Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 10:04:11 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

would have to use the Ho-103 MG. Considerably heavier than the rifle caliber MGs in the Zero, but firing a somewhat less capable round that the US .50cal.


Roger that. Ho-103 is less accurate (less muzzle velocity), lighter (less penetration) however it was loaded with HE ammo (reducing its penetration
even more, but increaseing its effect) Ho-103 did wonders against the lightly skinned RAF planes over burma, pretty useless against B-17s though.

So in my mod, the Ho-103 gets an effect of 3, penetration of 1
.50 browning gets an effect of 2, penetration of 2 and more accurate




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 31
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 10:10:50 PM   
icepharmy

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

"More firepower" is a subjective claim. The 5 flexible 20mm mounts were drum fed with cans of up to 45 rounds (less than one second of fire), and used the same low-velocity gun as the A6M2. They weren't known to be highly accurate in that configuration. The H8K did not have armor, and "partial self-sealing tanks." Does that mean it had some lined fuel tanks and some unlined ones?

In any case, F4Fs seem to have had no difficulty shooting them down.


Only the crew had some armor in H8K2, the fuel tank arrangement was a bit bizarre with 8 small tanks in the wings, and 6 partial-self-sealing carbon dioxide extinguisher system tanks deeper inside the hull. If the fuel was crossed fed to the wing tanks first then the engines, then it would have negated the effect of having 6 well protected tanks. And your right more firepower is subjective, their armament (and high speed) would seem better suited to chasing down large allied transports and patrol planes, not nimble fighters. Very few were built, so its hard to generalize but in some cases it survived long enough to ditch at home, and I couldn't find any combustible reports about it. Actually I agree now with the initial assessment, with the exception that torpedo/bomb carrying capacity should have been sacrificed (maybe some small depth charges as only offensive armament) and guns and armor should have been added (2000kgs of weight altogether) . It did need the fuel for its huge range at high speed.

So hard to find exact specs for this, this is the best description of the fuel system I found at http://www.aer.ita.br/~bmattos/mundo/ww2/kwkh8k.htm

These hull tanks were protected by partial self sealing and a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher system, and they were arranged so that if any were punctured, the fuel would drain into a bilge where a pump would transfer it to an undamaged tank. Total fuel capacity was an amazing 3,749 gallons, and the weight of the fuel represented about 29 percent of the aircraft’s total take-off weight. Armor protection for the crew was also provided for, and the proposed defensive armament was immense by the standards of those days. No less than five 20mm cannon were to be carried, one each in powered nose, dorsal, and tail turrets, and one apiece in the port and starboard beam blisters. Three flexible 7.7mm machine guns were also available, one each in port and starboard beam hatches to supplement the fire of the beam cannon, and one in a ventral position.

< Message edited by icepharmy -- 12/1/2011 10:11:19 PM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 32
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 10:17:29 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Hey, that's really interesting info. Thanks.

I always liked the Emily. It's one of the, in my view, really brilliant Japanese a.c. designs for its purpose.


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to icepharmy)
Post #: 33
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 10:22:24 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
This is what a .50 browning, loaded on the center-line with 500 rounds of ammo looks like




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 34
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 11:18:46 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
And my favourite fighter.. La-5FN

built of the worst materials, nice ugly radial engine
no fuel or wing guns to add weight,

just a pair of accurate 20mm cannons on the nose with lots of ammo

perfect.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 35
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 11:41:44 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

I certainly think the Zero would have had more kills to its credit if it mounted 4 x 12.7mm instead of the 2 x 20mm and 2 x 7.7mm. Would there have been a performance penalty in doing so?


I am interested in this question as well:

The A6M2-21 has a weapons package that weighs...

2xType99-1 = 46.8kg +28.1kg ammo
2x7.7mm = 24kg + 26kg ammo

total weapons package = 125kg

now 4xHo-103 guns with 250 rounds each weighs 92guns+78ammo = 170kg
that means it increases the loaded weight by 45kg (to 2455kg versus 2410 kg)

that raises the wing loading to 109.4kg/m2 (from 107.4)
this reduces the top speed to 325 mph (from 328)

(an easy way to calculate speed changes on the same airframe is
to take the square root of the %difference in weight x original speed,
it assumes the aerodynamics remain the same though)

as we can see, it is a negligible difference
so yes, your A6M2-21 with Ho-103 is about the same as the original,
probably easier to aim as well because of the homogenous ballistics

good job, Japanese Koku Hombu is pleased with your suggestion,
it will be put into production immediately





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 36
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 12:46:12 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1939
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yeah, my oh my. All this from somebody who doesn't have the game and has no clue how it works, and has never spent a day in the cockpit of a real airplane (Piper or otherwise), but who will regale you all with his oh, so superior nonsense; most of which is just a rehash of what he got from the internet, that any of us can get and come to our own conclusions on.

Oh, yeah, right. He has friends that scratch build .45s. Can't think of anything more pathetic than that.

Time to flush this little boy back to his Middle School homeroom.





< Message edited by mjk428 -- 12/2/2011 12:47:34 AM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 37
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 1:15:17 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Diehl's little padawan shows up.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 38
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 1:37:36 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

now 4xHo-103 guns with 250 rounds each weighs 92guns+78ammo = 170kg that means it increases the loaded weight by 45kg (to 2455kg versus 2410 kg)


So, in my view that makes the Zeke a little better against fighters but even worse against bombers. The way I see it, another good idea would have been 2x12.7mm with alternating ball, ap, incendiary in some combination, and 2x20mm as usual.

In my view, if the US had to deal with enemy heavy bombers, the latter well armored and with self sealing tanks, the US would have discovered as the Luftwaffe did that you need *some* cannons firing HE rounds.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 39
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 1:55:44 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

makes the Zeke a little better against fighters but even worse against bombers


Agreed. This is what the Reisen II carrier fighter should have been. Follow the La-5 example, take out everything (less fuel and less armament)
put 20mm cannons on the cowling (yes they would fit easily, if you can fit a pair of Shvak onto an I-153 you can fit a short Type-99-1 on a Reisen)

Range is 4 normal, 8 with drop tank
2x20mm on the cowling with 200 rounds each

wing loading is 96 kg/m2
a little faster too

useless as an escort, but the perfect carrier fighter for 1942





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 40
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 2:23:50 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Why do you keep replying to that troll? Hmmm?

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 41
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 2:24:34 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

"More firepower" is a subjective claim. The 5 flexible 20mm mounts were drum fed with cans of up to 45 rounds (less than one second of fire),



A 20mm with a ROF of over 45 rounds per second??? Sorry MDIEHL..., but that's just wrong. Suggest you check your source (or your typing) a second time.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 42
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 2:32:06 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
He has no sources other than his own delusions and hallucinations.

Good heavens people...if you can't see he's troll spouting that kind of insanity...... there is NO hope for you.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 43
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 9:52:12 AM   
Erkki

 

Posts: 1157
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
Sorry Mynok... I was seriously considering replying to the Troll just to fix his incorrect "corrections" to my statements that were full of factual errors, with both internet and book sources.

But that would mean quoting him. And all he'd do would be questioning my sources and then picking some minor details in whatever I have written and "prove" them wrong. That "30mm HE didnt have explosive radius" is just plain nuts. A single shell mid-wing from behind and a Spitfire has no wing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoLLDi-M3fk

edit: note that they used the HEIT round. There also was a pure HE Minengeschoss round with even more explosive content.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 44
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 11:55:39 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5464
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

There also was a pure HE Minengeschoss round with even more explosive content.

Which was a pretty good technological development, greatly expanding the explosive yield on these smaller rounds.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 45
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 12:11:25 PM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 700
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
I would like to remind everyone that we are all adults and should be able to treat eachother rationally and courteously. The forums of late have become increasingly ugly and discourteous.

If you feel someone is a troll then have the maturity to ignore them and move on. Stop trying to force your views on the other forumites. As rational human beings we can come to our own views on these things.

If someone truly is a troll then giving them the attention they seek is more disruptive to the forums and to specific threads then their trolling is to start with. The insults and name calling feed them while driving away other posters who find the drama and backbiting to be more offputting then any single troll could be alone.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 46
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 3:41:28 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

A 20mm with a ROF of over 45 rounds per second??? Sorry MDIEHL..., but that's just wrong. Suggest you check your source (or your typing) a second time.


My bad. Had the Ho103 on my mind when I wrote it. About 5 seconds of shooting for the Type 99 if it has a 45 round drum.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 47
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 4:21:43 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

That "30mm HE didnt have explosive radius" is just plain nuts.


No one made that claim. What I said was that your claim that 'more likely than not a single hit from a 30mm would split a single engined plane in half' was not correct. There are numerous examples. I think it's nice that you have a bit of Youtube gun cannon footage. But in the end, a single anecdote is not worth much. It's already been noted, by me in fact, that a 30mm hit in a gas tank or engine would likely kill the plane. So a Spitfire, hit in the wing tank by a 30mm predictably falls apart.

But not every hit on a single engine plane by a 30mm would of necessity hit a vital part.

To make a credible claim that a 30mm was more likely than not to split a single engined plane in half, you'd need to offer some evidence such as a study showing that more than half of single seat airplanes hit by a single 30mm shell broke into two or more large pieces.

But that, of course, would require some research. And more evidence than a single Youtube video.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 12/2/2011 4:31:21 PM >


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 48
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 5:06:44 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25219
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Sorry Mynok... I was seriously considering replying to the Troll just to fix his incorrect "corrections" to my statements that were full of factual errors, with both internet and book sources.


Don't bother. He'll just come back and repeat them as if you had not spoken. Sometimes modified to account for having errors/misquotes/lies corrected, often not. Your views will "always" be full of factual errors and other buzz words which include but are not restricted too...."Data", "Facts", "factual errors", "compelling evidence suggests", "Axis Fanboi" "your claims", "Mean/Mode/Median" etc etc. Remember this has been going on for 10 years now. All i have to say on the subject.

If Stormwolf wants to make a mod......more power to him. If he wants to assert that building only Emilys would win the war. Well....he's welcome to his viewpoints. My only critique would be that such as this belongs on the Scen design subforum. One benie of that is that his mussings would be free of interference from our resident non-game owning troll. He pretty much sticks to the main forum. Bigger audience.

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 49
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/2/2011 5:14:44 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25219
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I would like to remind everyone that we are all adults and should be able to treat eachother rationally and courteously. The forums of late have become increasingly ugly and discourteous.

If you feel someone is a troll then have the maturity to ignore them and move on. Stop trying to force your views on the other forumites. As rational human beings we can come to our own views on these things.

If someone truly is a troll then giving them the attention they seek is more disruptive to the forums and to specific threads then their trolling is to start with. The insults and name calling feed them while driving away other posters who find the drama and backbiting to be more offputting then any single troll could be alone.


Absolutely correct. However the only cavet to this is warning someone like Erkki about said troll. I consider that a public service announcement. He said he was seriously tempted to reply.......I let him know its a waste of time. Its inevitable that someone, usually one who doesn't know about him will feed him. As i said in the last thread where this blew up, Abuse by him should be reported to a moderator. Best one can do along with GB's and warnings to the unwary. Our boy nearly got a vacation after harrassing Nemo on the General Discussion board.

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 50
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/3/2011 9:25:00 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Meh. Having three serial trolls calling me out as a "public service announcement" could be viewed as something ironic. I propose a REAL "public service announcement." Right underneath the location where a user's post count is enumerated, Matrix should also list the number of times a user has been banned for being a twat.


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 51
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/3/2011 10:05:03 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Absolutely correct. However the only cavet to this is warning someone like Erkki about said troll. I consider that a public service announcement.

You are correct. At least I, personally, thank people who pointed out the OP as a recognized troll for saving me time and mental effort.






_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 52
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/4/2011 3:26:30 PM   
msieving1


Posts: 382
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

quote:

I agree that the thought exercise is very interesting and I appreciate your urging along those lines.

Here's another one for you. What if someone had left the superchargers on the production P-39s?


As requested

Basically it has the prototype specs with the 37mm replaced by a 20mm hispano,
fast (390mph) with good high-alt performance, probably would have done better against the Zero than the
P-39D did historically



Except that the prototype that managed 390 mph was specially tuned and had no armament or armor. A production turbocharged P-39 probably would have had about the same performance as the P-39D at low altitude (or a bit less), but would sustain that performance at higher altitude. On the other hand, it would have been less reliable and had higher maintenance requirements.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 53
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094