you give me to much credit. I just leech off others such as Jim Long of J-aircraft.com.

Reg. the armament, Mr.Long explains in detail on the following thread -> http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=5995.0

Note that on request Mr.Long kindly provided me with the central source underpinning his argument, ie the CINCPAC-CINCPOA Special Translation #73.

[Athius]

But the question remains, is the 40mm effective?

[vaned74]

I can safely say that R&D to advance an a/c like the Ki-84 into mid-43 is probably not possible.  I ran some tests and converted every r/d aircraft factory at start in Japan to Ki-84-1a.  That would be about 70 a/c factories all doing r&d.  I clicked different models until all 70 factories were size 0x(1).  In about 30 days - only 1 a/c factory was repaired.  This is the second time I have run a r/d repair test and seen a repair rate of about 1/3000 per day for a/c factories on r&d aircraft.

Note also - lest you want to expand those r&d factories to something like 0x(10) thinking you'll have 700 factory rates to attempt repair per day that an R&D factory will not produce any R&D points at all unless the entire site is repaired (ie meaning the 10 pt factory would have to be fully repaired - so if 1 point repaired you still don't get any R&D point).

I have not tested to see if the repair rate is higher the closer you get to the actual arrival date of the plane.  My guess is it is - but, give up on your dreams of advancing late war aircraft by a lot.

[Rugens]

This is a great summary. One of the important issues I forgot to mention earlier which is touched on in this list is pilot survivability. Though the type of plane is very important, everybit as important is the development of a plan for training pilots and minimizing their casualties. The Oscars duribility is 23 while the Tojo is 28, so in that regard the Tojo is about 20% better. Though the Oscar gets armor before the Tojo, for most of the time neither are armored. Certainly in play the Tojo's seem to take fewer losses than Oscars in comparable situations.

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

IMO when it comes to JAAF fighters take the following points into account :

(1). Early war the Oscar (any model) is tons better than the Nate.
(2). Oscar is also the most manoueverable plane in the entire campaign.  It is also, however,  just about the most lightly armed or armoured.
(3). Tony was a fine plane with decent armour and armament (for its time) but suffered from servicability problems (represented in the game) general unpopularity, and also is an entirely new R&D path which requires a lot of valuable resources to be developed properly.
(4). Tojo has the major advantages of heavier and more flexible armament + uses the tried & trusted Ha-35 engine (also mounted in the oscar & Zero, so for the Jap player it's easier to produce)
(5). Frank is probably the best all-round IJAAF fighter of the war, which first entered service in 4/44.  With some decent R&D you could get it a little sooner & then switch over mass production to it as soon as it is available

[Grotius]

So, what do you all think about this issue now? Seems like most people lean toward the Tojo over the Tony, because of the engine and the service rating. That's how I'm leaning too, but I'm curious whether the consensus has shifted.

[Shark7]

I still produce both. They both have their uses.

[Xxzard]

From what I have seen in this thread, I would go with the Tojo, but also keep oscars active too.

In one old witp game, I operated considerable numbers of Tonys, but that was when it was easier to change what was being built, and when there were no service ratings, which really come into play. The Tony has a service rating of three. From my allied experience, P38 F's (I believe) have the same rating. I have been able to use them every few days on sweeps or long range escort missions, but they aren't up to strength every day. If their base was under attack, I would not have a great deal of confidence in their ability to defend it, because too many would become damaged and inoperable.

[Who Cares]

Firepower. Oscar only has a 6 and the weakest Tojo/Tony is a 10 (almost double). Flying circles around enemy aircraft is wonderful but not so good if all you can do is damage them. Keeping pilots alive is something you need to start thinking about in mid-42 (actually from the start it's a good plan to think about it) so durability and armor is important which makes the early Tony a must. Build the Tojo when it comes out because its twice as effective as the Oscar, and build the Tony when it comes out (don't stop Tojo production), and pray for advances on the Frank. Silly not to build both Tony and Tojo. Sillier still to build the Oscar. The best Oscar is only an 8 firepower.

[Q-Ball]

I wouldnt' stop Oscar production. I did in WITP, because the Oscar was useless, but in AE it has it's uses.

The main reason to keep it is that it can escort Netties to a longer range than Tojos. A range of 12 means that you have a shot at Surface Bombardment TFs, and double shots at invasion fleets

[Who Cares]

Use M2 Zeros to escort your bombers. They have the longest range of anything resembling a fighter and 12 firepower to boot. I don't stop Oscar production either (until the Tojo is out anyway), after all they are better than the Nate, but neither will I expand it. From what I have seen of AE just intercepting a bombing strike greatly reduces its accuracy. Since the Tony is a maintenance hog, scatter them at level 1 and 2 airfields near where you want them to CAP (with adequate av support of course). You don't want to cluster a lot of planes at 1 airfield anyway, plus if you have rain at 1 field others will be open so you aren't risking an all or nothing CAP.

[crsutton]

I don't think you guys are paying attention to the service ratings. I think it is a big deal in AE and you should be looking at it in every plane you consider. Just ask any AFB about the trouble keeping brewster buffalos and P38 flying. It was not unusal for my early war carrier brewsters to have 20% of their compliment in the hangar after running 30-40% CAP for a few days. P-38 proves the same. It is not a great fighter to base at small front line bases-especially if the Japanese player has local air superiority. Tony, Frank, George, Jack all have a service rating of 3 (I think).
 
Tony vs Tojo, is a no brainer. I go for the Tojo. In my games it seems to handle hurricanes and P40s fairly well and it is about the only 2nd generation fighter that has a service rating of 1. Too bad about this as I think a lot of JFBs will opt for tojos and we won't see the tony much in our games. I sort of like the way the Tony looks.
 
Zero and Oscar soon become outclassed but it is hard to walk away from that 1 service rating. When Allied air power starts to crank up I don't think you want a bunch of broken planes sitting on the tarmac.[:-]

[Athius]

The oscar IIB seems quite potent to me though. Not a bad speed, armor and great agility

[Who Cares]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I don't think you guys are paying attention to the service ratings. I think it is a big deal in AE and you should be looking at it in every plane you consider. Just ask any AFB about the trouble keeping brewster buffalos and P38 flying. It was not unusal for my early war carrier brewsters to have 20% of their compliment in the hangar after running 30-40% CAP for a few days. P-38 proves the same. It is not a great fighter to base at small front line bases-especially if the Japanese player has local air superiority. Tony, Frank, George, Jack all have a service rating of 3 (I think).

Tony vs Tojo, is a no brainer. I go for the Tojo. In my games it seems to handle hurricanes and P40s fairly well and it is about the only 2nd generation fighter that has a service rating of 1. Too bad about this as I think a lot of JFBs will opt for tojos and we won't see the tony much in our games. I sort of like the way the Tony looks.

Zero and Oscar soon become outclassed but it is hard to walk away from that 1 service rating. When Allied air power starts to crank up I don't think you want a bunch of broken planes sitting on the tarmac.[:-]

Saw that. Whats the difference if 20% of your planes are down for maintenance if you have 30% on rest? None. No difference at all, so I think you are over prioritizing the maintenance. As I said, put them on level 1 and 2 airfields close to where you want their CAP and you really don't have to worry about them getting bombed either. Maybe 1 but for sure better to put 4 groups at 4 different bases than leave them all in 1 kettle to get slammed.

And as I already said the M2 Zeros range is the selling point of that plane that will keep it in production into '44 at least in my game world.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein

I like a mix of Oscars and Tojos. Each has some advantages that make it very useful to use them in a mission specific manner. Hands down though for killing allied aircraft my preference is the Tojo. With it's speed and heavier firepower it can allow the IJA to compete in the air until better models come along. Also, a big advantage is that the Tojo, Oscar as well as the Zero all use the Nakajima Ha-35 engine. Very useful to use the heck out of these designs until the next generation engine Nakajima Ha-45 come available.

The Shoki ("Tojo") didn't use the Ha-35 Sakae like the Oscar or Zero, but the Ha-34 like the Ki-49 Helen. Major difference. This should be corrected.

On the armament, I quote a post on aviastar.org by Hiroyuki Takeuchi:

Also, the widespread error in subtype defintion should be corrected. The IIb is armed by two 12.7mm nose guns only and could carry two 40mm cannons in the wings as "special equipment". The IIc was armed with four 12.7mm guns. No 20mm guns were ever fitted in any production Ki44s.

Concerning the Ho-301 cannon that is so admired by other posters, it fires a heavy and probably very effective projectile, but has a muzzle velocity of only 245 m/s (about 800 fps) which is half that of the MK108 which was heavily criticized for having too short an effective range when attacking US bombers, so I think the Ho-301 with its effective range of 150 m, 500 feet, would have forced the fighter to close to an altogether unhealthily short distance with the target, probably the reason why this weapon wasn't used in later versions. A conventional 30mm cannon would have served better (and weighed only a third). Both the Ki-61 (especially the aircraft that were armed with MG151/20s) and most versions of the Zero were actually better armed than any Ki-44.