Matrix Games Forums

Don't know if people are aware but Japan, used a number of captured C47 and built a few from captured spare parts then proceeded to build nearly 500 hundred during the war years.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/l2d.htm


Does anyone now if they are in uv? Or were used in the pacific in the uv time frame?

I take it they will be in WITP?

Originally posted by Bobthehatchit
Don't know if people are aware but Japan, used a number of captured C47 and built a few from captured spare parts then proceeded to build nearly 500 hundred during the war years.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/l2d.htm


Does anyone now if they are in uv? Or were used in the pacific in the uv time frame?

I take it they will be in WITP?

Hmmmn. I don't see the TABBY in the WITP database. I'll look into this. Almost 500 were produced. Not overly substantial but Japan needs all the help it deserves.

Hi all,

It is actually more substantial than spare parts. The Japanese owned a license from Douglas to build C47's in Japan, which they did. This license was purchased in 39 or so.

Mike

Hmmmn. I don't see the TABBY in the WITP database. I'll look into this. Almost 500 were produced. Not overly substantial but Japan needs all the help it deserves.

Great thanks for the quick reply, the Jap's would definately benefit from a little extra airlift capacity.:rolleyes:

Hi all,

The 500 is large number for this aircraft type.

Plase note that Ki-57 Topsy was build in 492 aircarfts alltogether
and we have them in game.


Leo "Apollo11"

I'm surprised that the Topsy's were made in such small numbers. I saw the figure of 500 aircraft for the C-47 knock off and thought to myself 'that's too low of volume to have an impact'. Now that I see the number in relation to the Topsy, I definitely think it should be included.

It's funny, I just read this passage in "FIRE IN THE SKY" (Bergerud) and he rips the Japanese for not emphasizing their transport more:

(pg. 224) "...both the JNAF and the JAAF did not foresee the necessity for large numbers of transport aircraft. There was no technological reason for this defect. Japan had several serviceable twin-engin aircraft and could certainly have built a fine transport. The Germans soldiered on well enough with the JU-52. Ironically, Japanese companies held licenses to produce the U.S. DC-3 (C-47 in its military guise). Considering the futility of most of Japan's multiengine bombing raids, it seems obvious that Tokyo would have been far better off to produce fewer Lilys and more transports."

I know I'm probably the LAST one in this forum to read this book, but if not, I highly recommend it. There's also a very dramatic passage from Yamamoto's chief of staff about the shoot down of Yamamoto's plane. Great stuff.

The Tabby actualy was a better plane in some way's than the run of the mill C47, they had better engines which equated to better preformance .

The Tabby actualy was a better plane in some way's than the run of the mill C47, they had better engines which equated to better preformance

That's surprising, I thought that American engine building was almost universally superior to Japanese.

Other Japanese transports:

Ki-56,119 built, used from 1940 to the end of the war.

ki-59, 59 were produced in 1941, used till end of war

Ki-34,351 were produced from 1937-1942, used throught the war

Ki-54,1,368 were produced thgrought the war, multirole plane many used qas transport's, trainers, sub patrole.

It should be noted that Japanese production figures always pale by comparison to alled number's what might seam like a few 500 Tabby's was alot by Japanese standards, indaed the Tabby was the Japanese Navy's principle transport Aircraft.

Not all Japanese engines were unreliable, some were very reliable infact, in the case of the Tabby I beleave the Japanese engines fited were simply higher preformance engines thuse the better preformance. The same can be said for US engines and weapons some were not very reliable either, the US Hispanos were very problamatic, the P40 that was tested aganst the A6M2 was so unreliable that the test with it was abandoned, their are numiours examples going both ways showing reliabality and unreliabality, realy depends on the plane, gun ect your talking about.

Tabby Engines:

Mitsubishi Kinsei 43, 1000hp t/o

Mitsubishi Kinsei 51, 1,300hp t/o

Mitsubishi Kinsei 62 1,560hp t/o

The US engines were Prat and Whitney's rated at 1,00hp for t/o, the 43 was initialy used then later in the production run the much better 51 and finialy toward the end of the war the 62 was used.

It realy depends on what model's your looking at the two were about 10 mph different is spead with the Japanese planes being faster for the most part ( 10 to 20mph at best height), later C47's also had better engines, so as the war progresed they were very similar in preformance, with a slight edge going to the Japanese.

UV has alot of "Missing" and some Incorect planes in the data base for the Japanese, hopefully we can see some more Japanese toyus in WiTP.

Hi, In the Alpha version of WITP the Japanese have almost total control of aircraft production.

You have starting engine factorys (Each produce a different engine. There are at least 6 different engines.) You can expand or change engine factories.

Then you have assemby factories. The aircraft all use engines by type and number. You can change or expand these.

So total production numbers for long campaigns at present would be the result of what the player decided to build. (He must be careful to produce engine types that match his airframes. having 500 Zeros ordered assembled per month while building only 100 Nakajima Engines would not be productive)

There are 5-6 transport aircraft possible to build. I tend to build by range rather then load. (But I can see where the short range heavy lift types could be usefull in areas where Japan has a large supply base surrounded by close but small bases. (Rangoon, Saipan, Kwajelein)

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, In the Alpha version of WITP the Japanese have almost total control of aircraft production.

You have starting engine factorys (Each produce a different engine. There are at least 6 different engines.) You can expand or change engine factories.

Then you have assemby factories. The aircraft all use engines by type and number. You can change or expand these.

So total production numbers for long campaigns at present would be the result of what the player decided to build. (He must be careful to produce engine types that match his airframes. having 500 Zeros ordered assembled per month while building only 100 Nakajima Engines would not be productive)

There are 5-6 transport aircraft possible to build. I tend to build by range rather then load. (But I can see where the short range heavy lift types could be usefull in areas where Japan has a large supply base surrounded by close but small bases. (Rangoon, Saipan, Kwajelein)

(Note: the allied player does not have this level of control currently in Alpha. (He can't choose to expand factories )

Oh-oh, this sounds scary... is there a "auto" button with standard/historical settings for those of us who spend enough hours in the day planning production and don't necessarily want to spend equal amounts of time doing it for a game at night...?

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

Man that Sounds GREAT, I cant wait I am a detail geek:)

Hi, I made an error. The USA can change their aircraft. (They can't change the ship production. They don't currently in Alpha need to produce engines. (This is because Allied player when targeting Japanese production can target engine production (effecting output of all types using that engine) or specific aircraft production.)
There was some concern the US could over produce B-17's at the expese of medium bombers.

B-17/B-24 are flown by Heavy Bomb groups. Having 10,000 B-17/B-24 in the pool would keep the Heavy Groups full size but would not allow more heavy bombers to be on map then groups.

Medium bombers can not be switched with heavy. (So the US player will want production of heavy bombers that
Builds enough to outfit his Heavy bomb groups
Keeps pace with loss.
Excess Heavy bomber production would be a waste of assets (as other aircraft types will be build in lower numbers to allow excess production of heavy bombers.

Both players will want to keep a hand on aircraft production (watch your pool.
If a type is increasing in pool number it might be being over produced.
If a type is decreasing in pool and groups are undersize (and type is prefered aircraft type.) It is being under produced.

I'm not a big fan of messing with production. Players will make all sorts of decisions based on hindsight and this will undoubtedly skew the game. As long as there is the ability to leave production unaltered, I'll be happy. Would really blow if all this historical detail is added just so someone can build his favourite fighter etc and muck up the game for many.

Is there going to be an default auto production option, for those of us who cant be bothered with keeping track of specific aircraft engine production. What next turbo-charger production, carberator production, ball bearing production? :rolleyes: Iknow some you guys love this stuff but God I hope there is an out.

Hi, The Allied production is a simplified version of the Japanese. The Japanese is more complex because it is more likely to be a target for enemy attack. But they are basicly the same. (minus engine production for allies) It is assumed the Allies will produce engines for their aircraft. The Japanese have to produce them (because if the enemy targets engine production he also effects aircraft production)