Page 2 of 9
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:34 am
by ChezDaJez
"In combat, the Hayabusa was superior to any opposing fighter it encountered in the initial part of the war. The OSCAR remained formidable even as better Allied aircraft entered the fray."
and
"Although not well known compared to the A6M Zero fighter, the Ki-43 was a formidable aircraft, particularly during the early war years."
Hoof even goes on the say "An excellent fighter of the time, it was superior to the Zero in almost every regard except firepower." -- This statement alone seems to support applying the Zero bonus at least to the Oscar too.
And it was.... as far as maneuverability went. The Oscar was designed to dogfight Chinese biplanes and it could do that quite well. With its butterfly flaps, it could outturn a Zero. But what good is a plane that can get on your tail if it doesn't have the firepower to knock you down? Two 7.7mms aren't going to do much against enemy fighters sporting armor.
Perfect example of an airplane that can do everything asked of it in combat except shoot another plane down.
Chez
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: TheElf
Interesting sites. Hoof's site in particular speaks to me as his break down of aircraft performance reads like the BFM chapter in the Navy's Top Gun Manual.
What I found interesting is that both sites view the Oscar as
"An excellent fighter for it's time" (Early War)
"In combat, the Hayabusa was superior to any opposing fighter it encountered in the initial part of the war. The OSCAR remained formidable even as better Allied aircraft entered the fray."
and
"Although not well known compared to the A6M Zero fighter, the Ki-43 was a formidable aircraft, particularly during the early war years."
Hoof even goes on the say
"An excellent fighter of the time, it was superior to the Zero in almost every regard except firepower." -- This statement alone seems to support applying the Zero bonus at least to the Oscar too.
I'd wager that this post in this particular thread will be the only place you'd see those kinds of remarks about OUR Oscar.
Here is more info ref the Oscar's evaluation by the USAAF "in combat"..
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air ... /oscar.htm
and this from the Thai government (which used it)
http://www.dmbcrtaf.thaigov.net/aircraf ... 7/ki43.htm
about half way down, an American account of how the 2 gunned Oscar downed a P 47 !!!
http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history ... -47/6.html
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:10 am
by TheElf
ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
"In combat, the Hayabusa was superior to any opposing fighter it encountered in the initial part of the war. The OSCAR remained formidable even as better Allied aircraft entered the fray."
and
"Although not well known compared to the A6M Zero fighter, the Ki-43 was a formidable aircraft, particularly during the early war years."
Hoof even goes on the say "An excellent fighter of the time, it was superior to the Zero in almost every regard except firepower." -- This statement alone seems to support applying the Zero bonus at least to the Oscar too.
And it was.... as far as maneuverability went. The Oscar was designed to dogfight Chinese biplanes and it could do that quite well. With its butterfly flaps, it could outturn a Zero. But what good is a plane that can get on your tail if it doesn't have the firepower to knock you down? Two 7.7mms aren't going to do much against enemy fighters sporting armor.
Perfect example of an airplane that can do everything asked of it in combat except shoot another plane down.
Chez
These are very good points, and I agree, to a degree. Unfortunately the Oscar NEVER seems to shoot Anything down. Even in the early war period vs. Aircraft that it is by all accounts at least on par with. It's just too ineffective to be believable. And I am an Allied player exclusively right now.
JWilkerson-
I have a book called
Japanese Army Air Force Fighter units and their Aces 1931-1945 by two Japanese Dudes and Christopher Shores. It provides an excellent perspective on the Japanese side as far as "Sso many a/c took off, so many returned, and these are the claims they filed etc." I just dusted it off and am beginning to turn pages. I'll post any relevent passages.
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:19 am
by jwilkerson
I've got that one too - unfortunately it is still inna box waiting to be unpacked - after my basement gets finished hopefully this week or next ... I don't recall 10 pages of charts and tables in there that would really nail the "combat performance" data request .. but there might be some tid-bits. And please do post anything relevant.
From the Allied side - the allies weren't real great at IDing Japanese fighters early in the war ... almost everything was a "Zero" ... so taking everything literally from the front lines early on is sometimes mis-leading. Like AVG guys thought they were shooting at Zeroes .. but post-war research indicates there were no zeros there .. but mostly Oscars and Nates ... and data from the Japanese side is just scarce period.
We will probably get more data later in the war when the Allies got more organized and had more "intel" types near the front that knew how to gather the data. So over Burma and New Guinea there might be some data later on.
Oh here is a link that covers Oscar armament in as much detail as anyone would ever want ...
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:55 am
by GaryChildress
ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg
Much better than Nates. I'm not too far into the game yet, but they seem to be reasonably useful in the early going, providing LRCAP to TFs cruising around Borneo/Singapore where the occasional small Martin/TIVa raid needs to be beaten back.
I agree with Bob. I'm playing a PBEM as Japanese and find Nates absolutely %100 useless. Oscars may not be the Uber-Zero but, as far as I can tell, they are better than Nates until Tojos and Tonys arrive. I'd rather carry on the first half of '42 with Oscars than with Nates.
As far as what their capabilities "should" be in the game, it sounds, from ChezDaJez's remarks that, though it shouldn't shoot many fighters down with its weak armament, with its excellent maneuverability it should at least bring most of its pilots back alive against many of the earlier Allied fighters.
Gary
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:56 am
by TheElf
Ok, I’ve skimmed the early war period covered in this book. Here is what I’ve found. These are going to be short and sweet, but keep in mind, the only certainty are the losses of the IJAAF units. Claims are claims and not to be taken at face value.
Opening day of war
64th Sentai escorts Heavy bombers to targets in Malayan Pen.1st Lts Tadao and Yohei & Yonesaku share a Blenheim. (this sharing will be a theme when it comes to Oscar kills. Oscars in numbers can combine firepower so a single ship doesn’t necessarily have to bring a more “Durable” Allied a/c down by himself) Five more A/C claimed dest. On ground.
11 Ki-43s of 59th Sen. Escort light Bombers to Kota Bharu. 15 Buffs enaged over Tanah Merah, Six claimed downed. no losses.
21 Dec
59 Sen. Claims 4 of 4 Buffs encountered over Kuala Lumpur. No losses.
22 Dec
59 Sen. Claims 4 more Buffs downed or damaged. By the end of Dec 59th claims11 kills, 13 destroyed on the ground for the loss of two pilots(in a mid-air collision)
64 Sen. Claims 11 Buffs downed over Kuala Lumpur. Only loss being Lt Tadao Takayama’s Ki-43 as it’s wings were seen to fold “like a butterfly”
8 Jan
Of interest here, a Ki-27 pilot from 77 Sentai Claimed a Catalina shot down near Sinora. Just a claim, the thing could’ve landed in the sea, but no more details on its condition.
Over Singapore
“The 59th and 64th Sen, which had now moved to ipoh, also took part in the Attacks on Singapore from 12 Jan onwards, the 64th claiming 39 victories over the island, whilst the 59th also enjoyed some successes in the 3 days commencing 18 Jan, claiming 15 victories over Kuntan and other locations.” No losses mention in this passage
“The next objective following the Fall of Malaya and the investment of Singers, were the Sumatran Oil fields at Palembang. On 6 Feb the 59th and 64th moved to Kluan for ops over this target, sweeping over the area ion the 7th and 8th, when the 59th claimed 16 shot down and the 64th claimed 7, air superiority over the area thus being achieved. This allowed paratroop dropsto be made in the Palembang area on the 13th and 14th, escorted by Ki-43s of the 64th Sen.” -- Unfortunately no mention of their opponents is made. The assumption being they were Dutch Buffalos and Demons
East Indies
“The last stand in the East Indies was made on Java, and in order to extend control in the air over the western part of this island, the 59th and 64th Sen flew in to Plaembang on 18 Feb, claiming 33 kills between them during the period 19-25 Feb.”
“During the recent fightingthe 59th Sentai had suffered the loss of 9 pilots; its mainstay being a number of highly experienced NCO pilots, the pre-eminent amongst them Sgt Maj. Hiroshi Onozaki, their top-scorer with 10 victories”
This covers the start of the war to the end of the East indies campaign. I’ll post some more where the opponents are more modern fighters and heavy bombers later
I want everyone to appreciate that I typed all this crap myself. No copy and paste here baby!
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:03 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: TheElf
Ok, I’ve skimmed the early war period covered in this book. Here is what I’ve found. These are going to be short and sweet, but keep in mind, the only certainty are the losses of the IJAAF units. Claims are claims and not to be taken at face value.
Opening day of war
64th Sentai escorts Heavy bombers to targets in Malayan Pen.1st Lts Tadao and Yohei & Yonesaku share a Blenheim. (this sharing will be a theme when it comes to Oscar kills. Oscars in numbers can combine firepower so a single ship doesn’t necessarily have to bring a more “Durable” Allied a/c down by himself) Five more A/C claimed dest. On ground.
11 Ki-43s of 59th Sen. Escort light Bombers to Kota Bharu. 15 Buffs enaged over Tanah Merah, Six claimed downed. no losses.
21 Dec
59 Sen. Claims 4 of 4 Buffs encountered over Kuala Lumpur. No losses.
22 Dec
59 Sen. Claims 4 more Buffs downed or damaged. By the end of Dec 59th claims11 kills, 13 destroyed on the ground for the loss of two pilots(in a mid-air collision)
64 Sen. Claims 11 Buffs downed over Kuala Lumpur. Only loss being Lt Tadao Takayama’s Ki-43 as it’s wings were seen to fold “like a butterfly”
8 Jan
Of interest here, a Ki-27 pilot from 77 Sentai Claimed a Catalina shot down near Sinora. Just a claim, the thing could’ve landed in the sea, but no more details on its condition.
Over Singapore
“The 59th and 64th Sen, which had now moved to ipoh, also took part in the Attacks on Singapore from 12 Jan onwards, the 64th claiming 39 victories over the island, whilst the 59th also enjoyed some successes in the 3 days commencing 18 Jan, claiming 15 victories over Kuntan and other locations.” No losses mention in this passage
“The next objective following the Fall of Malaya and the investment of Singers, were the Sumatran Oil fields at Palembang. On 6 Feb the 59th and 64th moved to Kluan for ops over this target, sweeping over the area ion the 7th and 8th, when the 59th claimed 16 shot down and the 64th claimed 7, air superiority over the area thus being achieved. This allowed paratroop dropsto be made in the Palembang area on the 13th and 14th, escorted by Ki-43s of the 64th Sen.” -- Unfortunately no mention of their opponents is made. The assumption being they were Dutch Buffalos and Demons
East Indies
“The last stand in the East Indies was made on Java, and in order to extend control in the air over the western part of this island, the 59th and 64th Sen flew in to Plaembang on 18 Feb, claiming 33 kills between them during the period 19-25 Feb.”
“During the recent fightingthe 59th Sentai had suffered the loss of 9 pilots; its mainstay being a number of highly experienced NCO pilots, the pre-eminent amongst them Sgt Maj. Hiroshi Onozaki, their top-scorer with 10 victories”
This covers the start of the war to the end of the East indies campaign. I’ll post some more where the opponents are more modern fighters and heavy bombers later
I want everyone to appreciate that I typed all this crap myself. No copy and paste here baby!
How do we know you didn't eat the paste ???[:D]
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:02 pm
by Nikademus
Wow.
Elf you sure have been busy [;)] (By the way...I have loved playing the game with your artwork)
Since I don't wish to be portrayed as "preaching to the choir" vis-a-vis my mod, I'll just add this. Before anyone deems to pass judgement on the Ki-43, I'd strongly suggest reading Chris Shores entire Bloody Shambles series first. (just got Vol III......its 2/43 and the Ki-43 is still kicking ass and being dangerous) The A2A champion over Malaya and Sumatra during the early stages of the war was not the A6M.....it was the Ki-43. As Shores related, this plane's successes were totally overshadowed by the former plane, both at the front (where it was constantly mis-id'd as a "Type 0") and at home where the Zero fighter soaked up all the attention (Today it would be the equivilent of news about the M-1 Abrams, overshadowing the also very capable MBT's of our NATO allies)
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:58 pm
by Speedysteve
My take on the OscarI is such:
In RL it was an effective fighter over Malaya. It more than handled what the Allies had in the area. Ironic that the Allies ASSUMED that Zero's were in Burma and achieving victories over Malaya. It was the Oscar that was doing this.
Now of course come mid war this puppy should be outclassed due to tactics and improved Allied planes but early war it should be an effective fighter in SRA/Burma.
Regards,
Steven
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:36 pm
by ChezDaJez
The A2A champion over Malaya and Sumatra during the early stages of the war was not the A6M.....it was the Ki-43
The Oscar certainly had some advantages and if it had better firepower it would have been a deadly opponent. As it was, it was simply way undergunned even when upgraded to two 12.7mms let alone with its initial armament of two 7.7mms. Had they even just installed four 12.7mms, the air war in Burma and New Guinea might have been quite different. Here's a good article on the Ki-43:
The Ki-43 was, in some ways, more dangerous to deal with than the A6M, chiefly
because it had a better rate of roll and was armed with two 12.7mm machineguns.
The P-40 driver with a Zero on his tail could usually break the contact with
an aileron roll. This was much less likely with the Ki-43. The Oscar boy
could plant himself behind the P-40 and stay there no matter what the Curtiss
driver did, all the while hammering .50 cal nails that could do some real
damage.
In contrast, the Zero pilot, even if he couldn't be shaken, was doing most of
his firing with rifle caliber mgs which did less damage (although enough of
them in the right places could do the job). The 20mms generally didn't come
into play unless the Zero was in point blank range. A way to stay out of
point blank range was to execute a series of violent aileron turns; this would
allow the P-40 pilot to gradually pull away from the Zero. Once he had
extended sufficiently, he could go into a fast, shallow climb and leave the
Zero behind.
The best bet for the P-40 driver was to have sufficient altitude to dive away
from either the Oscar or Zero, but that wasn't always the situation.
The Ki-43 had better wing loading and power loading than the Zero, had superior
initial acceleration, a better roll rate and a tighter turning circle. It also
had a substantially better rate of climb. That made it an awesome aerobatic
fighter that you absolutely, positively did not dare engage in a dogfight. It
also meant that if you bounced an Oscar and the pilot spotted you, he was
probably going to escape scott free because, should he choose to turn, he could
roll into a tight turn faster than you could follow, whereas if you bounced a
Zero, should he choose to turn, you could follow him, outrolling him and
staying with him for a considerable portion of his turn, often enough to do him
in. (In practice, Oscar and Zero drivers both generally preferred to snap up
into tight loops when bounced, leaving the P-40 driver the option of blowing on
by and clearing the vicinity or sticking around to get a Nip on his six.)
In a typical scenario early in the game, P-40s could be flying top cover for
B-26s flying at 9,000 ft. that were attacking an airstrip, note Oscars taking
off below, make a turn away from the B-26s to position themselves up-sun to
dive on the Oscars once they approached the bombers, turn and come back, taking
less than three minutes for the entire maneuver, and find the B-26s already
under attack from those Oscars they had seen just taking off. Amazing little
buggers.
So yes, it had its advantages but they just couldn't overcome its lack of firepower.
Chez
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:40 pm
by jwilkerson
As it was, it was simply way undergunned even when upgraded to two 12.7mms
Before we get too excited about Oscar being armed with two 12.7mm .. please read the following uberly researched article, which argues that most Oscars were "upgraded to" or had mixed armament ( 1x7.7.mm machine gun and 1x12.7mm machine cannon ) thus - indicating a further reduction in firepower.
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:43 pm
by rtrapasso
IIRC, a couple of top US aces were killed when trying to engage Oscars (usually involved trying to do aerobatics and low altitudes, stalls, and fatal crashes). So, the Oscars could just (literally) maneuver you to death!
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:52 pm
by Nikademus
Yes, i've read the article. The Oscar was undergunned in comparison to it's foes but the Japanese were able to compensate in some ways that the "math" doesn't allow for. Shores book contains among other tidbits commentary from Japanese Oscar drivers about how they overcame the firepower deficiency. Some of it involving aiming for vulnerable points in the enemy aircraft's frame. While the plane only had two guns, the centerline armament assisted them in aiming and "hosing" the enemy aircraft with fire. (while a plane such as the Zero would require more "finese" to get the cannon to hit home)
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:30 pm
by jwilkerson
Would be nice if we could get a "summary" of the "data" form the Shore book - please !?
N planes of Type X, engaged M planes of Y Type with P results on date Q ( like the "Elf" report ).
Also data regarding Oscar performance in Burma Theater - would be great - for comparison !
One ( the ? ) reason for the "Zero Bonus" early war IMO is lack of understanding of correct tactics on the part of the Allies. Chenault was the early exception. Just as USAF had to learn to fight in the verticle plane in Vietnam 20+ years later. The Allies had to learn that the Japanese could out turn them in the horizontal plane ... but diving, firing passes at the Japanese planes could be successful. The wider introduction of diving and firing, in conjunction with the "wing man" were 2 keys for "eliminating" the "bonus" IRL ( and maybe removing the idea that Japanese pilots were inherently inferior ).
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:36 pm
by Nikademus
I have the information, but not on me at work. As with Lundstrom, I have gone through each of Shores volumes with sharpie and pen and recorded all the confirmed kills by plane type. (well...Vol III is in progress...as mentiond i'm at 2/43 and the Ki-43 is still downing enemy aircraft)
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:43 pm
by Speedysteve
Priorities Nik. Walk out of work....rush home.....a quick hi to GF MkI........sit down with a beer......pick up Shore.....start recording.....do not deviate from your task until it is done......
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:49 pm
by Nikademus
Yeah right......GF Mark I just got laid off, so I think i know where my current priorities will lie after work (i.e. "damage control"). There's also the little issue of the current patch and the testing that needs to be done. Too many tasks....to few hours in the day..... [:(]
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:52 pm
by Speedysteve
Any good male is good at prioritising. Ah well.....nevermind Nik [:D]
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:13 pm
by Mynok
GF Mark I just got laid off
Too many tasks....too few hours in the day.....
You realize you have a cause and effect right there, don't you?
RE: Informal POLL Re: Oscar
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:28 pm
by IS2m
My $.02:
I like the Oscar because it is crunchy on the outside and has a nice, chewy center [:D].
In all seriousness, If the Oscar is underperforming in the game, then definately boost its Maneuver rating. If its climb, ceiling, and armaments are correct, don't touch them.
It has been suggested that the Zero bonus should be applied to the Oscar. I do not have any philisophical problem with the Zero bonus: the allies were taken aback by this aircraft. I am not sure why the bonus should be applied to the Oscar, however. Oscars and Zeros appear superficially similar, but they are very different a/c.