What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


Chris H -> What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 11:58:07 AM)

I don't and can't find much use except they can operate from a level 2 a/f, so what to do with them. I could convert the factory and upgrade the front line units to the Helen as I'm using that as the main army LB. I'm already producing 60 with a further 30, from a Lilly factory shortly, so I don't think I need more. I'm thinking of switching to the Nick, these can also operated from a level 2 airfield, carry more bombs plus it's cap capability.

Thoughts anyone




Sardaukar -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 12:21:19 PM)

Use them for ASW and in China in places where there is no CAP.




Gräfin Zeppelin -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 12:31:02 PM)

Use them as trainers. If you need a light bomber use the Anne or Mary.




Puhis -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 12:40:10 PM)

Training. And maybe airfield bombing in China (to prevent fortification).




Chris H -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 3:08:59 PM)

Allready using them for training but there are some in China and in other front line areas were there are no Allied fighters, and there are and some I have trained in ASW.   The Sonia is the only light bomber being produced and I have 99 of them.  Definity no more needed.  All the Ann and Mary may have slightly longer legs but are dead ends and to my mind just as pointless, least the Sonia upgrades to the Sonia II with armour late 43.  At the moment my main ASW is the Jake, I'm not expecting to sink many but they are keeping the subs heads down.

It's the factory, producing 30 a month or was until I halted it, that I'm in a quandary with.




Dili -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 3:15:30 PM)

This kind of planes should have been made better than level bombers against LCU's except in case of a big LCU stack. There is a reason this kind of aircraft were made but the game doesn't give any advantage to it except that it spends 1 engine instead of 2.




PaxMondo -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 3:39:48 PM)

And can use smaller a/f's. 

But I agree with your overall statement, light bombers are quite a bit underpowered, med bombers a bit underpowered, and the hvy bombers a bit over powered.  But, in all cases "a bit" can be made up by player tactics ... so all is not lost.




Warrant officer 0/0 -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 3:53:18 PM)

It's almost better to say that the later versions of the Oscar make a superior
Bomber than 75% of the Japanese bomber force(2x250KG,better speed,better manuever,etc).
Too bad the Japanese player cannot convert all light bombers to Oscar,they
would be better off(IMO).


WO 0/0




PaxMondo -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 4:17:09 PM)

The specs might lead you that way, and there is an AAR attempting to prove it.  However, the Oscar lacks a bomber designation and so while it can be used in that role its effectiveness is limited.

Meaning, take 50 Oscars and run them.  Take 50 Sonia and run them.  Sonia on avg will achieve more hits.




Dili -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 5:39:06 PM)

quote:

And can use smaller a/f's.


Yeah. Forgot about that.

quote:

It's almost better to say that the later versions of the Oscar make a superior
Bomber than 75% of the Japanese bomber force(2x250KG,better speed,better manuever,etc).


Depends how it flies at low level, if it has a low cruise speed to be able to loiter for some time. Good close support aircraft go from Stuka to Skyraider to A-10 or Su-25.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 5:48:05 PM)


cancel building of sonia, use Ha-31 engines for dinah




Chris H -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 6:13:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

The specs might lead you that way, and there is an AAR attempting to prove it.  However, the Oscar lacks a bomber designation and so while it can be used in that role its effectiveness is limited.

Meaning, take 50 Oscars and run them.  Take 50 Sonia and run them.  Sonia on avg will achieve more hits.


How about the Nick?




Warrant officer 0/0 -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 7:22:34 PM)

quote:

Meaning, take 50 Oscars and run them. Take 50 Sonia and run them. Sonia on avg will achieve more hits.



I can see what you're saying,but which plane is more likely to get thru any CAP?
Which one will be more likely get it's pilot back home in one piece?
I have not run any tests, it would be interesting to see.

As far an the Nick, i prefer to use them as bomber busters/night fighters for
lack of anything better. Why use a Nick(2-engine) to haul 2 250KG when you
can use a 1 engine Oscar to do the same?


WO 0/0




PaxMondo -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 9:05:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

The specs might lead you that way, and there is an AAR attempting to prove it.  However, the Oscar lacks a bomber designation and so while it can be used in that role its effectiveness is limited.

Meaning, take 50 Oscars and run them.  Take 50 Sonia and run them.  Sonia on avg will achieve more hits.


How about the Nick?

Nick is an FB .. .there might be a code hook for those independent of the bomber designation in the editor. Not sure, and I have never tested them.




PaxMondo -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/13/2012 9:07:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Warrant officer 0/0

quote:

Meaning, take 50 Oscars and run them. Take 50 Sonia and run them. Sonia on avg will achieve more hits.



I can see what you're saying,but which plane is more likely to get thru any CAP?
Which one will be more likely get it's pilot back home in one piece?
I have not run any tests, it would be interesting to see.

WO 0/0

Not suggesting anything about survivability or anything else. But if a bomber can't hit a target, doesn't really matter to me ... I can't see using it for the mission. YMMV.

Now, when used as a kami, Oscar is as effective as any other plane ... designated as a bomber or not. At least, that was the result of my testing.




Shark7 -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/14/2012 5:04:53 PM)

Some one cynical like me uses them to absorb fighters for more important aircraft. [;)]




CyrusSpitama -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/14/2012 11:25:14 PM)

I did consider using them as a way to rid of fresh pilots out of the pool if the training HI drain gets too crazy. That is, early banzai attacks on known bases with CAP. Of course, that's then free exp for the enemy so doesn't seem exactly the best of idea[:'(] I have yet to do this though.

As for actual usage, they can be somewhat useful in bombing troops in China, but they are mostly just trainers for me.

Note: rookie feedback here :)




Captain Cruft -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/15/2012 1:30:39 AM)

I am doing the AAR that Pax mentioned. My Oscar bombing groups all have bombing accuracy of over 90%, which has been against ground targets at 100ft. The only problem is you take 15-20% losses per mission if up against Western flak. So it's not something you can do every day.

Sonias are lovely too in the right context. I am making over a 100 a month in my game. There may come a time when you can't afford to make anything with 2 engines ...




obvert -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/15/2012 8:56:09 AM)

Sonias will hit fields with a lot of tiny little bombs. It is in my experience in China the most effective of the Japanese light bombers. It is virtually useless outside of China.

It is too bad the 1Es are so underpowered. If they were made to be more effective against ground troops they might be useful enough to let players use PDU-off more often.




Warrant officer 0/0 -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/15/2012 3:39:18 PM)

quote:

against ground targets at 100ft


Wow[X(] That is low. My 2-engines get badly hit by flak at 18000ft.
Can't imagine your OPS losses from Flak damage.


quote:

If they were made to be more effective against ground troops

It really takes a different mindset to be the Japanese side. You have to
be content with a collection of bombers that,for the most part do not
have any real lugging capability. Nothing to compare with a B-25,not to
mention the 4-engine giants that appear later.
So you send your pilots out in obsolete junk, hoping to get a few hits,
while counting up the HI cost to manufacture these flying death traps.



WO 0/0




jzardos -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/15/2012 4:50:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warrant officer 0/0

quote:

against ground targets at 100ft


Wow[X(] That is low. My 2-engines get badly hit by flak at 18000ft.
Can't imagine your OPS losses from Flak damage.


quote:

If they were made to be more effective against ground troops

It really takes a different mindset to be the Japanese side. You have to
be content with a collection of bombers that,for the most part do not
have any real lugging capability. Nothing to compare with a B-25,not to
mention the 4-engine giants that appear later.
So you send your pilots out in obsolete junk, hoping to get a few hits,
while counting up the HI cost to manufacture these flying death traps.



WO 0/0




Yeah, I agree. Beginning to come to terms with this already in my game. I'll bomb very dense (100k) Chinese ground targets with 30-40 bombers and kill/disable anywhere from 5-30 troops. To me it's almost worthless expect for maybe the pilot experience.

What do people use later in war as a decent med bomber? Helens?



Wish the game had added the some research paths to some of the possible Japanese Heavy Bomber projects.
Found the below in a WW2 military for post:

HEAVY BOMBERS
"KAWASAKI
By 1943 it was realized that the bombers active service were not adequate by the way the war was going. Like the Germans, the Japanese relied on twin-engine bombers early on but they’d now reached their maximum of technology and performance. A scant few bombers were able to cope with the speeds of American fighters and take damage. A true long-range heavy bomber was needed that could fly fast.

The Navy was committed to the G8N Renzan (Mountain Range), code named “Rita,” but was hampered by air raids. The Army liked the Kawasaki design for their bomber. Therein lie part of the problem. Here was country under assault day and night by air and they stubbornly chose to stay divided as rival service factions each demanded their own planes. Had they combined and concentrated their efforts it would have been realized that only one big bomber was needed.

The Ki 91 was to have a crew of eight or nine would have been housed in a pressurized fuselage 108.25 feet long. Four Mitsubishi Ha-214ru engines of 2,500HP each would have driven the plane to a maximum speed of 360 MPH. A wingspan of 157.5 feet was larger than the B-29’s as was weight calculated at 127,868 lbs. loaded. 8,818 lbs. of bombs could be delivered on a 2,796-mile mission and a maximum range of 6,214 was estimated with lighter ordnance loads.

The Ki 91 was to have five power turrets- one in the nose, one on the top of the fuselage, and two beneath the fuselage along with the tail position. All would be equipped with pairs of 20 mm cannon except the tail position which would have four 20 mms!

By early 1945 the prototype was progressing in assembly but a February air raid destroyed all the tooling and jigs for the production facility rendering the project futile that late in the war.

KAWANISHI
Another contender for a high-speed long-range bomber that was fulfilled by the G8M1 “Rita” was a Kawanishi proposal- the K-100 (Type17). This thing was small like the Mitsubishi Type 17 with a crew of four in a short 50-foot fuselage. Four Nakajima Mamoru-Kai 18-cylinder radials each with 2,300 HP mounted on the 75-foot wings. Weighing just 30,000 lbs. loaded this thing could scream with a 376 MPH top speed and cruised at 230 MPH for 3,450 miles range. A ceiling of 30,732 feet was projected.

Armament was just three 20 mm cannon a 1,760-lb. torpedo or bob of the same weight.

This one never proceeded beyond preliminary designs but the concept was solid enough.

MITSUBISHI
Beyond the excellent G8M1 “Rita” 4-engine bomber tested in the post-war US, the G7M1 Taizan Type 16 project was drawn up for a high speed bomber able to carry a lighter payload shorter distances. A crew of five rode in a comfortable 65.6-foot fuselage. Four Mitsubishi Ha.42 Model 31 18-cylinder radials of 2,400 HP each turned on the 82-foot wings. All up the compact bomber weighed 35,200 lbs.

Like the Rita this ship would be quite fast at 345 MPH but with a shorter range of 1,726 miles.

Defensive armament proposed was that of two 20 mm cannon and six 13 mm machine guns. Bomb load variables could be a 1,760-lb. bomb or torpedo, two 1,100-lb. bombs or six 550-lb bombs.

This project was cancelled due to shortages and long lead time to completion.

NAKAJIMA
Before ending this chapter there is one area left to touch upon- heavy bombers. Like Germany, Japan didn’t possess an early vision for their use. They certainly had the technology. Two good 4-engine bombers existed and could have been built but weren’t. One design never went to prototype stage but was awesome in scope, nevertheless.

G5N2
Shinzan or Mountain Recess was code named “Liz” and had four 1,530 HP Mitsubishi Kasei 12 14-cylinder radials on its 138.25-foot wing. Seven to ten crewmen operated in its 101.75-foot fuselage. Maximum loaded weight was 70,768 lbs. with its 8,818-pound bomb load, which could be hauled to a ceiling of 23,440 feet. Maximum range was 2,647 miles. She could do 261 MPH at 13,450 feet. Defensively it mounted one 20 mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon in a dorsal turret; one 20 mm Type 99 Model 1 in the tail turret and one 7.7 mm Type 97 machine-gun in nose, ventral and waist positions.

Thought to have been inspired by a DC-4 purchased before the war, the first bomber flew in 1941. While it didn’t possess long range the Japanese did use the prototypes for transport duties during the war. Four G5N1s were built along with two G5N2s.

G8N1
The Renzan or Mountain Range, code named “Rita,” housed a crew of ten in her 75.25-foot fuselage while four 2,000 HP NK9K-L Homare 24 18-cylinder radials turned on the 106.75-foot wings. Normal and maximum weights were 59,084 lbs. and 70,879 lbs. 4,409 lbs. of bombs could be delivered but range was a whopping 4,639 miles. She would have been hard to intercept with a top speed of 368 MPH at 26,245 feet and a ceiling of 33,465 feet.

Armament consisted of twin 20 mm Type 99 cannon in dorsal, ventral and tail turrets; two 13 mm Type 2 machine-guns in nose turret and one flexible 13 mm Type 2 machine-gun on each side of the fuselage.

At least one of four built survived and was tested in the US. If this bomber had been expedited much earlier it would have proved a fine plane.

G10N1
The Fugaku or Mount Fuji was to be a super bomber on par with Germany’s Amerika Bombers. Named “Project Z,” Nakajima studied the requirements for an aircraft able to attack the continental United States from Japan on their own whim not due to official project request. His idea did draw interest from the military for further exploration.
Six 5,000 HP Nakajima Ha-505 36-cylinder radials were proposed but gestation on them was slow and six 2,500 HP Nakajima NK11A radials would have to be used to start. Dimensions are unknown but it would have had to have a wingspan similar to that of the six-engine Ju 390 at 165 feet and length of 112 feet. A crew of ten was suggested including one relief pilot.

The G10N1 would have cruised at 32,810 feet hauling its 11,023 lb. bomb load at 310 MPH with a range of over 12,000 miles! For shorter hops the payload could be as high as 44,092 lbs. With a top speed of about 400 MPH it would have been hard to catch. Even with the smaller engines speed performance would have been at least equal to the B-29’s 342 MPH top speed with a 265 MPH cruise. Proposed armament was four 20 mm cannon- one in the nose, one in a tail location, and two in an upper fuselage turret.
This never made it of the drawing board.

Had the G10N1 been produced it could have bombed the western US. Long-range heavy bombers, if committed to in 1942, could have been counter attacking Allied islands by late 1944."




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/15/2012 4:58:28 PM)


fantasy airframes belong in fantasy scenarios (that's what the editor is for)


but G5N and G8N need to be available in Scen 1





jzardos -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/15/2012 5:03:15 PM)

Well the game does have at least one scenario to help make a more competitive game for the Japanese player. It really doesn't have to be fantasy. If the Japanese player was to research these heavy bombers within the current production system, that would be other areas would have to be sacrificed. Would just allow the Japanese player to have a different strategy that having a reliable heavy bomber could make available.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/15/2012 5:14:08 PM)


AC research is a pandoras box that i don't agree with --> if japan does it, why not allies as well?


BUT


designs that were available:

G5N - yes, there were available since 1941 - 4 were on hand on Dec 7
G8N - yes, they were built and can be available late war

also remember H8K

i'm playing a scenario (my WPO 1941-1946 mod)
where H8K can be classified as level Bmbr, or torpedo Bmbr

so instead of sally/lilly/helen/betty/nell i'm just using emilies

but also need to fix the production costs - 4E cost a lot more than 2x2E

G5N Shinzan (Liz) weighed about 20.1 tons , a sally about 6 tons
plus they were slow

japan needs to be allowed to use the airframe types for whatever purpose they want

another example, i'm using Babs/Dinah for naval search




jzardos -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/15/2012 6:45:20 PM)

For sure the Kawanishi H8K-2 was best flying boat of war. Had great defensive armament for a 4 engine aircraft: five 20 mm cannons! [:'(]

With Mitsubishi Kasei 22 1,850 hp engines, twice the HP of the Sunderland's Bristol Pegasus XXII 1,010 hp engines. Thus could climb twice as fast as the Sunderland.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/15/2012 7:03:42 PM)


main thing was speed

H8K3 reached 305 mph


flying boat with the performance of a land-based 4E

what else can you ask for? [8D]




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/15/2012 7:10:32 PM)


... had to ask didn't I.. [;)][:D]

H8K3 modifications i would recommend

- remove non-ssf wing tanks (fuel is heavy, makes emily vulnerable, don't need range in a tactical role)
- replace with extra hardpoints (4 torpedoes is better than 2)
- armored box for pilot (only the pilot needs armor on a torpedo run)
- replace Type-99-1 with Ho-3 cannons (like the helen carried)

some type of armored porcupine firing salvos of torpedoes

and all you need is a patch of water, so any atoll will do [:)]




Gräfin Zeppelin -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/16/2012 1:11:40 AM)

Stormwolf really....thread title is Sonia !!! not Emily.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/16/2012 1:48:04 AM)


jzardos began (asking about the japanese 4E bmbrs, i just continued)

back to the topic:

cancel sonias, use Ha-31 for dinah

can also cancel production of Ha-31 engine (good stockpile), and build something else (Ha-33 or Ha-32)




Chris H -> RE: What to do with the Ki-51 Sonia (10/16/2012 8:11:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


jzardos began (asking about the japanese 4E bmbrs, i just continued)

back to the topic:

cancel sonias, use Ha-31 for dinah

can also cancel production of Ha-31 engine (good stockpile), and build something else (Ha-33 or Ha-32)


There's already a factory producing the Dinah II at the start of the game, why would you want another? Did you mean Nick which also uses the engine?




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.515625E-02