Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers required
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

BETTY

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> BETTY Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
BETTY - 4/7/2012 7:29:04 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Some interesting things about BETTY development:

G4M1
quote:

March 1943: From 663rd machine onwards, 30 mm (1.18 in) rubber ply sheets installed beneath the wing outer surfaces to protect the undersides of the fuel tanks (speed reduced by 9 km/h/6 mph and range by 315 km/196 mi), 5 mm (.2 in) armour plates added into tail gunner's compartment.

(there is no other model for G4M1 in-game)

G4M2 began production in July 1943 (in-game 1/44), and it carried KAI-7 (Mk 7) torpedo (also used by G4M3), which carried:

420kg of explosives, while older model had only 235kg

quote:

The G4M1 continued to be built in parallel until January 1944, when the supply of Kasei 21 engines permitted production to be completely shifted over to the G4M2.


quote:

G4M2e Model 24 Tei
Special version for the transport of the ramming attack bomb plane Kugisho/Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka ("Baka") Model 11, conversions of G4M2a Models 24 Otsu and 24 Hei. Had armour protection for the pilots and fuselage fuel tanks.


And I can not find any reference to production of G4M1-L (actually the only clear, is conversion of "Bataan-2" for flying in Japanese surrender delegation). There are some listed as wreck locations, but Yamamoto seems to have been transported in bomber variant, not transport (and G4M1 12 model - with some armor). However there is clear mention about conversion of G6M1 into transports, but those planes had completely different armament and:

quote:

Modifications from the basic Rikko design included the addition of extra 20mm cannon and partial protection for the fuel tanks.

And they were out of production already, when war started.

To sum up:
G4M1 got partial protection in March 1943
G4M2, and G4M3 carried bigger torpedo, and bigger bombs
G4M2e (OHKA carrier) had protection
G4M1-L is actually G6M1-L2, and had protection, and better armament (if any)
Post #: 1
RE: BETTY - 4/7/2012 8:02:03 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 15004
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Some interesting things about BETTY development:

G4M1
quote:

March 1943: From 663rd machine onwards, 30 mm (1.18 in) rubber ply sheets installed beneath the wing outer surfaces to protect the undersides of the fuel tanks (speed reduced by 9 km/h/6 mph and range by 315 km/196 mi), 5 mm (.2 in) armour plates added into tail gunner's compartment.

(there is no other model for G4M1 in-game)

G4M2 began production in July 1943 (in-game 1/44), and it carried KAI-7 (Mk 7) torpedo (also used by G4M3), which carried:

420kg of explosives, while older model had only 235kg

quote:

The G4M1 continued to be built in parallel until January 1944, when the supply of Kasei 21 engines permitted production to be completely shifted over to the G4M2.


quote:

G4M2e Model 24 Tei
Special version for the transport of the ramming attack bomb plane Kugisho/Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka ("Baka") Model 11, conversions of G4M2a Models 24 Otsu and 24 Hei. Had armour protection for the pilots and fuselage fuel tanks.


And I can not find any reference to production of G4M1-L (actually the only clear, is conversion of "Bataan-2" for flying in Japanese surrender delegation). There are some listed as wreck locations, but Yamamoto seems to have been transported in bomber variant, not transport (and G4M1 12 model - with some armor). However there is clear mention about conversion of G6M1 into transports, but those planes had completely different armament and:

quote:

Modifications from the basic Rikko design included the addition of extra 20mm cannon and partial protection for the fuel tanks.

And they were out of production already, when war started.

To sum up:
G4M1 got partial protection in March 1943
G4M2, and G4M3 carried bigger torpedo, and bigger bombs
G4M2e (OHKA carrier) had protection
G4M1-L is actually G6M1-L2, and had protection, and better armament (if any)



G4M1-L is indeed similar to the G6M1-L2. But the former was a twice converted failed initial production variant -
a "super heavy fighter" intended to escort G3M2 bombers. Similar Allied experiments also failed. Most of the 30
produced were converted first into bomber trainers. Then into transports, given a peculiar designation. The
G4M1-L was a variant of the new build bomber version - which as you point out does exist in a number of places -
in spite of a lack of mention in most sources. It does get mentioned by Francillon I think, but with no numbers or
production dates, if I remember correctly. In any case, I got my materials from unpublished, Japanese sources
at the National Diet Library, aided by a retired Japanese captain, while I was stationed at Yokosuka - and I use
the more limited materials in English references only to suppliment the vast notes I brought back from Japan. I spent
20 years compiling a spreadsheet of every aircraft variant identified - if anyone wants a copy of it. It is more detailed
than we use in Matrix formats - with all sorts of details - usually from manufacturers specs vice from service docs or
reference books.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2
RE: BETTY - 4/9/2012 9:30:45 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

well.. seeing how 13mm armor was only good against 7.7mm rounds..5mm plates for the tail gunner won't stop anything

and the wings were integral tanks, some rubber in a few places won't help

a true SSF would reduce the range by 33%


betty was really a plane that no-one wanted (the deisgners didn't want to design it, crews didn't want to fly it)

it had good range, but the Zero had less - either the Zero needed more external fuel or the Betty needed full armor protection

_____________________________

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

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 3
RE: BETTY - 4/14/2012 8:05:42 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
G4M1-L is indeed similar to the G6M1-L2. But the former was a twice converted failed initial production variant -
a "super heavy fighter" intended to escort G3M2 bombers. Similar Allied experiments also failed. Most of the 30
produced were converted first into bomber trainers. Then into transports, given a peculiar designation. The
G4M1-L was a variant of the new build bomber version - which as you point out does exist in a number of places -
in spite of a lack of mention in most sources. It does get mentioned by Francillon I think, but with no numbers or
production dates, if I remember correctly.

Actually BETTY transport seems to be all conversions, not production plane.
This page lists G4M1-L but it is under G4M2 list, and even its production number shows M2 designation.
Also THIS LINK lists G6M1, but also G4M2 transport version, and even possibly G4M3 (and writes, that Kokutai 1001 was established in July 1942, while it begins game on map). No mention about G4M1-L AT ALL.

quote:

In any case, I got my materials from unpublished, Japanese sources
at the National Diet Library, aided by a retired Japanese captain, while I was stationed at Yokosuka - and I use
the more limited materials in English references only to suppliment the vast notes I brought back from Japan. I spent
20 years compiling a spreadsheet of every aircraft variant identified - if anyone wants a copy of it. It is more detailed
than we use in Matrix formats - with all sorts of details - usually from manufacturers specs vice from service docs or
reference books.

Have you got any references to armament of transport versions? Last page shows them either completely unarmed, or only with 1 MG.
Also, it seems strange, that it was supposed to be M1 version, which got converted. Not only it had older engines (possibly not produced anymore), but when you need transport plane, you will get either the one with longer range, or bigger payload, of which version M2 was clearly better, than M1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


well.. seeing how 13mm armor was only good against 7.7mm rounds..5mm plates for the tail gunner won't stop anything

and the wings were integral tanks, some rubber in a few places won't help

a true SSF would reduce the range by 33%

Considering strange configuration, it seems to be purely FLAK protection, not because of enemy fighters.
The problem with in-game representation, is that there are only two values:
eiter 0 for lack of protection,
or 1 (maybe 2 planes have actually 2 armor)
so hardly to put something in-between for partial protection representation.
Also I do not understand the whole concept. Unless plane armor works in-code completely different, than other forms of armor, it should be completely safe to have planes with greater range of armor values.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 4
RE: BETTY - 4/15/2012 6:47:56 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 15004
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


well.. seeing how 13mm armor was only good against 7.7mm rounds..5mm plates for the tail gunner won't stop anything

and the wings were integral tanks, some rubber in a few places won't help

a true SSF would reduce the range by 33%


betty was really a plane that no-one wanted (the deisgners didn't want to design it, crews didn't want to fly it)

it had good range, but the Zero had less - either the Zero needed more external fuel or the Betty needed full armor protection



Go to page 100 and read about "Rear Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Chief of Engineering Development, Naval Air Headquarters" and his role in the G2H1 program post the Washington Treaty.

This is simply false. The Betty was designed without armor deliberately - as was its ancestor (the plane and plans were destroyed in the 1930s
to insure security). The guy responsible was one you have heard of - Adm Yamamoto. It was a deliberate trade off - to get range. This is mentioned in Francillon, but for real details see the companion for pre war Japanese planes -

Japanese Aircraft 1910-1941
Robert C Mikesh & Shorzoe Abe
ISBN 1-55750-563-2

Ultimately the research was "passed to Mitsubisi" leading to the development of the 8 shi Special Reconnaisance aircraft, which ultimately became the "successful" Nell - from which Betty was developed. The intent was to get long range performance out of limited engine power on a two engine platform - as a kind of revolutionary weapons capability - and it succeeded. At the time these ideas were less radical than it seems today - since
the typical "persuit plane" had a pair of .30 cal weapons and was itself unarmored.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/15/2012 6:54:31 PM >

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 5
RE: BETTY - 4/15/2012 7:22:46 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

just saying betty had a lot more range than the zero did,

they could have

1) put 2x100L drop tanks on the zero's wing instead of the 60kg hardpionts
- increase the range

2) put armor on the betty, decreasing the range but keeping it the same as the zero


the mitsubishi team didn't want to design the betty, they wanted a 4-engine design or an armoured 2 engine deisgn opposed the integral wing fuel tanks

probably the best 2-engine torpedo plane would have been the high speed mitsubishi
Ki-46 dinah (375 mph)

the RAF had the right idea. either heavy 4-engined (lancaster) or fast 2-engined (mosquito)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 6
RE: BETTY - 4/15/2012 7:40:43 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2898
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

probably the best 2-engine torpedo plane would have been the high speed mitsubishi
Ki-46 dinah (375 mph)


When you learn that the specs for a torpedo bomber are different that an altitude recon plane?

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 7
RE: BETTY - 4/15/2012 8:19:18 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

i may know a little about planes.. since then i designed a few


dinah was well suited to being a torpedo plane (it was very small and had a high speed with small engines)
but they converted it into a fighter instead (low climb rate makes a poor interceptor)

need to understand that any plane can perform any function, just not particularly well
japanese were in a state of panic and tried using the wrong designs for the wrong purposes

(Ki-67 peggy as a fighter with the 75mm gun )

(D4Y judy as a fighter )

(german Ju-88 as a fighter )


axis bmbr planes took the classic approach

2 engines
several small defensive guns
low-medium speed

RAF was ahead of everyone else, with 4-engined heavy designs or high speed 2-engined designs

high speed Dinah would be a lot more effective against CAP since (even with a torpedo attached)
it would still be faster than the F4F-4




_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 8
RE: BETTY - 4/16/2012 11:18:38 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2898
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
A torpedo bomber needs to have engines for low level speed, needs to be maneuverable at low level which usually makes it bad for high altitude, it needs to be sturdy and preferably well armored. An altitude recon plane is almost the opposite of it.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 9
RE: BETTY - 4/16/2012 11:42:33 AM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 624
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


i may know a little about planes.. since then i designed a few


dinah was well suited to being a torpedo plane (it was very small and had a high speed with small engines)
but they converted it into a fighter instead (low climb rate makes a poor interceptor)

need to understand that any plane can perform any function, just not particularly well
japanese were in a state of panic and tried using the wrong designs for the wrong purposes

(Ki-67 peggy as a fighter with the 75mm gun )

(D4Y judy as a fighter )

(german Ju-88 as a fighter )


axis bmbr planes took the classic approach

2 engines
several small defensive guns
low-medium speed

RAF was ahead of everyone else, with 4-engined heavy designs or high speed 2-engined designs

high speed Dinah would be a lot more effective against CAP since (even with a torpedo attached)
it would still be faster than the F4F-4







So much fail in this quoted posting.

First off if you have designed aircraft then a couple of questions:
1. What is the drag coefficent of the standard IJAAF Torpedo?
a. How would that affect the Ki-46 Shiki's overall top speed and what would be your proposed fix that would not adversely affect both weight nor major redesign for a different set of engines?
b. How about the hanging of the torpedo that wouldn't affect center of gravity of the aircraft, stability, roll rate, yaw rate, climb rate and overall character of the airframe?
2. What was Ki-46 originally ordered for and how best would that primary mission been achieved with the aircraft designed the way it was? Is there room for improvement without requiring a major tooling upgrade in the plants that are currently building the Ki-46, to achieve this mythical torpedo bomber mission that you want the IJAAF to fly?
3. How could you achieve the same amount of high speed, long range for the aircraft to fly a standard Hi-Low-Hi mission profile that a torpedo bomber typically flies again without inducing a major redesign of the aircraft or mandating a new engine design that isn't even in production? Or if it is in production how do you plan on add the engine to the airframe and not adversely affect the traits already built into the aircraft of long loiter time and high speed?
4. How do you plan on designing a mechanism into the airframe to slow the aircraft down fast enough to successfully delivery the weapon and again not be overly complex for maintenance, add weight, or affect overal flight character of the airframe?

Tactically
1. Name the total number of IJAAF units that are currently trained as of 08DEC1941 in torpedo attack.
2. Do you understand that go like a bat out of heck is good for a bomber, but to be successful in deliever of a torpedo you need to slow the aircraft down and not impart too much kenetic energy into the torpedo to cause it either skip off the top of the water or dive deep and never surface in time to be successful in striking the target?
3. For the land war in China and the expected attacks into the Western colonies of Malay Pennusila and Dutch East Indies how many potential targets do you percieve that we in the IJAAF would strike compared to the better trained IJNAF units currently in French Indo-China, Taiwain, Marshalls, Carolinas and all the rest of our bases in our own co-prosperity sphere?
4. How many torpedoes does the IJAAF have on stock at this moment and how to you propose to pre-position them to the forward army airbases so they could be used to attack enemy shipping?
5. Since ‚Č‚µ (Keine, „N„u„„, Geen) of our pilots and crews are trained in torpedo attack, how do you propose to achieve this training to bring in proficency prior to our strike south on 08DEC1941?

Just because an airplane on paper looks like it might have the favorable stats to be something, doesn't mean it will be a winner at that additional mission. Remember what the Ki-46 Shiki was designed for and who it was designed for? The IJAAF, the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force; and it was designed to do long range high altitutde aerial recon of targets for IJAAF and IJA units. Additionally they didn't want the aircraft to be intercepted by any of the current generation of fighters that existed at that time and something that could fly a serious long time or long distance. That mandated the high speed and high altitude requirement (which to achieve the higher speeds mandated turbochargers in the later models with some improved engines) from the get go by the IJAAF. Also, just like the US Navy and the US Army were having fights about who was supposed to defend the coast lines; the IJAAF and IJNAF were having the same fights. So why would if the IJA expected to be using its aircraft and itself in China to carve a larger empire for itself, would it need torpedo bombers? Even more so when the only naval targets were river patrol boats and the few heavy Western Naval units typically only made it as far inland sometimes was Hankow.
By most people's agreement the listing of good multi-engined torpedo bombers should look like this:
1. Beaufighter TF.X
2. SM.79 Spariverio.

That is about it every thing else from the Beaufort down to even the Mosquito were considered stop gap and except for a few success with the Beauforts, most ended up preforming like the B-26's of the 38th Bombardment Group at Midway. Flying a mission in an aircraft that wasn't designed for and using a stop-gapped series of tools to carry a weapon. In turn the things that made that aircraft effective in one mission (high speed interdiction bomber) were nullified by the modifications to carry a torpedo.

As to the statement that the Brits were first and ahead of everyone with the idea of a 4 engine heavy bomber, please get a hold of the Boeing Corporation and let them know all of thier history is wrong.

Oh and high speed versus CAP tell that to the Regina Aeronautica crews who flew the SM.79 into the teeth of Allied Air Power during the Anizo Landings trying to do both torpedo and level bombing attacks. Remember you need to slow down to drop a torpedo or it will have been a wasted mission.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 10
RE: BETTY - 4/16/2012 7:31:06 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

Tactically
1. Name the total number of IJAAF units that are currently trained as of 08DEC1941 in torpedo attack.
2. Do you understand that go like a bat out of heck is good for a bomber, but to be successful in deliever of a torpedo you need to slow the aircraft down and not impart too much kenetic energy into the torpedo to cause it either skip off the top of the water or dive deep and never surface in time to be successful in striking the target?
3. For the land war in China and the expected attacks into the Western colonies of Malay Pennusila and Dutch East Indies how many potential targets do you percieve that we in the IJAAF would strike compared to the better trained IJNAF units currently in French Indo-China, Taiwain, Marshalls, Carolinas and all the rest of our bases in our own co-prosperity sphere?
4. How many torpedoes does the IJAAF have on stock at this moment and how to you propose to pre-position them to the forward army airbases so they could be used to attack enemy shipping?
5. Since ‚Č‚µ (Keine, „N„u„„, Geen) of our pilots and crews are trained in torpedo attack, how do you propose to achieve this training to bring in proficency prior to our strike south on 08DEC1941?


really this has nothing to do with "Dinah would make a good torpedo plane"

they changed it into a fighter... which is a lot more ridiculous








< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 4/16/2012 7:33:23 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 11
RE: BETTY - 4/16/2012 7:33:39 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
this is a bad torpedo plane






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 4/16/2012 8:12:36 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 12
RE: BETTY - 4/16/2012 7:35:21 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
guess what this one used to be.. slow and vulnerable just like the Sm79 and other axis junk




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 4/16/2012 7:38:52 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 13
RE: BETTY - 4/16/2012 7:37:07 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

Envy of the Luftwaffe..

this one was pretty good




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 14
RE: BETTY - 4/16/2012 7:41:39 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

by the way the maximum release speed for allied torpedoes (Mark13) was about 100mph..
.. japanese was 250-300mph .. torpedoes were one of the rare cases of weapon systems where japan
was more advanced

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 15
RE: BETTY - 4/16/2012 7:47:20 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

fast and streamlined, the Dinah was among the best japanese designs to see service

among other were Emily, Myrt, and Tojo




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 16
RE: BETTY - 4/16/2012 7:52:12 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

if you want another example of a bad design for the wrong purpose.. the first 30 betties were built as fighters





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 17
RE: BETTY - 4/16/2012 8:05:33 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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


one other note.. actually B-26s armed with a pair of British Mark XII torpedoes would have been pretty excellent
instead of 4, have 40 on midway, with decent fighter escort

but historycally,the lack of good torpedoes forced the USAAF to improvise anti-ship tactics (skip-bmbing),
fortunately they were profficient at it in time for the battle of the bismarck sea

japanese had excellent torpedoes but by 1943 had no way to deliver them to their targets
(the betties were relegated to night torpedo missions, and except for sinking the cruiser chicago, had no major success)

japanese torpedo planes were simply too slow and vulnerable, and their fighter escorts were worn down by the
attritional fighting above rabaul

what was required was either a heavily armored torpedo plane that could defend itself from enemy fighters
or a fast torpedo plane that could reduce the time available for interception



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 18
RE: BETTY - 4/17/2012 6:00:23 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 15004
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


if you want another example of a bad design for the wrong purpose.. the first 30 betties were built as fighters






It is a bit unfair not to say it was something WE did too! And equally unsuccessfully. It SOUNDED reasonable - a heavily
armed bomber had the range to escort sisters as bombers - but it could not keep up after they shed their loads!

Just because a plane is not fast does not mean it isn't a good torpedo plane - consider the Swordfish or the Vildebeeste.
Low altitude stability matters, as does range. The most interesting Japanese idea was probably the G7 - using
the two engine formula once again - but with armor, gun turrets - high speed too - and a 21 inch torpedo (similar to
the USN 22 inch torpedo but with far better performane because of oxygen technology) - it was rejected in favor of the G8
because of range - but it took too long to develop the G8 and it would have been too expensive to build 4 E planes in the
same numbers as 2 E planes - the G7 was actually pretty fair as a proposal.

PLUS to get us back to the topic - it was derived from the BETTY!

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/17/2012 6:01:35 PM >

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 19
RE: BETTY - 4/17/2012 6:06:16 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

It is a bit unfair not to say it was something WE did too!


Hehe..my point was just that Dinah was to Japan as Mosquito was to Britain

they just should have made a lot more of them

(and fewer sallys)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 20
RE: BETTY - 4/18/2012 5:10:09 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 15004
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf



one other note.. actually B-26s armed with a pair of British Mark XII torpedoes would have been pretty excellent
instead of 4, have 40 on midway, with decent fighter escort

but historycally,the lack of good torpedoes forced the USAAF to improvise anti-ship tactics (skip-bmbing),
fortunately they were profficient at it in time for the battle of the bismarck sea

japanese had excellent torpedoes but by 1943 had no way to deliver them to their targets
(the betties were relegated to night torpedo missions, and except for sinking the cruiser chicago, had no major success)

japanese torpedo planes were simply too slow and vulnerable, and their fighter escorts were worn down by the
attritional fighting above rabaul

what was required was either a heavily armored torpedo plane that could defend itself from enemy fighters
or a fast torpedo plane that could reduce the time available for interception





Apparently the Japanese agreed with you - which is why they bought the Francis - and not long afterwards - adopted
the Army Peggy. Peggy was truly remarkable, aside from being torpedo armed, in that it was jointly operated, often
on the same mission, and spectacularly successful. So much so it was a deep secret - and the reason we improvised
plans to invade Iwo Jima - which otherwise would have been ignored. That refueling base permitted attacks on B-29
bases - amazingly timed so they always caught the bombers armed and fueled just before take-off. We did not know
until after the war how they knew when? Not that those were torpedo attacks, nor daylight, fighter escorted attacks - but
Peggy was up to that as well.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 21
RE: BETTY - 4/18/2012 5:13:54 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 15004
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

quote:

It is a bit unfair not to say it was something WE did too!


Hehe..my point was just that Dinah was to Japan as Mosquito was to Britain

they just should have made a lot more of them

(and fewer sallys)



If you do it right - judge a plane for WHEN it was designed - Sally is perfectly fine.
It outlasted its successor, in spite of technical innovations on the Helen. Before the
war with us, Sally was modified to take a 500 litre bomb bay tank - replacing 4 bombs
which (a) were not carried to extended range or (b) were still carried on a max load
mission - only externally. Sally had good maneuverability and adequate bomb load
(at least relatively speaking to other options) - and was better armed than Japanese
light bombers were. I find I want more of em in 1941-2, just as IRL.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 22
RE: BETTY - 4/18/2012 4:15:27 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

IRL sallies were torched from the skies whenever they met any large fighter opposition.

IJAAF Bmbr units were totally impotent by 1943.

Sally remained in production due to the failiure and delay of better designs,
Sally remained in production because IJAAF neglected the idea of high speed or heavy Bmbers

USAAF could plaster Rabaul with B-24s while IJAAF could do nothing, repeat nothing - to port moresby

_____________________________

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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 23
RE: BETTY - 4/21/2012 3:50:57 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 15004
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Clearly you are not aware of The Siege of Rabaul. This is unusual in that it is in English, but isn't written
to glorify the Allied side of the war. But that is the hallmark of Henry Sakaida, its author: he is able to
read Japanese materials and bring them to limited markets in English. If this story was about some US unit,
there would be a movie based on it! Isolated units at Rabaul, which had been ordered to send off all its usable
planes and pilots, re-created an air unit from scrap, and from wounded pilots who had not been able to leave.
They eventually created bomber versions of the Zero, in addition to restoring Kates to service - and engaged
in surprise air strikes long after it was believed this was impossible. They would have loved to have had
some Sally's to play with, I am sure! What matters isn't so much what you have as what you do with what you
have. ISBN 1-883809-09-6

The book also has some curious historical items: the very first US guided "missile" attack (using large,
radio controlled model airplanes) went in on Rabaul. And its prisoners, who properly surrendered - even
creating a special plane with surrender crosses to set it up - were forced into slavery by the AUS forces,
were not given even food, never mind medicine - and were not regarded as POWs at all. [This isn't the
worst such example - on New Guinea an AUS brigade wiped out a surrendered Japanese formation - over
the objections of its own XO - and on Borneo Aussie troops turned over POWs, unarmed of course,
to natives for slaughter by, shall we say, creative means. Only in Burma did US and UK forces behave
in such ways: one veteran writing in a US history magazine reported no prisoners could be taken except
for interrogation, a process they would not survive. Then there was the contest between Navaho "code talkers"
and Ghurka's - which the Ghurka's won - by a gruesome means I won't describe.]

Not everything in history glorifies one side and condemns the other. Nor is technology God's means of insuring the superiority of
what Churchill called "The English speaking peoples." One of my chiefs said "the Japanese had the best
warships" - and eventually I learned he was substantially right. I myself saw us lose EVERY air engagement
for five months in a row to planes we regarded as obsolescent and too inferior to be concerned with. Before we
came up with solutions for our combat jets (dissimilar combat training and other things) I saw the improvised
use of A-1 Skyraider PROPELLER driven bombers flying fighter escort for F-4 JETS acting as bombers - to protect
the jets from MiGs that had superior horizontal maneuverability and the ability to exploit that. The vast majority
of enemy pilots in that war became aces - while USN managed only 2 pilots and 2 back seaters - and USAF 2 pilots
- although I count Col Olds as well - already an ace he scored 4 more - and had a chance to get one or two in
addition but opted to support his unit instead of set a record - which was the best choice. Inferior planes didn't mean
nothing could be done. It almost never does. The USAF commander in 1991 (Iraq), asked in front of cameras
"what could the Iraqi Air Force have done to make its planes more effective?" replied, instantly "they could have
flown em!" A hint he was right exists in the form of a single MiG-25 - not well fitted and sans wingman - went up -
got his kill - and lived to tell the tale without even losing his plane.

I would not like flying into combat on any Japanese plane, even if I had no political issues with the Japanese war
effort (which I do have). On the other hand, I know of missions where WE flew unarmored and very slow
transport planes into combat - to obtain vital intelligence with the sensors on board - or to provide fire support
for troops on the ground. If WE can rationalize why it is sane to fly slow planes without armor, perhaps we can
respect an enemy who did the same? For me, respect is a key concept - one not entirely bounded by wether or
not I agree with you - or even wether or not you are on the other side in a war we are fighting. I had more respect
for General Giap (whom I also hated) than for either of our top commanders in Viet Nam. Giap deliberately set out
to understand our concepts, and then devised means to negate them - technology notwithstanding.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/22/2012 12:47:27 AM >

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 24
RE: BETTY - 4/21/2012 7:58:30 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Guys, guys. This is topic about better representation of BETTY plane in game, not about theory of its historical performance.
Nobody have any data about bigger torpedo? Was it used as standard armament, since Second model?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf
if you want another example of a bad design for the wrong purpose.. the first 30 betties were built as fighters





What is exact description of this picture? Second page, I have linked earlier, have several drawings of transport BETTY types, and only one of them shows ANY MG as armament. On this picture I have also do not see any MGs.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 25
RE: BETTY - 4/22/2012 12:50:40 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 15004
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The QUALITY of torpedo varied - improved - over time - and is well modeled by the game system.
But the SIZE didn't change - although it was eventually considered replacing the torpedo with
a missile or an internal explosive charge for use if the plane dived into a ship (preferably an AP).

However, BIGGER torpedoes were considered for a decendent of the Betty - the G7M.
It would deliver a 21 inch long lance - not only delivering more punch - but from a greater stand
off range (slightly greater anyway - you would still have to get close to have much of a chance UNLESS
it was one of those huge Allied formations - where you could hardly miss if the torpedo ran for
20 nautical miles!!)


(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 26
RE: BETTY - 4/30/2012 9:53:42 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The QUALITY of torpedo varied - improved - over time - and is well modeled by the game system.
But the SIZE didn't change - although it was eventually considered replacing the torpedo with
a missile or an internal explosive charge for use if the plane dived into a ship (preferably an AP).

However, BIGGER torpedoes were considered for a decendent of the Betty - the G7M.
It would deliver a 21 inch long lance - not only delivering more punch - but from a greater stand
off range (slightly greater anyway - you would still have to get close to have much of a chance UNLESS
it was one of those huge Allied formations - where you could hardly miss if the torpedo ran for
20 nautical miles!!)

Sorry, wrong wording. I meant bigger WARHEAD.
I had dig further, and things are getting interesting. In-game torpedo Effect, and Penetration is identical to its Explosive Charge in lbs:
45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 1 had only 331 lbs, and:
quote:

This was a pre-war torpedo although still in service ten years later. "Nell" (G3M) torpedo bombers carried this weapon against the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse on 10 December 1941.


45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 2 452 lbs:
quote:

Compared to Mod 1, Mod 2 had a heavier explosive charge, a thinner air vessel and anti-roll stabilizers. It was first delivered in April 1941 and was carried into action by "Betty" (G4M) bombers against the Prince of Wales and Repulse. A version of this torpedo heavily modified for use in shallow waters was carried by "Kate" (B5N) attack planes at Pearl Harbor.


45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 3 this is in-game model, with 529 lbs.

45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 3 Improved, Mod 3 Strong, Mod 4 Strong and Mod 7 Strong
KAI 4 have 679 lbs, KAI 7 926 lbs. Date in Service 1944, and they were probably carried by late war BETTYs.

So, it seems, Japan should begin game with weaker torpedoes (and weaker should be used in port attacks).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 27
RE: BETTY - 5/7/2012 4:21:25 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

Yep.

The torpedoes need to be different --> weaker at start and better at the end

in my mod the IJN Nells and Jeans use Mod .1 (331 lbs),
Betty and Kates use Mod. 2,

mid war models Mod. 3 and late war Mod. 7

_____________________________

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

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 28
RE: BETTY - 5/7/2012 4:23:09 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

like this






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 29
RE: BETTY - 5/7/2012 4:25:11 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

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

jean




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> BETTY Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.125