AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[fodder]

I've seen a number of posts by those who should be in the know that a new patch is in the works for the game. I would very much like to ask the the KI-44 Tojo be looked at and hopefully changed.

If I may be so bold to say the Ki-44 IIa Tojo should be dropped from the game.

The Ki-44 IIa was a preproduction prodotype model and only 4-8 were ever built.

The first production model was the KI-44 IIb it began production in Oct.42. Like all KI-44 it had armor. It was armed with 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the wings. This is by far the most numerous version of the KI-44 Tojo built.

The KI-44 IIc had a variety of differant weapon combinations. The most common was 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 2x 20mm HO-5 cannons in the wings. 40mm Ho301 cannons were tried but as soon as these models reached the field, they were found to be ineffective and were replace buy 20mm or even 37mm cannons in the field and on the production line.

If a 44 version is to be done it should be the KI-44III. Numerous prodotypes for this aircraft were built with an even greater variety of armaments than the IIc, so many prodotypes in fact that the delay in getting to production caused the KI-44III to be cancelled in favor of the KI-84.

As a suggestion the KI-44III be armed with 4x20mm HO-5 cannons. Seen this 4x20mm armament in a number of places, not sure if they were nose and wing or just wing. If you want to make us JFBs very happy give it 2x12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 4x 20mm HO-5 cannons in the wings. Seen this in a few places also. If 4x20mm cannons are used on the wings, no bombs or drop tanks can be carried.

I have a number of my own sources to support these suggested changes, but I can't hold them up and show them to you. Here are some online ones.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_nakajima_ki-44.html
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=616
http://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/nakajima_ki-44.php
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/K/i/Ki-44_Tojo.htm
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/ki-44/tech.html



Thank you for the read.
Now I just hope I put this in the right place.

edit was to insert a missing II

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Not sure if this has been fixed or not but in my scen1 started under original release unit but patched to last official update 3131 No80 RAAF renames to 440930 on 093044

Not seeing that in my version (v1.01.08r9).

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

Minor errors I noticed, apologies if it has already been reported:

1. VS-2 (1777) has the presumably invalid rename date of 4301.
2. VP-22 (2718) has the presumably invalid rename date of 441000.

Thanks...Ten-thumbs strikes again.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

It was discovered in Mike's AAR that the Tojo uses Ha-34 in Scen 1 and Ha-35 in Scen 2. Is that intentional or was that an oversight when the Ha-34 change was made?

Thanks.

Oversight.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

There is 3066 No.1 Sqn RAAF unit at Kota Bharu. It begins war with 8 airframes, 4 under repair, and 2 in reserve. I have not found anything about their initial composition, and why there should be aircrafts in repair. The only sure thing is that they send 7 planes in intial strike, and made 17 sorties during whole night (not possible to replicate in-game).

Anyway, in Scenario beginning at 8th December this unit have identical composition, but Awajisan Maru is already heavily damaged. That means, that No.1 Sqn RAAF already took part in combat, and AAR shows that:

No.1 Squadron RAAF continued making bombing runs, some 17 sorties being flown, landing, rearming and taking off again until 05.00. Japanese escorts put up a thick cover of AA fire, shooting down at least two Hudsons and badly damaging three others.

which actually suggest, that this unit is already after initial loses (2 planes).

So... maybe it should start war with full complement of 4 planes in reserve, or maybe at 8th December it should have even less planes, and more damaged?

The reference used is Appendix A "RAF Strength in Singapore and Malaya: 7 December 1941" in Propert, Henry: The Forgotten Air Force: The Royal Air Force in the War Against Japan, Brassey 1995 in turn referencing AHQ Far East Signal Q497 dated 9/12/41 but pertaining to 7/12/41 local time. You'll find other figures in other literature, but we chose Propert because it's referenced. No.1 Sqn's ORB is missing for this period, so perhaps we'll never know. Anyway, Propert gives 1 Sqn's strength as 8 servicable a/c and 6 a/c unservicable, which under a T/O for a GR sqn of 12+6 became 8+4 = 12 plus 2 reserve in my interpretation.

I would imagine you're right about the Dec.8 (game time) strength, though I don't maintain that scenario.

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Is it correct that the Australian DC-2 production runs from March to Mai 1942 but production is ZERO?

Unless there's a factory hiding somewhere then no, production should be 3.

ORIGINAL: fodder

I've seen a number of posts by those who should be in the know that a new patch is in the works for the game. I would very much like to ask the the KI-44 Tojo be looked at and hopefully changed.

If I may be so bold to say the Ki-44 IIa Tojo should be dropped from the game.

The Ki-44 IIa was a preproduction prodotype model and only 4-8 were ever built.

The first production model was the KI-44 IIb it began production in Oct.42. Like all KI-44 it had armor. It was armed with 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the wings. This is by far the most numerous version of the KI-44 Tojo built.

The KI-44 IIc had a variety of differant weapon combinations. The most common was 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 2x 20mm HO-5 cannons in the wings. 40mm Ho301 cannons were tried but as soon as these models reached the field, they were found to be ineffective and were replace buy 20mm or even 37mm cannons in the field and on the production line.

If a 44 version is to be done it should be the KI-44III. Numerous prodotypes for this aircraft were built with an even greater variety of armaments than the IIc, so many prodotypes in fact that the delay in getting to production caused the KI-44III to be cancelled in favor of the KI-84.

As a suggestion the KI-44III be armed with 4x20mm HO-5 cannons. Seen this 4x20mm armament in a number of places, not sure if they were nose and wing or just wing. If you want to make us JFBs very happy give it 2x12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 4x 20mm HO-5 cannons in the wings. Seen this in a few places also. If 4x20mm cannons are used on the wings, no bombs or drop tanks can be carried.

I have a number of my own sources to support these suggested changes, but I can't hold them up and show them to you. Here are some online ones.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_nakajima_ki-44.html
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=616
http://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/nakajima_ki-44.php
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/K/i/Ki-44_Tojo.htm
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/ki-44/tech.html

Thank you for the read.
Now I just hope I put this in the right place.

edit was to insert a missing II

During development, a fair bit of virtual ink was spilled trying to unravel the questions you highlight above. Long story short, we arrived at a position comforming to that outlines by Jim Long in post three on the linked topic over on J-aircraft.org -> http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=5995.0 and post four here -> http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=9225.0

Note that recent publications by Nick Millman (Aircraft of the Aces: Ki-44 "Tojo" Aces of WWII, Osprey 2011) and Richard Dunn (Exploding Fuel Tanks: Saga of technology that changed the course of the Pacific air war, S.D.G. 2011) support the Long position on the armament and protection, but then they're part of the J-aircraft posse

Additionally, regarding what frames where produced when, we contacted Robert Brown of LemaireSoft who co-produced the web transcription of the USSBS production figures -> http://lemairesoft.sytes.net:1945/weben ... html#18155 Robert informed us that the USSBS researchers actually didn't know the production details of the Ki-44-II & III, that is to say they only knew the total production and the breakdown on LemaireSoft only represents an at best educated guess. The latter also helps explain why the likes of Francillon and Bueschel are decided wolly about on the subject.

[Sieppo]

Hello! I'm new here so sorry if this isn't in the right place . Just a question about level bombers using also torpedoes (G4M1 for example). Do they use bombs for land bombing even if the switch "Using TORPEDOES" is on?

The manual states: "Torpedoes are only used against suspected high-value ship targets. If a check for an appropriate
target or torpedo supply fails, then the strike will use bombs instead.", so I would presume so.

[Barb]

Torpedoes are used for Naval attacks + sometimes Port attacks (several rolls needed for this). For all other missions (Airfield attack, ground attack, asw, naval search, etc...) default load are bombs even with "Using torpedoes" on.

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Torpedoes are used for Naval attacks + sometimes Port attacks (several rolls needed for this). For all other missions (Airfield attack, ground attack, asw, naval search, etc...) default load are bombs even with "Using torpedoes" on.

Thanks for the answer! I was also confused by the game stating the G4M1 also has a bomb load but the witp tracker showing only the torpedo..

[PaxMondo]

timtom,
 
I've been traipsing around looking at data on the Ki-67 Peggy.  What I am finding is that the engine used was the Ha-44, not the Ha-45.  If confirmed, I think this should be implemented for all of the stock scenarios.
 
(Sorry if this has already been identified.  I freely admit that I have not [yet] read all 67 pages of this thread.  [;)])
 

[Sieppo]

Hi! I just had KB surprise an allied Surface TF at Midway in the early 42's. About 35 B5N2 Kates "bombing the shit" out of the armor of 2-3 allied BB's. So probably no damage at all and absolutely no torpedoes were used in this disaster. How is this possible? Or why? Not enough valuable targets for a few torpedoes from a reserve of 60 or so? Altitude 10000 feet but it should not affect torpedoing (planes lower themselves for a torpedo run)?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

Hi! I just had KB surprise an allied Surface TF at Midway in the early 42's. About 35 B5N2 Kates "bombing the shit" out of the armor of 2-3 allied BB's. So probably no damage at all and absolutely no torpedoes were used in this disaster. How is this possible? Or why? Not enough valuable targets for a few torpedoes from a reserve of 60 or so? Altitude 10000 feet but it should not affect torpedoing (planes lower themselves for a torpedo run)?

Again we are being asked to guess.

There can be some perfectly valid reasons why the IJN did not use torpedoes. As this outcome could equally apply to the Human Allied player, I suggest you revisit the manual and reread what are the necessary conditions for deployment of torpedoes.

Alfred

[Sieppo]

Thanks for the reply Alfred! Yes there might be a valid reason for this and I hope the Allied player will have equally bad luck at some point . Its just strange to me that after hundreds of hours of learning to play this game, the most effective naval weapon is still so hard to use. Even when everything should be fine and there is a target of 3 BBs without CAP. Was it in real life? If it would be up to me, my planes would use it every time there is a target. At least in the beginning of the war for the IJN. End of rant. Sorry (Im playing PBEM, and this could have been crucial). Just some feedback.

Edit: the manual really doesnt tell me anything new about the use of torpedoes, thats why I use the forum. I hadnt touched the settings on the planes on the KB after Pearl, just added some ASW and naval search to the Kates and Vals. Kates were using torpedoes, not bombs. But anyway, maybe if was just bad luck or something else the manual doesnt tell us

[Sieppo]

Ok, so as far as the guessing, below is the combat report and the pictures of KB and it's leader, Akagi in the KB and the squadron of Akagi's Kate's attacking the BB's. Torpedo ordnance is ok (maxed out in all of the KB carriers), as is the "using torpedoes"-switch on the Kates. All I want to know, is there a reason for the Kate's NOT to use any torpedoes against the second most valuable targets in the game which are completely without air cover? I'm very frustrated with this issue. Basically KB, can because of some unknown dice roll (severe storms?), render itself as useful as a peashooter in a VERY decisive battle?

Morning Air attack on TF, near Laysan Island at 162,93

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 74 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23
B5N2 Kate x 35



Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Colorado, Bomb hits 1
BB New Mexico, Bomb hits 1
BB Idaho



Aircraft Attacking:
13 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 10000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
9 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 10000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
13 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 10000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

[Sieppo]

Akagi

[Sieppo]

Sorry if this is not the correct way to post pictures but it only lets me post one at a time. The last picture of the Kates attacking.

[Quixote]

What range did the Kates engage from? It looks like you attacked at extended range, and so used bombs instead of torpedoes.

[Sieppo]

8 hexes, so it was too far for the Vals. How does the range affect torpedo attacks?

Edit: apparently this is the extended range (over 7) for Kates and because of this they could not use torpedoes. I just did not know this, my mistake. Solved, thanks !

[wdolson]

The engine under goes a bunch of die roll checks to use torpedoes. The checks include the value of the target, but it's the value based on the spotting report, which can be wrong with FOW on. Maybe the spotter plane reported seeing destroyers?

99% of the time Kates should carry torpedoes under those circumstances, but there are always cases where things happen oddly. Just like real life.

Edit: missed the last page before replying. It does look like it was the max range strike issue.

Bill

[Sieppo]

Thanks for the elaboration about the dice rolls Bill! Sorry about the frustration once again.

[PaxMondo]

As Alfred states, there are a lot of reasons this could happen.  You haven't posted nearly enough data for anyone to answer.  You need to show a screen shot of the two TF's with your mouse hovering over the allied TF to show that tooltip.  Then show a screen shot of the Kate airgroup screen.  At that point we may have enough to start making some supported conjecture.

BTW: you are posting in the wrong place for your question. This is for data updates. You should just post in the MAIN forum. You will get more assist.

[Sieppo]

I think this issue was solved already by the extended range issue. I don't know why this would be the wrong forum for my question. I'm sorry if I have broken some unwritten rule of forum behavior :/.

[wdolson]

This thread worked, but I think PaxMondo was pointing out that most people will start a new thread if they have an issue like this come up. Many of the sticky threads are already very long and new questions may get lost in the shuffle and not as many people will read it. Your chances of getting an answer are better with a new thread.

Bill

[BigDuke66]

What is up with the TBF-1 Avenger and the ASB Radar.
First the Avenger comes in 5.42 but the Radar on 6.42, is the radar now already in use in May when the plane enters?
Furthermore all I found about the Avenger and the ASB Radar was that it either only got into "late production models" or "by the end of 1942".
Having the Avenger with radar and that already in the summer of 1942 seems way too much too early.