Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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 >> Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 10:30:51 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
Greetings,

These are my top 5 worst used japanese planes during the war

5) A6M Zero: when used in the interceptor role

Japan built 11,000 zeroes, contrary to popular belief
these weren't all shot down at midway and the marianas

many were lost in the battles above rabaul,
many to the defensive fire of allied 2E and 4E

Zero should have been restricted as an escort for torpedo planes

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 11/30/2011 10:38:19 PM >


_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf
Post #: 1
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 10:31:39 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
4) Ki-45 Toryu: used as long range escort/fighter-bomber

Sollution: take out the fuel tanks (it carries 1200L ) and put in a
decent weapons package (quad 20mm with about 200 rounds each)
and use it for the 4E-destroyer role.

would have served them well during the new guinea campaign

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 11/30/2011 10:39:31 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 2
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 10:32:13 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
3) H8K Emily: used to keep an eye out for allied ships

Sollution: take out some of the fuel, add some more armour, guns, and ordnance
now you have a pretty good 4E that doesn't need an airfield, and is probably
the only japanese plane the hellcats have trouble to bring down

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 11/30/2011 10:35:43 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 3
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 10:32:32 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
2) Ki-46 Dinah: used to take pictures of allied airfields

Sollution: attach some racks for ordnance. The Dinah-II was faster
than the allied fighters of 1942, and the Dinah-III was tough to catch
even with corsairs and lightnings.

would have been a lot more effective than the sally/helen junk the IJAAF used

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 11/30/2011 10:36:08 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 4
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 10:33:12 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
1) C6N Myrt: used to take pictures of allied fleets

"no grummans can catch us" *lightbulb*

maybe take out the fuel and put a torpedo in instead
at 11meters long it is small enough to fit aboard all the IJN carriers
a Myrt flying at 370mph is better than a Jill at 300mph..or did the japanese
not understand the concept of speed?

They built more than 500 of them, to my knowledge not a single one
made a torpedo run against those essex carriers they photographed

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 11/30/2011 10:36:40 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 5
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 10:35:32 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Greetings,

These are my top 5 worst used japanese planes during the war

5) A6M Zero: when used in the interceptor role

Japan built 11,000 zeroes, contrary to popular belief
these weren't all shot down at midway and the marianas

many were lost in the battles above rabaul,
many to the defensive fire of allied 2E and 4E

Zero should have been restricted as an escort for torpedo planes


They were designed as a long-range escort.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 6
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 10:36:17 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

4) Ki-45 Toryu: used as long range escort/fighter-bomber

Sollution: take out the fuel tanks (it carries 1200L ) and put in a
decent weapons package (quad 20mm with about 200 rounds each)
and use it for the 4E-destroyer role.

would have served them well during the new guinea campaign


Everyone got that wrong initially.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 7
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 10:40:47 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

Sollution: take out some of the fuel, add some more armour, guns, and ordnance
now you have a pretty good 4E that doesn't need an airfield, and is probably
the only japanese plane the hellcats have trouble to bring down


IMO, I can't see F4F Wildcats, much less F6F Hellcats, having any difficulty bringing down an Emily, even one with self-sealing fuel tanks and some armor. There are a bunch of reasons why an Emily on recon isn't comparable to other 4Es and their circumstances of use. The biggest problem is that a .50cal packs an awful lot of punch and you'd need ALOT of armor to make anything flying relatively proof agains the .50. Were you to add enough armor to do the job right, you'd cut the Emily's range to 1/3.

Emily was a brilliant design as is. Like most amphib recon a.c., it wasn't going to last very long in a gunfight.

_____________________________

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 #: 8
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 10:48:13 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

2) Ki-46 Dinah: used to take pictures of allied airfields

Sollution: attach some racks for ordnance. The Dinah-II was faster
than the allied fighters of 1942, and the Dinah-III was tough to catch
even with corsairs and lightnings.

would have been a lot more effective than the sally/helen junk the IJAAF used


I have actually tried to figure out whether the Japanese used the Ki-46 II as bomber interceptor as well. Would have made a good plane with 2 or 4 20mm cannons?
Yet if you start attaching many arms, or even wing- or fuselage-mounted stores, it probably would loose its speed benefit quickly. The air friction and loss of lift is usually not small. Also: would the airframe support that additional weight, or would the wear increase too much to render it a viable option? Pretty sure the Japanese had reasons not to go that route on a large scale with the Dinahs? They are pretty good at their job as they are.

< Message edited by janh -- 11/30/2011 10:49:10 PM >

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 9
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 11:11:59 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

The biggest problem is that a .50cal packs an awful lot of punch and you'd need ALOT of armor to make anything flying relatively proof agains the .50.


Remember, much of the facts have been confabulated since the war ended 65 years ago and this will only continue into the future.
The facts of the game must not be confused with the facts of reality. In the game, the emily is given a durability of 48
and the Sunderland is given a durability of 60 (ridiculous). These are the facts of the game.

The facts of reality are as follows:

1) The .50 caliber is only a small 12.7mm round. Both the Luftwaffe and IJAAF had given up on using .50 caliber rounds
against the B-24 liberator. the IJN goes as far as to field-modify its Ki-61 fighters with german 20mm cannons,
to have any real chance to take down the B-24. It was calculated by the luftwaffe that approximately 20x20mm rounds
were needed to take down a B-24, .50 caliber rounds had practically no effect whatsoever

(except on the Television program "Dogfights" when the 12.7mm is the best round ever created )

2) The Emily and Liberator are comparable in their features (empty weight and size) except one, that is engine power.
The Liberator is powerd with 1200hp radials, the emily is powered by 1500 or 1800hp radials. This means that,
theoretically, an emily would fly much faster with a much higher power to weight ratio than a liberator. This is not the case.

The H8K2 and B-24J have the same speed (290 mph), the Emily's advantage in power-to-weight is mitigated by its capacity
to land on the water (a seaplane will usually suffer about a 20% loss in performance compared to an identical landplane).

The emily is a much better design than the Liberator, powered by high-performance engines however it suffers from
the penalties imposed on a seaplane. It is every bit the equal of the liberator in performance (including survivabiliity)

When attacked by P-39 aircobras with 37mm guns, a single emily managed to fight them off

"Cannon fire from the fighters exploded in the rear gunner's compartment.
The planes continued their attack until they ran out of ammunition.
The Emily made it safely back to base."


Much of the popular knowledge of the war is based on films, secondary or teritiary sources, or even war games.


quote:

Were you to add enough armor to do the job right, you'd cut the Emily's range to 1/3.


Yes that would be perhaps correct (that means 8 hexes normal, 12 hexes extended)
Probably such a version would have been more useful than Emilies built as transports. As it was, the IJN had no effective
land-based bomber that could withstand opposition in a deliberate battle

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 11/30/2011 11:12:28 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 10
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 11:24:54 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

I have actually tried to figure out whether the Japanese used the Ki-46 II as bomber interceptor as well. Would have made a good plane with 2 or 4 20mm cannons? Yet if you start attaching many arms, or even wing- or fuselage-mounted stores, it probably would loose its speed benefit quickly. The air friction and loss of lift is usually not small. Also: would the airframe support that additional weight, or would the wear increase too much to render it a viable option? Pretty sure the Japanese had reasons not to go that route on a large scale with the Dinahs?


The Dinah carried a massive amount of fuel internally, and that could easliy be replaced with an internal bay like that fitted on the D4Y
(so less fuel to maintain the same speed)

quote:

They are pretty good at their job as they are.


Agreed. The Dinah is an excellent recon plane, should have been used as a Recon AND a strike plane.

Mosquito?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 11
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 11/30/2011 11:48:59 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

The facts of the game must not be confused with the facts of reality. In the game, the emily is given a durability of 48
and the Sunderland is given a durability of 60 (ridiculous). These are the facts of the game.


A fair point.

quote:

The facts of reality are as follows: 1) The .50 caliber is only a small 12.7mm round. Both the Luftwaffe and IJAAF had given up on using .50 caliber rounds against the B-24 liberator. the IJN goes as far as to field-modify its Ki-61 fighters with german 20mm cannons, to have any real chance to take down the B-24. It was calculated by the luftwaffe that approximately 20x20mm rounds
were needed to take down a B-24, .50 caliber rounds had practically no effect whatsoever


Well, I don't want to do the ".50cal vs 20mm debate" because it's been done everywhere.

Does it thwart the F6s to add all that armor? Dunno. The US had dedicated AP/Incendiary/jacketed ball load outs. With penetration on the order of 25mm at short range, which is where most A2A kills occurred, I don't see how you can hang enough armor on an Emily or anything else. The engines and canopy will always be very vulnerable to .50s in ways that they weren't so vulnerable to .30s.

quote:

(except on the Television program "Dogfights" when the 12.7mm is the best round ever created )


Never seen it. If you needed to kill a big heavy plane in a big hurry, 30mm was the way to do it. That's why everybody switched to bigger guns and HEs when jets came along.

quote:

2) The Emily and Liberator are comparable in their features (empty weight and size) except one, that is engine power.
The Liberator is powerd with 1200hp radials, the emily is powered by 1500 or 1800hp radials. This means that,
theoretically, an emily would fly much faster with a much higher power to weight ratio than a liberator. This is not the case.


The laminar wing on the B-24 makes some of that HP/Weight discussion complicated.

quote:

The emily is a much better design than the Liberator, powered by high-performance engines however it suffers from
the penalties imposed on a seaplane. It is every bit the equal of the liberator in performance (including survivabiliity)


Well, yes, but it was a seaplane, and therefore saddled with all the liabilities that made it a lousy 4E strategic bomber and a very good recon plane.

quote:

When attacked by P-39 aircobras with 37mm guns, a single emily managed to fight them off


Oh, yes. Look, any plane had it's good days. B-17s survived massive damage from FWs on some days, but they weren't hardly a huge problem to shoot down. And P-39s shot down Zeros or Oscars, and Wildcats shot down Emilies in droves "in real life." Eric Hammel, John Lundstrom, and Richard Frank have all documented that pretty well. Sometimes the Emilies get away. Sometimes they don't.

Back to your hypothetical up-armored Emily: what you're basically positing is a bird that weighs a bit more than a B-24, has less defensive armament, operates solo, generally, and is saddled with the performance liabilities of a seaplane, and the recon range of a medium bomber. I don't really see that as a great improvement over the Emily itself. Not if you want to continue to use it for recon anyhow. As a medium bomber? Maybe.

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?

_____________________________

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 #: 12
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 12:20:59 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
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






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 12/1/2011 1:06:08 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 13
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 12:51:41 AM   
Treetop64


Posts: 910
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: 519 Redwood City - BASE (Hex 218, 70)
Status: offline
Disagree about the Dinah.  One of the things that made it such an excellent recon plane is that it didn't carry ordnance.  Provision for carrying fuel is much less "weighty" and less complicated than provision for carrying ordnance, internally or externally.

Once you start adding weapons bays, hardpoints, etc., along with the corresponding increases in airframe weight to support this and to withstand the additional stresses, any performance advantages enjoyed by the original incarnation of the aircraft are quickly evaporated.


_____________________________



(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 14
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 12:59:17 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
While on the same theme,

this is the A6M2-21 without any modifications, just so that my mods to the scenario can be demonstrated




Accurizing the A6M2-21 specs as they were taught to me 20 years ago

speed: 328mph
wing loading: 107kg/m2

firepower ~ formula is muzzle velocity (ft/s) / 3000 x ammo supply (rounds per gun) /500


7.7mm increase range to 400, decrease effect to 1 (increase accuracy from 58 to 74 due to ammo)
20mm guns, increase effect to 5 (decrease accuracy from 21 to 4 due to ammo)



my system is that of accounting for ammo supply in the accuracy rating, and for supercharger type in the altitude
the system of mvr changes due to altitude is flawed, because it is really speed that changes with altitude. In reality a single
speed supercharger is innefective at 20,000 feet and a plane will approach stalling speed due to a loss of engine power, so the system is as follows


1 stage supercharger: max altitude 20,000 feet - 50% mvr penalty betweed 15K to 20K
2 stage supercharger: max altitude 30,000 feet - 25% mvr penalty at 1K to 15K, 25% penalty between 20K to 30K
3 stage mechanical or turbocharger: max altitude 35,000 feet - 50% mvr penalty at 1k to 15k, 25% penalty 15K to 20K

remember..in the real world those that function at high altitidue do not do so well at low altitidue (Mig-3 anyone?)
altitude advantages mean that the first pass goes to the plane with the better supercharger, that is how the allies
managed to defeat the japanese fighters. A Zero would be dogfighting with Corsairs above rabaul, and out would come
a Lightning from 30,000 feet and shoot it down.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 12/1/2011 1:03:52 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 15
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 11:47:00 AM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
Zero only had 2 stage supercharger.

Zero's greatest disadvantage wasnt really the fragile airframe or lack of protection IMHO. P-39 also caught fire after first burst as did Hurricane, early Spitfires and many others. Against bigger than rifle caliber weapons the armor often might as well not have been there. Zero was pretty good up high too - not fast, but it still enjoyed the climb advantage especially at low speeds and in thin air the airspeeds(speeds in relation to mass of air) tended to be slower than at lower altitudes, slightly favoring Zero's maneuverability. However, it could be disengaged at will as it was slow. For whatever reason the Zero had very small control surfaces, especially ailerons, and had high stick forces at high speeds and rolled very bad. Why the Japanese used long, thin ailerons(other than they were good for low speed handling) I dont know - perhaps the structure of the wing limited their size. Speed and roll were the number 1 and number 2 advantages for a fighter and against its typical opponents the Zero lacked them both. Those 2, by the way, were the same advantages F6F and F4U had over most of the Japanese hardware, Fw 190 had over Soviets, P-40, P-38, Spitfire and P-47(and at high speeds, P-51) had over Bf 109...

Big image here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg


About the firepower stuff... Penetration or kinetic energy of the round or kinetic energy a gun shoots in a time unit isnt everything. The target, plane, is not just a plate with soft, destroyable, stuff behind it. Someone will have to dig up the study for me, but post-war, it was understood that a plane will go down to same amount of destructive energy(on average) regardless of the form - kinetic as in ability to penetrate or chemical as in incendiary and/or explosive with the shrapnels adding penetration. Those projectiles either keeping their energy best over long distances(while also being accurate), such as 20mm AP/API/APIT or .50 cal rounds, would have great advantage over rifle cal weapons even if numbers of shot bullets would be small. Better yet would be using explosive shells where majority of the shell's lethality(energy) would be in the explosive content and the shrapnels it would accelerate. An Mk 108 or Mk 103(latter with greater Ke) 30 mm Minengeschoss shell had 5-6 times the lethality of a 20mm MG151/20 Minengeschoss shell and was more likely than not to cut a single engine plane in half while the gun(Mk 108) itself was only twice as heavy.

_____________________________


(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 16
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 2:40:55 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9037
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Zero only had 2 stage supercharger.


Actually a 2 speed, single stage. People miss-name these a lot, most web sources are inaccurate and even a lot of literature has it wrong. If you want to know exactly what the scoop is, head on over to the Smithsonian. They have a number of engines recovered from the war, all accurately tagged with date recovered and plane model that they orginated from. If you know what you are looking at**, its easy to identify multi-speed versus multi-stage versus twin chargers. The real deal.

Japan had a lot of trouble developing multi-stage superchargers for production and had to use multi-speed chargers instead. Lower tech and lower performance. They also lagged badly in developing twin chargers (combination super charger and turbocharger) for production. Without going into the details here*, you want multi-stage super chargers for high performance for short periods and twin chargers for good performance over the long haul. So, fighters get multi stage super chargers, bombers, recon etc all get twin chargers.

They had these devices, but were very slow in getting them into production. The Dinah had such great performance largely due to the fact that its engines were twin charged, unlike most other IJ aircraft of the time. Late in the war, both multistage and twin chargers were in common use (late 44 and on).

I have not been able to obtain concrete data on whether this lag was due to production capabilites, lack of focus, lack of materials, all of the above, or something else. My opinion is NIH + lack of focus. However, data clearly shows that for whatever reason they did not get them into production until late '43 and into '44. This was a key factor in the delays of the Homare engine.

* you want details, head on over to your local NHRA race, wander into the pits and have a talk with a team engineer. They'll pull up their intake profile program and show you all the possibilities. If designers had that software back in the 40's ... Wow.

** yes, I am a motor head. Up until last Wed my daily driver was a '68 Mustang built to achieve 30mpg @ 90mph. Then Wed morning at 0530, a little gal decided she wanted to hitch a ride in my passenger seat with her 2011 BMW. Totaled. Looking for a new frame now ... anyone see one, PM me. Thanks.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 17
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 3:24:51 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 17568
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

3) H8K Emily: used to keep an eye out for allied ships

Sollution: take out some of the fuel, add some more armour, guns, and ordnance
now you have a pretty good 4E that doesn't need an airfield, and is probably
the only japanese plane the hellcats have trouble to bring down


Wow, thinking about it, if they had built a couple thousand of these, it would have won the war for Japan!

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 18
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 4:11:52 PM   
nashvillen


Posts: 3826
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Christiana, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

3) H8K Emily: used to keep an eye out for allied ships

Sollution: take out some of the fuel, add some more armour, guns, and ordnance
now you have a pretty good 4E that doesn't need an airfield, and is probably
the only japanese plane the hellcats have trouble to bring down


Wow, thinking about it, if they had built a couple thousand of these, it would have won the war for Japan!


5 factories of H8K at 30 each for 150 production a month x 4 Ha32 engines each for 600 engines in 5 factories of 60 each = 13,500 HI a month, or 450 a day. To get to 2000 aircraft you will need 180,000 HI, plus the HI for the training of the aircrews to man them. You also have the PP cost to convert air units to the 4E.

Sorry, the JFB in me would like to have this, but the cost!

_____________________________


(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 19
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 4:35:35 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

P-39 also caught fire after first burst


No, it did not. The only fire issues with 39s were in early YP-39 models because the airflow over the Allison in-line was insufficient to keep it cool. No deployed P-39 had that problem. All deployed P-39s had fuel tank liners (self sealing), and armor around critical components. I'm not sure about the export P-400s though.

quote:

Zero was pretty good up high too - not fast


I don't think that is correct. The problem with high altitude is that in thin air you need to go faster to maintain altitude. Any sort of maneuvering on the A6Ms part above about 22K resulted in serious loss of lift both due to loss of airspeed and changes in pitch and roll affects on airflow.

quote:

but it still enjoyed the climb advantage


At altitudes below 18,000 feet and airspeeds lower than 340 IAS that was true. With the faster Allied models the Zero had a better climb rate in standard "ground to altitude" (takeoff to ceiling tests) because both planes started slow and low. A fast moving allied a.c. in, for example, a meeting engagement, moving at 360+IAS, tended to climb better than the Zeke merely because of the superior airspeed.

That is why the Zero was WONDERFUL indeed a BRILLIANT design for low speed turning engagements, and an aluminum dog for high speed boom and zoom engagements.

quote:

Penetration or kinetic energy of the round or kinetic energy a gun shoots in a time unit isnt everything. The target, plane, is not just a plate with soft, destroyable, stuff behind it. Someone will have to dig up the study for me, but post-war, it was understood that a plane will go down to same amount of destructive energy(on average) regardless of the form - kinetic as in ability to penetrate or chemical as in incendiary and/or explosive with the shrapnels adding penetration.


Not really. One of the problems experienced by both German and Japanese interceptors was that the 20mm Hispano had poor penetration. Worse, really, than the US .50cal (so judging by some of the spec sheets above, the pen numbers on the 20mm are incorrect). The problem was that the 20mm HE round simply lacked the necessary ap cap to penetrate the armor on most allied a.c. That is why there are so very, very, very many accounts of P-39, P-40, and F4-F drivers being saved from Zeros by the mere fact of the backseat armor.

In many ways, the Zero's worst problem wasn't the low velocity HE cannon, but instead the lack of sufficient penetration. If it had mounted two 12.7mm MGs with belt loads that included some fully jacketed, ballistic tipped rounds, they'd have found all targets from B-17s down to P39s easier to destroy.

quote:

Better yet would be using explosive shells where majority of the shell's lethality(energy) would be in the explosive content and the shrapnels it would accelerate.


To kill an a.c. you need to damage a critical system. There is a lot of void space on any given WW2 a.c. Shrapnel exploding against the armored seatback of an F4-F wildcat tended mostly to punch holes in the fuselage in places that did not affect the flying characteristics of the plane. There was also, behind the seat, an inflatable rubber raft that would tend to get shot up.

quote:

An Mk 108 or Mk 103(latter with greater Ke) 30 mm Minengeschoss shell had 5-6 times the lethality of a 20mm MG151/20 Minengeschoss shell and was more likely than not to cut a single engine plane in half while the gun(Mk 108) itself was only twice as heavy.


No 30mm was going to cut a single engine plane in half unless it hit something of great structural importance. It did not have sufficient bursting charge. That said, it was much more powerful than the 20mm, and a 30mm hit on a gas tank or engine was probably usually a disaster for the target.

P-39s in USAAF service sported a 37mm cannon. It was a piece of junk as A2A weaponry goes, because it had feeding problems. But when it hit, it tended to cause massive damage. Eric Bergerud mentions a case in New Guinea where a P-39 paid a visit to a Zero and the explosions in the engine mount tore the engine of the Japanese plane.

_____________________________

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 nashvillen)
Post #: 20
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 4:48:18 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
The 37mm on the USAAF P-39s was the Browning M4. 33 round belt fed. 2000 FPS muzzle velocity. Mostly loaded with HE but there were apparently AP rounds made with a rated penetration of 25mm at 500 yards. It was the same as the 37mm automatic cannon mounted on USN PT boats, and not to be confused with the 37mm cannon developed for US light tanks and early production ATGs.

Apparently the belt feeding problems were solved by the time Bell started producing the P-63 Kingcobra for export to the USSR.

_____________________________

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 mdiehl)
Post #: 21
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 5:55:42 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 17568
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nashvillen


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

3) H8K Emily: used to keep an eye out for allied ships

Sollution: take out some of the fuel, add some more armour, guns, and ordnance
now you have a pretty good 4E that doesn't need an airfield, and is probably
the only japanese plane the hellcats have trouble to bring down


Wow, thinking about it, if they had built a couple thousand of these, it would have won the war for Japan!


5 factories of H8K at 30 each for 150 production a month x 4 Ha32 engines each for 600 engines in 5 factories of 60 each = 13,500 HI a month, or 450 a day. To get to 2000 aircraft you will need 180,000 HI, plus the HI for the training of the aircrews to man them. You also have the PP cost to convert air units to the 4E.

Sorry, the JFB in me would like to have this, but the cost!


Details, details!

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 22
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 7:07:45 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25317
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
Wow, thinking about it, if they had built a couple thousand of these, it would have won the war for Japan!


Imagine!

_____________________________


(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 23
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 7:28:43 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2218
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 24
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 7:57:25 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Well, it would have been heavier. Fewer rounds per gun but more penetration for each round. They 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. The Ho-103 used the 12.7x81SR Breda round (34.2 grams), which was lower velocity than the Browning and lighter weight (45.4 grams for the BMG), but DID come in AP and incendiary loads.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 12/1/2011 8:03:53 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 #: 25
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 8:26:56 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 26
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 9:00:08 PM   
pharmy

 

Posts: 272
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

3) H8K Emily: used to keep an eye out for allied ships

Sollution: take out some of the fuel, add some more armour, guns, and ordnance
now you have a pretty good 4E that doesn't need an airfield, and is probably
the only japanese plane the hellcats have trouble to bring down


It had more firepowe on board then a b17f and was much more heavily armed then the famous nicknamed (by the Germans) Flying Porcupine Sunderland. The Sunderland had 16x 7.7mm guns and two x12.7mm guns, the b17 G had 13 x12.7s (0.5 brownings), while the H8K2 had 5 x20mm cannons and 3to5 x7.7mgs. Although the reason the Sunderland was usually successful in defense was the fact that its crews dived low since they had no ballturret, and most of their opponents were long-range German Bombers/Patrol aircraft/me110s. Also unusually for Japanese a/c, he emily also had 6 self sealed fuel tanks with carbon dioxide fire suppression systems. It was also faster then all the patrol planes and the b-17s. Yet a swarm of fighters operating in concert could almost always shoot them down. Perhaps a better durability rating should be used.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 27
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 9:09:30 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
"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.

_____________________________

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 #: 28
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 9:21:14 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25317
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Greetings,

These are my top 5 worst used japanese planes during the war

5) A6M Zero: when used in the interceptor role


many were lost in the battles above rabaul,
many to the defensive fire of allied 2E and 4E



How many?



_____________________________


(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 29
RE: Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes - 12/1/2011 9:52:39 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

5 factories of H8K at 30 each for 150 production a month x 4 Ha32 engines each for 600 engines in 5 factories of 60 each = 13,500 HI a month, or 450 a day. To get to 2000 aircraft you will need 180,000 HI, plus the HI for the training of the aircrews to man them. You also have the PP cost to convert air units to the 4E.

Sorry, the JFB in me would like to have this, but the cost!


the cost is worse than you think

The entire HI points system is completely *borked* as they say.. Emily costs 18 tons of aviation metal whereas a typical 1 engine plane
costs about 2 tons (so really an emily should be as expensive as 9 single seat fighters )

Aluminum is not steel, at their peak in 1943, japan produced 8 million tons of steel and 0.14 million tonnes of aluminum,
so technically

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Production/Japan/Military-production.htm

an HI center should generate 50 times more steel than aluminum

don't worry about the PP points for units though
it is forgotten that a "unit" is just a piece of paper

the real things are 1) planes 2) pilots 3) AV support crews

"units" were created from the planes that were available,
whereas since the days of WITP vanilla we are left with a few "units"
and (if there is not much fighting) THOUSANDS of planes sitting arround in the pools

of course, if all HI is converted to AC production and we cancel all ships and ground forces,
the 6950 HI centers are capable of producing about 480,000 planes (hence why the AFBs complain,
unless these are biplanes made of wood, this is totally absurd)

things that need to be addressed:

1) distinction between Aluminum and Steel
2) just give us lots of empty TO&E spaces that we can fill as we choose (as they did in the real war)

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 12/1/2011 10:51:50 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Top 5 worst uses for Japanese planes 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

0.168