Japanese Aircraft

[kstoddard2]

This is what I used to do in the original version of the game. I also tried to concentrate on only a few lines of good aircraft trying to make sure I ended up with Ki-84s, J2Ms, N1K1s, D4Ys and J6Ms asap.

Do you have a link to Solli's AAR? I'd love to read it.

Thanks guys!

Kyle

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Very valid point.. and this is of course just my opinion... if I change the 30 sized Sonia factory to build Oscars; it will of course cost more, but Oscar is a model in which I won't be afraid of increasing the factory size to even 100 or 150 planes a month; this because Oscar had a longer upgrade path that will allow me to have a 1st rate fighter in early 42, then a good escort in late 42/ 43 and then a very good kamikaze platform (long range, 2x250kg bombs, manouverable, relatively fast).

What I am saying is that keeping a factory building Sonia's for the entire war has an opportunity cost of using the factory for something else that might be better

[kstoddard2]

Thanks Numdydar, I have that very file open right in front of me! Extremely useful!

Kyle

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Japanese bible
tm.asp?m=2959613

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Very valid point.. and this is of course just my opinion... if I change the 30 sized Sonia factory to build Oscars; it will of course cost more, but Oscar is a model in which I won't be afraid of increasing the factory size to even 100 or 150 planes a month; this because Oscar had a longer upgrade path that will allow me to have a 1st rate fighter in early 42, then a good escort in late 42/ 43 and then a very good kamikaze platform (long range, 2x250kg bombs, manouverable, relatively fast).

What I am saying is that keeping a factory building Sonia's for the entire war has an opportunity cost of using the factory for something else that might be better

I think this illustrates one of the reasons the game is good. All the decisions. [:)]

Bear in mind that kamikaze Oscars use fighter squadrons, and there may come a time when you want them all to be fighters.[&:] I think the Frank A would make a far superior kamikaze (hat tip to Mr. Kane). I hope you are reading this Jocke...Frank A kamikazes. Scary.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: kstoddard2

This is what I used to do in the original version of the game. I also tried to concentrate on only a few lines of good aircraft trying to make sure I ended up with Ki-84s, J2Ms, N1K1s, D4Ys and J6Ms asap.

Do you have a link to Solli's AAR? I'd love to read it.

Thanks guys!

Kyle

Just search the AARs by hits. It will pop up near the top on the first page. You can sort from the top of the page by clicking on hits.

A good discussion there, if I remember about maintaining a single engine bomber. Pros and cons. Sometimes the best discussions are in the AARs.

[oaltinyay]

Does the type of a/c used in a kamikaze mission affect the magnitude of damage they do ?

[Alpha77]

Cancelled a lot also resaerch (most 44+45 planes). Only Betty and Sally are produced as bombers. Lily will get Sally. The single engine bombers mostly train for asw and also as experiment for low naval and search. The plan is to get them Helen 1s as they have a MAD device which should be useful for ASW. Otherwise the Helen 1 isnt better than the Sally (only for ASW probably). Helen2 will get a bit better still not as good as their counterparts in the other side (Mitchel etc). Mitchels and DB7 can get through Japanese CAPs that only have Oscars. Not to mention US 4Es--So you need a better army fighter desperatly (which can only be Tojo in 42 and most of 43)....

Cancelled all transport too the payload is too low. Waiting for 43 when the copy of the DC transport will appaer. If their should be a need for transport before that date, still one line could be opened for the best of the old transports. Otherwise they will fade over time with op losses.

Search gets mostly Jakes, but 2 more seaplanes that use older engines from which a stock exists already. Got the first of the huge floatplane units now the big belly plane with 4E name I cannot remember, but they seem terrible to maintain and need a lot of support. So stick to the Mavis until a special reason would appaer that you need the huge 4E plane that takes a week before can be flown again [;)]

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Interesting that you mention Mavis easier to maintain than Emily (that is the other big 4E patrol). Both are SR4 and should technically be equal in terms of difficulty to maintain

[Amoral]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Interesting that you mention Mavis easier to maintain than Emily (that is the other big 4E patrol). Both are SR4 and should technically be equal in terms of difficulty to maintain

Durability factors into repair time. The Emily is significantly harder to keep operational.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Interesting that you mention Mavis easier to maintain than Emily (that is the other big 4E patrol). Both are SR4 and should technically be equal in terms of difficulty to maintain

Yes, that waswhat I thought. But seems to be not correct. Mavis are in fact easier to maintain, much easier. But the Emily not. I only get a 2 plane detachement of them and could not get them to fly at all. One is always in repair the other maybe flies one round and then is grounded too [:D]

but the 2 pilots of the Emily are outstanding seem to have the best search rating seen so far.... maybe transfer them to a unit that actually can fly their planes [:)]

Edit: Maybe they need a AV special for them....

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I tend not to use those planes to bomb Chinese, it has little effect in the end. Train or do ASW. The Marys and Anns are good for that (ASW) because of their bombload. But I would hesitate to build any more.

However they train and gain with bombing missions even if the missions are quite useless. Set them high so no AA losses and try to avoid the few I15s etc. the Chinese have You will have only few oplosses if you check their fatigue once in a while.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

They are friendly planes that fly from small runways. Japanese pilots thought well of the Sonia.[:)] Just saying.

One of these light bombers was actually a dive bomber..kind of in reality. Cannot remember which oine tho.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Quite good for local ASW around your port hubs as well

I had a suspicion they might be really good at that. There are areas where the short range isn't that much of a detriment.

I do this too, actually they start to attack subs now. Do not hit, but try. I believe you need 60 ASW and higher. I wonder if low naval skill helps with sub attacks. Would be logical. I train now the units that have ca. 60 ASW at lownav too. And later they can get better planes, however changing 1E planes to 2E costs 75PP in my game. Maybe cause of the mod.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I don't think I would ever spend in building trainers; unless I am role playing. The cost of a single engine Ki-36 Ida is the same as the cost of the most advanced single engine plane Japan have (think Ki-84 for example). In real life it makes sense to build docile, less costly planes for training, but that is not modeled in game.

Thus any second rate or recently obsolescent plane can be a good trainer. The game also doesn't model the fact that training was attritionally heavy. I think the US lost more carrier capable planes in Lake Michigan that it did in the entire Pacific. In game you can have the same trainers running for the entire war with barely any loss.

Playing Japan I would use all Army 1E bombers available, but won't build any more, eventually they will be all replaced by 2Es

Now that you mention the training issue I totally agree. I am not yet an expert on the Japanese, but I know for sure that eg. Germany starting in 43 had terrible losses for training. Esp. the case when trainees would switch to the "real deal" BF109. This plane was prone to landing accidents due to narrow landing gear and generally needed a more experienced pilot then eg. the FW190. With the loss of fuel as war the war went on, less and less plitos could be trained adequetly and so the Luftwaffe demise started (not to mention the attrition by fighting 4Es and their escorts and the conditions on Russian front). So it would be neat if we get some more training op losses in this game. Maybe depending also on plane type. Normally rookies would first train with a very slow and safe plane - but when they switch to combat model training the trouble starts, esp. if a not so safe plane like the ME109 would be used.

Not sure which planes would be comparable in the pacific TO on either side and which ones would be more safe....AFAIK eg. the F6 Hellcat was more a safe one, as it took some inspiration from the FW190. I guess the Tony would be a more unsafe one as it took some features from BF109....

EDIT: Changed ME to BF also forgot to mention the TERRIBLE high command of the Luftwaffe which was a major factor for it´s downfall. And some wrong developments and personal issues that eg. Profs. Messerschmidt and Heinkel had with Milch. Milch wanted to convert more BF109 to FW types. But Prof Messerschmidt had connections higher up, so the BF109 was produced in large numbers until wars end.

[kstoddard2]

USAAF tests of the Tony seem to indicate that it was pretty docile. The Ki-61 didn't have the narrow wheel track of the Bf-109. Plus it's fuselage was tall enough to compensate for the torque of the Ha-40 (license copy of the DB 601 in the Bf-109)so it didn't have the tendency to swing in the direction of propeller rotation. So it would seem that unusually high operation attrition should apply to the Tony.

Kyle

[wdolson]

The license built Ha-40 turned out to be an unreliable engine, especially in the South Pacific. This is why it has a high service rating in the game.

Bill

[Denniss]

Must have been a production problem (precision mechanics?) as no such problem appeared in Europe or North Africa in German/Italian use.

[wdolson]

Engines behave differently in combinations of heat/cold and humidity. I don't know if the Ha-40 had problems due to manufacturing, or the weather, or both but the Germans didn't operate much in hot/humid climates. The Mediterranean's climate is a lot like California's, hot and dry.

The P-38 operated OK in cold and dry climates as well as hot and damp climates, but the cold and moist environment of northern Europe caused the oil in the superchargers to get jellify causing them to seize up especially at high altitude. Lockheed finally fixed the problem by the introduction of the J, but it was mostly out of service in northern Europe at that point.

Bill

[bomccarthy]

From what I have read, the Ha-40 was a victim of too few skilled machinists trying to produce a complex design in large quantities, something that afflicted the Homare as well. I don't have the book handy, but I recall Fire in the Sky noting that by late 43, more than 50% of the Ki-61s were failing their final assembly inspections, and being sent back into the production line.

I'll try to find the link - there is an interesting postwar document that summarizes the interviews with the lead engineers at Mitsubishi and Nakajima. They detailed problems with fuel injection systems (which they believed necessary to get the most of the poor quality avgas that was in use by 44) and the quality of metal that was coming out of the foundries (leading to main bearing failures).