B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Sun Tempest
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:28 pm

B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by Sun Tempest »

Looking at tracker it seems that B5M1 is faster (cruise speed especially), more maneuverable and uses the Ha-33 engine which has a lower demand early in the game, unlike Kate's Ha-35. On the other hand, it has significantly lower endurance (if I'm not wrong it means that is able to make fewer attack runs) and an rating of 2 (which may be a issue).

So, is it really worth it to build Kate or instead I should concentrate on the "ahistorically" better Mable?
User avatar
topeverest
Posts: 3376
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:47 am
Location: Houston, TX - USA

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by topeverest »

Very Interesting Question.

IRL, the Mabel was an inferior performing plane, quickly relegated to shore duty and then trainers and kamikazes; however, the game specs make her fairly equal to the Kate with some definitive advantages. Combine that with PDU and you could use this plane during 42. I dont play empire enough to really answer this question, yet I too am curious if any JFB has a more informed opinion...It seems to be about which one or two attributes you hold most important.
Andy M
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by Nomad »

I have nothing to say any more.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by Chickenboy »

I build Kates for frontline service, but use all available engines to produce the Mabels.  I'm banking them for Kamikazes.
Image
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The biggest problem with the Mabel is that it has a service rating of 2 versus the Kate's 1.

I use the existing Mabels for land based torpedo squadrons and training and build Kates for CV use. I do not want to be waiting for my Mabels to repair, I want my Kates to attack as soon as possible.



does this really matter for torpedo bombers? My Helldivers got a service rating of three and it doesn´t matter. For fighters it would perhaps matter more but even then I don´t have a problem with fighters with a service rating of 2.
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by Puhis »

Does the Mabel factory upgrade?
snuffl
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 8:55 pm

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by snuffl »

No, don't think so (as far as Tracker tells me ...)
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9795
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by PaxMondo »

I'm with Andy M on this.  Mabel isn't bad, but since both Mabel and Kate start with no factories choose the best one.  Little difference except the SR.  Engines are moot as you have to expand both anyway, and most don't build 200/month of these anyway.  I take the Kate with PDU on.  PDU off, even easier as your Ha-35 demand is a lot lower.  You can't put everything to Oscar (because a lot of groups don't upgrade from Nate) so your Ha-35 demand is a non factor.

As Castor points out though, if you HAD to use Mabel in the game I doubt that there would be much difference.
Pax
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The biggest problem with the Mabel is that it has a service rating of 2 versus the Kate's 1.

I use the existing Mabels for land based torpedo squadrons and training and build Kates for CV use. I do not want to be waiting for my Mabels to repair, I want my Kates to attack as soon as possible.



does this really matter for torpedo bombers? My Helldivers got a service rating of three and it doesn´t matter. For fighters it would perhaps matter more but even then I don´t have a problem with fighters with a service rating of 2.

For the typical carrier fight that takes place in 42-43, probably not. Later in the war when the Allies should be doing more extended operations such as supressing airfields and raiding then yes. However, the helldiver get progressively better service ratings as newer types come on line so it should not matter much. I don't think the mable is going to make much difference. Both are easily shot down.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Misconduct
Posts: 1851
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:13 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Contact:

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by Misconduct »

Mabel isn't worth it considering early on you are going for G3M Nells which need the Ha-33 engine, where you will most likely be producing Ha-35 engines which Jills I believe need.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
Sun Tempest
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:28 pm

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by Sun Tempest »

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Mabel isn't worth it considering early on you are going for G3M Nells which need the Ha-33 engine, where you will most likely be producing Ha-35 engines which Jills I believe need.

I beg to differ[:'(]

The only major aircrafts that use Ha-33 from beginning are D3A1 Val,G3M2 (worse than the G4M1) E13A1 and B5M1, as well as Mavis and Tina. G3M3 (which seems to be better than G4M1) enters production in May 42. So until May 42, demand for Ha-33 engines is rather small.
On the other hand, Ha-35 is used by from start by Ki-43 Oscar series, A6M Zero series, B5N2 Kate, Ki-48 Lilly, and later by Ki-45 Nick and Ki-56 Thalia, while the production lines for Oscar and Zero continue, although the peak of demand for Ha-35 is in the first year of the war.

Further more, with a better maneuverability and much higher cruise speed, Mabel should be tougher, with the only disadvantage being the lower endurance and some what the higher service rating.
So, how important endurance really is?
CV 2
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:56 pm

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by CV 2 »

I love the "service rating" argument. Service rating means exactly SQUAT. B-17 has a service rating of 4, yet I manage to put full squadrons in the air every single day flying max rage into heavy CAP. And getting about a 30:1 kill ratio to boot.

Service rating!! The sky is falling!! Service rating!!

[:D]
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I love the "service rating" argument. Service rating means exactly SQUAT. B-17 has a service rating of 4, yet I manage to put full squadrons in the air every single day flying max rage into heavy CAP. And getting about a 30:1 kill ratio to boot.

Service rating!! The sky is falling!! Service rating!!

[:D]


You can?

I can't. Though against an essentially absent Japanese defence I probably have about 60-75% up time on B25D1s.

...this doesn't matter when you have 120 of them though.
Image
Smeulders
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:13 pm

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by Smeulders »

Neither can I. You might be able to if you're still using the 8 plane squadrons with 4 planes in reserve and even then I wouldn't bet on getting full squadrons in the air. No way you'll be able to do it with the 12 plane squadrons.
The AE-Wiki, help fill it out
Sredni
Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:07 am
Location: Canada

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by Sredni »

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I love the "service rating" argument. Service rating means exactly SQUAT. B-17 has a service rating of 4, yet I manage to put full squadrons in the air every single day flying max rage into heavy CAP. And getting about a 30:1 kill ratio to boot.

Service rating!! The sky is falling!! Service rating!!

[:D]

This isn't my experience with b-17's. Flying b-17's out of townsville and bombing rabaul (pretty much max range for b-17 F's) I have to stand them down for three or four days between runs if I don't want to end up with half the squadrons repairing and unsustainable ops losses. A joint port strike between b-17's based at townsville and port moresby and b-24's at townsville along with carrier AC vs fairly heavy oscar and zero coverage at rabaul also saw a bunch of bombers shot down. Hardly the unstoppable fighter killer that gets moaned about on these forums. I still bombed the crap out of the port, but if I kept up that sort of activity long I would run out of bombers fairly quickly.

Heck, p-38's with a service rating of 3 see a noticeable reduction in squadron strength if you try to use them for extended periods.
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: Sredni
Heck, p-38's with a service rating of 3 see a noticeable reduction in squadron strength if you try to use them for extended periods.

If you leave P38s on CAP at say, 30% CAP, you'll run them into the ground fairly fast.

With P38s you either have to rely on radar, or just use them for sweeps rather than CAP. Thats what they are best at anyway. So I tend to use P40s for CAP, P38s and P47s when you get them for sweeping.

The P40K and P40N are not the best but are generally adequate for base defence in 1943, I find.
Image
CV 2
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:56 pm

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by CV 2 »

ORIGINAL: Sredni

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I love the "service rating" argument. Service rating means exactly SQUAT. B-17 has a service rating of 4, yet I manage to put full squadrons in the air every single day flying max rage into heavy CAP. And getting about a 30:1 kill ratio to boot.

Service rating!! The sky is falling!! Service rating!!

[:D]

This isn't my experience with b-17's. Flying b-17's out of townsville and bombing rabaul (pretty much max range for b-17 F's) I have to stand them down for three or four days between runs if I don't want to end up with half the squadrons repairing and unsustainable ops losses. A joint port strike between b-17's based at townsville and port moresby and b-24's at townsville along with carrier AC vs fairly heavy oscar and zero coverage at rabaul also saw a bunch of bombers shot down. Hardly the unstoppable fighter killer that gets moaned about on these forums. I still bombed the crap out of the port, but if I kept up that sort of activity long I would run out of bombers fairly quickly.

Heck, p-38's with a service rating of 3 see a noticeable reduction in squadron strength if you try to use them for extended periods.

I can do the same run with B-17Es - every single day - with zero reduction in aircraft. Course Im flying from a level 6 airfield with 75,000 supplies and 250+ av support. And I suspect THAT is the difference.
User avatar
EUBanana
Posts: 4255
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:48 pm
Location: Little England
Contact:

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by EUBanana »

ORIGINAL: CV 2
I can do the same run with B-17Es - every single day - with zero reduction in aircraft. Course Im flying from a level 6 airfield with 75,000 supplies and 250+ av support. And I suspect THAT is the difference.

Probably, supply makes the world go around.

Though extremely long range bombing runs (Townsville - Rabaul) and being shot up by CAP over the target certainly won't help, there'll be masses of ops losses flying home such a distance.

In 1943 I have barely enough aviation support in most of my bases, so I don't think plunking down four times what you need is generally a solution though.
Image
CV 2
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:56 pm

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by CV 2 »

4 times what you need? Level 6 airfield can operate 300 aircraft. 250 is EXACTLY what you need. 8 squadrons of 12 each = 96 aircraft. 96 aircraft times 4 engines = 250+. What am I missing?

As for why you are so short on av support I suspect that is because you didnt bother to pull any out of the DEI / PI.
User avatar
Yakface
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:43 am

RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

Post by Yakface »

ORIGINAL: CV 2

What am I missing?

Number of engines only matters for working out whether an airfields is over stacked not for the amount of AV required by the base. Each plane only requires 1 AV no matter how many engines it has.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”