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.
In any case, I got my materials from unpublished, Japanese sources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
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.
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.