FINAL EOS Aircraft Changes/Queries

[el cid again]

1. We have found material on the Japanese C3N1 project. We found the endurance should be reduced - so the aircraft has an effective range of 25/8/6 hexes (compared to 22/7/5 for a normal Kate). We also found it might have been given a different code name - as it had different wings and landing gear. New code name not yet determined. We also found it had a different armament than used in the game so far (i.e. a forward mg is also present). Should drop tank capability be added to this aircraft - which would tend to make it more like we have now (with a range of 40/13/10 hexes)?

2. We have had ample time to test the Me-264 Marlina. Its advocate (Nemo) has stopped using it - because it eats so many supplies (which, indeed, it would have done, and which caused Germany's most sanguine plans to limit it to only 60 machines - this is a flying gas tank). Should we discontinue using this aircraft in favor of a different project? We devised a number of G5N projects - there were half a dozen - and while the 1L would have been only useful as a transport - an uppowered version would be tolerable. There is a thread on these variations - which Nemo now uses. Do we want - say - the G5N2 in EOS vice the Me-264? It would appear about the same time but require a great deal less logistic support - and no exotic engines.

3. Should the 25kg Uji BW bomb be retained or dropped - OR expanded? It is used by some Ki-36 units and a couple of late war submarine seaplanes. Would a 15 kg GP bomb be more useful? [This is simulated by replacing 2 x 15 kg bombs with 1 x 30 kg bomb. In WITP theory the effect is the same - but in RHS theory it isn't - the smaller bombs would matter more for soft targets and the bigger ones would matter more for hard targets - due to the way we define soft effect]?

4. Should we change the use of Ki-44 III as a carrier plane in favor of a Ki-44 II (or some other)? This is a true interceptor and it was historically a late war JAAF carrier fighter project aircraft. In EOS we have joint service use - and no JAAF carriers - so it becomes a de facto Navy interceptor. Historically Japanese carriers operated two fighter squadrons late in the war (as did the USN) - and historically they were of different types - so we have one of them be interceptor and one escort. But there is no technical reason it could not have been done sooner.

5. Is there any other type unique to EOS we should drop in favor of a different type?

6. Should the few USN carriers (Lex, Sara and Hornet) which have an "extra" squadron (all of them historical) when they appear revert to standard WITP/RHS format? Or should the Yorktown and Enterprise convert to this sort of capability?
[We combine the two SBD squadrons into one - so we can have an extra squadron - and use historical Marine units for Lex and Sara - while Hornet gets the "Shangra La" B-25 squadron]

[el cid again]

I elected to call the version of the C3N the C3N2. It is simply a C3N1 with three 330 litre drop tanks of the type developed on the A5M for the A6M. This gives it a range of 35/11/8 hexes. The former RHS plane was similar, but had the weight of the torpedo of the B5N replaced with an internal fuel tank. Being external, the drop tanks are not as range efficient - so we lose 5 hexes. But now we know the plane was not designed with increased tankage (the B5N1 has almost exactly the same range and exactly the same fuel load as the C5N1) this is a more logical variation. I adopted code name Mabel - which was originally used for the B5M series (a competator to the B5N series). They are so similar the B5M was later code named Kate 61.

[el cid again]

We could adopt the Ju-52 in leiu of the B5N1 transport. This was historically thought to be in Japanese service and has the historical code name Trixie.

We could adopt the Fw-200 in leiu of some G5N bomber (or even transport) variation. This was historically licenced for production in Japan - and indeed - the armed version was developed with JNAF funding. This would replace the Me-264. It has the historical code name Trudy.

We could adopt the Fiat BR-20 (with historical code name Ruth) in lieu of the Me-264 slot. 85 were in JAAF service in China.

We could replace the Me-264 slot with the Ju-88A5 (historical code name Janice) or the He-111 (historical code name Bess) as well.

Some of the fighter bombers (there are several versions of Ki-45) could be replaced by Irene (Ju-87A), or Jerry (A7He1) - the latter actually serving in China. Or the Marie (Vultee V-11GB) - which was licenced.

[showboat1]

Wasn't there also a Heikel fighter design bought by the Jpanese Navy but never mass produced?
 
 

[el cid again]

Yes there was: the He-100. It was licenced for production and otherwise adopted, including even delivery of three aircraft (just like Me-109E). But it was not in the event done - probably tooling was not able to reach Japan in time.
It is fast - and we could replace Me-109 with it.

[showboat1]

I remember something abou thte IJN pilots not liking the high waing loading even thought GErman test pilots thought it was superior to the ME-109 in the early models.

[el cid again]

I just found us an extra slot!!! So we get one plane free - if we can ID it. Or move a Vichy or Thai plane over into it.

The Hawk III is used by two RTAF and two VFAF units each. If we make it - say "Axis Hawk III" it becomes a normal plane that functions properly in all respects.

We might be able to repeat this process if we can find an obscure type or two which ONLY exist in units at start - and put THEM in the "wrong" side art / data set. We might then get the other RTAF/Vichy planes to behave.

OR we can create the obscure Vichy flying boat which is so far absent. [It is present but represented by E8N1 or E14Y1]

OR we can "uncombine" an Allied type and give it own art/performance.

[el cid again]

What about using the variant of the Me-109E called Me-109T - a carrier plane with drop tanks? That would turn the Ki-44III back into a landplane only (trading slots).

[Dili]

How do you find that extra slots, just experiment put something at random and test it?

[el cid again]

I phased the Ki-34 out of service early. I had relegated it to civil airliner status. No player keeps this plane even a month. So - we pre phase it out - with pool aircraft from Type LO and Ki-57. We also can run the airlines at half numbers to start with - in a few weeks they will build up - so the pools are not too badly drained.

I am leaning toward using the slot for the Hawk III. Instead of calling it RTAF Hawk III I think we call it Axis Hawk III.
If we combine the one Hawk II unit into it - we would gain another (Allied) slot.

I also am leaning toward replacing Ki-44III with Me-109T as a carrier interceptor - giving Japan this capability sooner.
And then put the Ki-44III in the former Me-109E slot - purely as a land interceptor upgrade.

I don't have a clear sense about replacing the 4 engine bomber with something. And I am generating zero feedback on it.

[showboat1]

Japan needs the four engine bomber in EOS.  I like the idea of the -109T.

[el cid again]

But which 4 engine bomber? The easiest to get to Japan would be a G5N something. Even if the G5N1 is too slow - increasing engine power would fix that. The next most likely is the one contracted for in Germany - the Condor.
Does not have to be an Me-264. Should we keep the Me - or change it?

Should we consider getting rid of something in favor of the He-219?

Should we put anything in the 2 free Allied slots?

[showboat1]

Let's try this post over here.
 
Japanese Me-109

Heinkel He-112 - I looked this one up - The design we actually favored over the Me-109 by the test pilots, but the LW went with the 109. The -112 was slightly slower but more manouverable than the 109 with better manouverability and rough field capabilities.  Plus, 12 were shipped to Japan for the IJN which did dislike them for high wing loading, a reasonable complaint for carrier pilots.  In EOS they could be adapted in to the game as a land based interceptor.

Reggiane 2000 or 2005 - Yes I know there is no connection to them ever being used or even considered by the Japanese, but I just like it.  It was copied from the American P-35 but was vastly superior due to design changes. The inline 2005 was supposed to be even better while still using the P-35 wing and fuselage.

I believe that Kawanishi had plans for a jet powered flying boat - the Ki-200? - towards the end but it was in early planning when the war ended.

Some of these might be in there already but I haven't gotten to EOS yet so I'll just throw them out there
The Ki-70 Clara was a recon plane that never got put into production.
Ki-74 Patsy High altitude bomber/recon - 13 pre-production models built
Ki-94 interceptor - pressurized cockpit
Aichi S1A Denko - win engine a/c - not sure of role

[el cid again]

The He-112 was a complex technical nightmare - see William Greene's Warplanes of the Third Reich. It also served in Japan in China - so the Japanese were thoroughly familiar with it. A different plane - the He-100 - was actually licenced for production at Hitachi - where the German designer was resident for several years - and nearly was adopted. The Japanese ultimately decided on a plane better than either - the Ki-44 - and "had no reason to regret their choice" according to Francillon.

The reason the fictional planning group (modeled on the one Lt Col Tsuji led for Malaya by direction of Yamashita)
decided to produce the Me-109 anyway is that it is available sooner than the Ki-44. And if the particular strain of Me-109E actually produced is the T model - it is carrier capable. The key to the choice is the cannon armament - which was what the Japanese believed in - with some cause. [ The 20mm class gun is still a major fighter weapon today ] It may be the .50 cal solution of the US was better - but the Japanese preferred the 20 mm - so I went with that.

One problem in WITP is we cannot properly credit JAAF with fighters flying off ships. USAF and US Army STILL don't do that - but THEY did that BEFORE the war began. While we cannot do it exactly right - this permits crude modeling of the concept. A land based carrier fighter can indeed fly off a flight deck (if not off the right flight decks) - and it also suffers from higher operational attrition - which likely is right.

What I do not see is why adopt the He-112 at all? I see no advantages in doing so.


There is no contemplated jet flying boat in this era in any nation. Jets were too weak to consider for it.

Ki-74 is already in this scenario.

Ki-70 is inferior to the Ki-46 it was intended to replace - so it was not built - and I see no reason to change that.

S1A is too late for the war as defined by RHS. Might fit in CHS.

Ki-94 is a late war plane and we have too many of those already. I am seeking early or mid war planes that might matter or that did matter.

And at the moment that mainly means we are seeking ALLIED planes - we have open ALLIED slots - not Axis. IF you want an Axis change - propose what to take out in exchange for it.

[showboat1]

You could make a "special" version of the P-40 Tomahawk for the AVG to denote this difference between this a/c and the typical P-40's.

[el cid again]

The Mansyu engine was unique to the Me-264 - used only in RHSEOS.

It is now assigned to the Ki-61 I in NON EOS scenarios and to the Me-109 in RHSEOS. [Curiously this is the exact same engine in both cases] It is different from other Japanese engines - an inline somewhat ahead of the curve of Japanese development - and an import - so it should not be able to mix and match with other planes. This change causes that situation.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: showboat1

You could make a "special" version of the P-40 Tomahawk for the AVG to denote this difference between this a/c and the typical P-40's.

Sure we could. What is the difference?

[showboat1]

Well, nobody else has suggested anything except me. The AVG used the Colt (was it .45 caliber?) in the nose guns and were reported to be a little faster than the standard P-40B.  I still say use the P-64 or the Wildcat floater if you just want to throw something in there. At least the FF Wildcat is something that could be used early on before the airfield construction really kicks in.

[el cid again]

We don't have a separate device - I don't think. But the art is very different - wonderful chrome - and the unit important. So I have created an AVG P-40B for these units. For ALL scenarios too - creating a slot by combining the Hawk II and Hawk III into Axis Hawk for the others as we did in EOS. I will investigate the guns.

I cannot verify different guns. The AVG planes were diverted from RAF contracts and were said to have .50 cal nose guns. Can you document this? We have a device we could use - the UBT .50 is slightly more powerful.

[showboat1]

I odn't have the book here (locked up in my classroom) but in, I think, Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942 by Daniel Ford, they point out that they had trouble getting the right ammunition for the COlts because the caliber was different than the Browning .50 cal.
 
And, by the way, chrome is always nice.