PDA

View Full Version : realistic IJAAF fighter campaign



Rammjaeger
05-18-2006, 07:08 AM
So far I haven't yet flown the IJA fighter campaign with what one could call proper settings (limited ammo etc.) but I'd like to fly it during the summer. I wonder about what would be the most (historically) accurate plane settings.

1. the Ki-43

According to this article, the Ki-43-Ib was the only variant of the Ki-43-I series that saw widespread action, yet it is impossible to fly that variant in either Malaya or New Guinea without altering the DGen file:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm

If this is true, only the Ki-43-Ib saw widespread use in Malaya and New Guinea - although I'm not sure any IJAAF planes were deployed in New Guinea as early as July 1942. Moreover, I don't know much about a) in what areas did the Ki-43-I series see combat b) when were the I series phased out and replaced by the II and then the III series (obviously the Ki-43 remained in service to the very end of the war).

I don't know what type(s) of IJAAF fighter(s) were deployed during the defense of Tarawa in Nov 1943. Ki-43s, Ki-61s, or both? AFAIK the Ki-44 and the Ki-61 was also in IJAAF service at that point.

2. the Ki-61

"The Hien entered combat in the spring of 1943 in the New Guinea war zone, covering New Guinea, the Admiralty Islands, New Britain, and New Ireland."

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1157

"Initial deliveries were made in February 1943 to the 23rd Dokuritsu Dai Shijugo Chutai at Ota, which acted as a conversion and training unit. The Hien initially entered combat in April 1943 when the 68th and 78th Sentais were transferred to the New Guinea theatre of operation. The aircraft subsequently appeared in every theatre in which the Japanese Army was involved. The Ki-61 immediately proved itself to be better suited for combat against its heavier-armed Allied opponents than was the Ki-43 Hayabusa."

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-61.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-61.html)

This would imply that the first variant(s) of theKi-61 could possibly have seen action over Tarawa. Yet again, I don't know when and where was the Ki-61-Ib introduced and when was the Ki-61-Ia eventually phased out (if it was phased out, of course). Maybe the Ki-61-Ib also saw service at Tarawa?

AFAIK the "Ki-61-I Hei" that is flyable in PF is actually a modified Ki-61-Ia/b armed with imported MG 151 cannons. Most sources agree that 388 such planes were in IJAAF service. In reality the Ki-61-Ic had the same armament as the Ki-100-I, which was basically a Ki-61-II with a different engine :

"Combat experience showed that the Hien was still somewhat underarmed, especially when it was going up against well-protected Allied bombers. Pending the availability of indigenous cannon, plans were made to replace the wing-mounted machine guns of the Ki-61-Ia and Ib aircraft with Mauser MG 151 20 mm cannon imported from Germany. Since space in the wing was limited, the cannon had to be mounted on their sides, with a small underwing fairing covering the breech. Since the recoil forces from the cannon were larger than those from the machine guns, some local wing strengthening was required. However, as the war began to turn against Japan, the numbers of these German-supplied cannon became limited, and only 388 Ki-61-Ia and -1b Hiens actually received these guns."

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-61.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki-61.html)

Where did the 388 modified Ki-61-Is with the MG 151 cannons see service?

3. the Ki-84

Well, not much mystery there. The Ki-84 made ita combat debut in China and the Philippines, I very much doubt any were stationed in Palau as early as Sept 1944. Most sources agree that they saw action over Okinawa and the Home Islands. With respect to Okinawa, I have no idea. The Ki-84-Ib only saw combat over the Home Islands. In all likelihood, the Ki-84-Ic saw no combat.

4. the Ki-100-I

AFAIK all sources agree that it only saw combat over Japan.

All in all, I think the historically accurate plane settings in IJA fighter campaign (with altered DGen) are:

Singapore and New Guinea: Ki-43-Ib
Tarawa: Ki-61-Ia
Palau and Iwo Jima: Ki-61-Ib / Ki-61-Ic
Okinawa: Ki-84-Ia and later Ki-61 variants
Japan: Ki-84-Ia and Ib, Ki-100-I, later Ki-61 variants

Ki-43-II and III aren't flyable so I made no mention of them. The J2M3 Raiden was an IJNAF plane so you aren't supposed to fly it in an IJA campaign.

JG53Frankyboy
05-18-2006, 07:31 AM
the first IJAAF fighter unit deployed to the southwest pacific was the 11.Sentai send to Rabaul at 18.December 1942 - still flying Ki-43-Ic


Ki-100-I fought also over Okinawa - sure not often, as few Ki-100 were build in total, less than 400 of both versions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


actually you have not much maps now to fly, or better to start of, historicaly correct as an Army fighter pilot (nothing other possible as the game has only fighters for the Army flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ):
Malaya,Okinawa, Kyushu - about the Marianes im not sure if there were Army planes.

all other maps are Navy area , and the given NG map was totaly in allied hands when japanese Army units arrived http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

we will have to wait for Burma ,Manchuria and Nomonhan to have other IJAAF maps

JG53Frankyboy
05-18-2006, 07:46 AM
about the names given the Ki-61 series it depends on what sources/books/URL you read http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

some say that the MG151 armed one were only modifications of the Ki-61-Ib without a new name. and are giving the overworked (longer fuselage, same armamnet as Ki-100) the designation Ki-61-KAIc

other call them Ki-61-Ic

if you missed Billfish Hien topic
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m...361042353#8361042353 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/1111011353/r/8361042353#8361042353)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEBillfish
05-18-2006, 09:52 AM
Hi Rammjaeger;

What you're seeing is a lot of "generic" information. There are a number of books on the subjects of these planes and the battles they fought, with much too much information to fit into "a" post....So here are some initial points & from there if you'd like I can suggest some books or answer specific questions.

As to the Ki-43;

If the IJAFC (Imperial Japanese Army Flying Corps)...was there, so was the Ki-43. As Frankyboy mentions the 11th arrived late 1942 at Rabaul, soon followed by the 1st. Those groups actually were quickly moved to the Solomons, and saw the only IJAFC action ever fought over Guadalcanal on January 27th, 1943. However, they were very quickly driven back so for all intensive purposes except for withdrawing to New Britain had no further activity in the Solomon Chain.

As to Mr. Dunn's report as with all his work it is well thought out and I most certainly would not question it. However, to a certain degree you need to note the points he makes and the reasons he makes them. The 1b though in the end being the dominant configuration was not necessarily how they were made. There was no Ki-43-1a or 1b or 1c...Infact, there was supposedly I believe no Ki-43-I-Ko....At the time all simply Ki-43, and once the Ki-43-II arrived, they if referring to an older type possibly just adding the "I" to it.

What you see in the standard books as to being "1a-1c" is how minor variations that were found were described by whomever. Initially it is "my understanding"....Just a handful of "1a" configured sent out due to the guns on hand....Perhaps a few 1b, possibly not, yet the 1c configuration the way the plane was for the most part manufactured.........However,

....be it due to notorious jamming of the 12.7mm Ho-103, or possibly ordinance available, or replacement weapons, to even perhaps just personal preference, many Ki-43-I were found to be of the 1b configuration, even "field" manuals to make the conversion found.....Yet by no means were the only type.

Anywho, all further actions of the Ki-43 in that sphere would have quickly shifted to just New Britain and New Guinea.....Other units such as the 248th, 77th, 33rd, & others soon pulled there to help support the 4th Kokugun bringing with them whatever they were flying at that moment..........As replacements were needed, eventually shifting to the Ki-43-II (which we will soon have).

What you may find interesting before we move on however is that due to how replacements were often made (the majority of the unit rotated to say Truk or Manila by transport to fly the replacements in)...They quite often left their old planes, the few in service often used by the 68th & 78th which were Ki-61 units.

As to the Ki-43's use in Tarawa, that I do not know yet would find very very unlikely (to the point of saying never).......However, I can say with "reserved" confidence that the Ki-61 never served there.......In fact I would doubt that there were EVER any Japanese Army anything utilized there..........Never the less if the IJAFC was somewhere, you'd most likely find Ki-43.....It really was used in every conflict the Japanese Army Flying Corps were involved in clear through to the end.

Ki-44's......

Were never used in the New Britain/New Guinea area that I know of.....Japanese Army fighters in that area would have been limited to the Ki-43-I & II, Ki-45, Ki-61-I, 1a-1d.

Ki-61:

For the most part you can limit all Ki-61 "focus" to New Britain (with very very limited patrols toward the slot...very few), New Guinea, Truk "possibly" in its defense as it was a depot point, the Philippines, Formosa, Okinawa, Japan........There was some VERY limited use in Malaya, Burma, Sumatra and China, yet all of those from what I understand were "training units" that in the end used what they had for defense, yet were by no means a force of consequence.

The Ki-61 initially arrived at New Britain with the 68th Hikousentai in late April-Early May, the 78th soon following in June. Training primarily initially as Wewak bases were finished, they did not really begin to make a place until July, with all but 1 or 2 Chutai of the 68th moving there.

By August the 5th AIrForce under Kenny began their pounding often leaving available planes for the Hikousentais in the single digits as Ultra Intercept messages would inform them of new aircraft arrivals, and quite simply the next day they'd simply be destroyed.

As to Ki-61 types there the initial planes would have been Ki-61-I-Ko. Replacements most likely would have been Ki-61-I-Otsu....For all "intensive" purposes the Ki-61-I-Hei was nothing more then an Otsu with retrofitted cannon in the wings. Those in New Guinea retro fits, though it is possible some were delivered from Japan adding the Hei/1c enhancements (fire extinguisher system etc.).

There is also evidence of Ki-61-I-1d's or Tei/Hei Kai arriving.....These planes though much like the 1a-1c were in actuality VERY different. The nose was lengthened to make room for 20mm Ho-5 cannon in the "nose", 12.7 Ho-103 still used in the wings. The tail was changed to accommodate the balance shift, and other enhancements made...........However, other then armament it is NOTHING like a Ki-61-II which never saw service there, and most assuredly never the Ki-100.

The Ki-61-II was significantly more advanced, yet they did not make deliveries until August of 44, New Guinea long over by then.

For the balance of the war as said above, Ki-61 service for the most part would be out of the Philippines, then Formosa, Okinawa, Japan. The Islands you mention I doubt ever saw Ki-61 service. Yet I'd be interested in seeing any "documentation" to that regard.

What you need to consider is this....Imagine the Japanese "Navy" sweeping out over the pacific like a flood, the Army West......Once established in late 42, the Army moving a "single" Air Army group the 4th Kokugun to New Guinea, so filling in the western and southern edge as the Navy frantically fought to hold points N.E.......Now Imagine using a map they are pushed back along NewGuinea's N. coast and finally off.....Then driven up from both S.E. & S.W. North to the Philippines......From there on to Formosa, then to Okinawa, then back to the home Islands.....That would be the activity of Army groups east of the Philippines.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/advret.jpg

Rammjaeger
05-18-2006, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Hi Rammjaeger;

What you're seeing is a lot of "generic" information. There are a number of books on the subjects of these planes and the battles they fought, with much too much information to fit into "a" post....So here are some initial points & from there if you'd like I can suggest some books or answer specific questions.


That would be helpful, thanks. I'm from Eastern Europe, so I guess you should mention the most widespread books on this subject - more chance of finding them here.

All in all, are you asserting that

a) there were no IJAAF units stationed anywhere in New Guinea in July 1942

b) there were no IJAAF units stationed at either Tarawa or Palau at ANY point, not to mention a certain period prior to US invasions of those islands? What about Iwo Jima?

Wasn't the IJAAF defending Tarawa, Palau, Iwo Jima from American invaders?

Sounds amazing. I guess this sim is more historically inaccurate than I thought.

LEBillfish
05-18-2006, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
That would be helpful, thanks. I'm from Eastern Europe, so I guess you should mention the most widespread books on this subject - more chance of finding them here.

All in all, are you asserting that

a) there were no IJAAF units stationed anywhere in New Guinea in July 1942

b) there were no IJAAF units stationed at either Tarawa or Palau at ANY point, not to mention a certain period prior to US invasions of those islands? What about Iwo Jima?

Wasn't the IJAAF defending Tarawa, Palau, Iwo Jima from American invaders?

Sounds amazing. I guess this sim is more historically inaccurate than I thought.

Ok, first off it's important that you understand that the IJA & IJN were two VERY different forces. Each group had their own planes, tanks, ships, aircraft carriers, Seaplanes, ground forces, etc.. They each though possibly even using in some cases exactly the same weapon or item would name/number it differently.....They were totally seperate groups though both fighting for the same nation/leader.

The army leading up to 1943 primarily focussed on points west of Japan, the Navy points east. However, they both were often used (ex. Singapore) as a coordinating force when needed yet rarely.

Up till mid 42, the Pacific region was primarily the Navy's responsibility. Now that does nt mean nor can I say for a fact there were not Army units spread about there....But much like Marines used on a ship for security, they were sparse if existant at all.

However, the Navy had begun to be overtaxed by the Allies and their losses were mounting so it became an opportune time for the Army forces to become more involved........Now we're speaking from primarily an "air units" point of view, ground forces I cannot speak to as my studies have been focussed upon New Guinea and the 4th Kokugun from mid 43 on.........However, it is very possible the only "ground forces" in New Guinea in 42 were soley Navy, the Air forces significantly so.

Now we know there were "some" Army Air personel in Rabaul, as Ki-27 were found there I believe. Yet for the most part it was not until late 42 that the Army began any sort of build up to relieve the Navy. The Navy then somewhat switching roles pulling out significantly, yet leaving some units in place as they were driven back out of the Solomons.

Were their Army units at the Islands you named?....I don't "know" not having researched it........However I'd find it unlikely in that even Truk was primarily just a depot of sorts for the Army....More so, look where Tarawa is, it would require the use of significant Sea type army forces to keep it supplied....and though they had them they were limited and those events earlier then their focussed activity.

The Navy was the primary group among the small Islands, the Army larger land masses......

However, post whatever quotes or documentation you have....If it says "Army" or the planes listed start with "Ki-" I'll be glad to look into it.

Lastly, remember that though the makers of this sim "plane wise" try to make them very historical......History wise they're IMLTHO trying to keep it entertaining.......So do NOT base what you believe history to be from the Sim.

As to books there are many, on 10 fold more topics....What specifically are you interested in learning about and from which sides viewpoint?......Understand too, to say "all the battles of the pacific" would only entail roughly a bazillion pages and thousands of books.....So be specific.

Nimits
05-18-2006, 05:51 PM
I realistic IJAAF fighter campaign, based on the maps we have, would cover Singapore, 1941-1942; New Guniea, December 1942; Iowa, 1945; Okinawa, 1945; and Kyushu, 1945. There is also historical room for "defensive" (bomber interceptor) operations for Kyushu, 1944; Iowa, 1944; and Okinawa, 1944. The IJAAF Tarawa, Palau, and Mariannas campaigns are entirely fictitious.

Ernst_Rohr
05-18-2006, 06:10 PM
Billfish is pretty much bang on with the IJA/IJN split of AOR. The Navy and the Army were competing with each other in governmental circles and the Army, in particular, had a pretty chip on its shoulder.

When New Guinea rolled around, the IJN was in a bit of a bind though. Most Japanese planners assessments of the campaign troop requirements were well beyond what the Navy was capable of handling, and that meant bringing in the Army. Naval troops at the time were both limited, and a fairly eclectic group of units. Naval land forces did things like guard bases, provide security details, and in the most famous example, they had larger combat formations. The large combat formations were the SNLF (Special Naval Landing Forces). While the SNLF were roughly comparable to US marines in role, qualitativly they were not at the same level overall as the USMC or regular IJA units. While some units were very effective, others were 2nd line at best.

The fact that the IJN even HAD groud troops was a result of the both the internal bickering between services, and the huge prestige boost that the IJN had gotten from their victory agains the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war.

The IJN/IJA squabble had basicially forced the seperation of the various AOR's between east (Navy) and west (Army). As things heated up in the pacific islands, it was becoming apparent that larger numbers of troops were needed. The IJA used their success in China and Indochina to leverage a role in the campaign, but as a follow on force to the IJN.

The inital attacks into New Guinea were by carrier based forces, and they pretty much eliminated the exsisting units of the Australian air force. SNLF troops made landings in early march, and seized several smaller towns and one small airfield. Inital landings were soon reinforced by units of the IJA. Despite the presence of IJA ground units, the IJA air units did not follow until well into the year, with the first units becoming operational in December, almost eight months later. Primarily, the IJAAF units were delayed due to service infighting (and some operational commitments that the IJA downplayed), but after the Battle of Coral Sea in May, it became obvious that the IJN was in trouble and needed reinforcement.

The Japanese faced very little oppostion on the northern landings and grabbed a lot of territory very quickly. Too quickly in several cases, and due to insufficent supply and logistics, they spent a fair amount of time consolidating the areas captured and building in a infrastructure to support the large numbers of troops pouring in.

After the Coral Sea battle, the IJA optioned for an overland campaign, and went over the mountains in an attempt to take Port Moresby. By September, that offensive had petered out, and then the allied troops started to push the Japanese back. The IJA responded by rushing more troops and accelerating the deployment of aircraft to the theatre.

IJA air units were shuffled around, and then "assigned" to several airfields. The primary bases were Wewak, But, Boram, and Rapopo, but the IJA also had a network of secondary fields and some forward airfields for recovery and emergencies. Most of these fields were seen as less important by the IJN, who were in operation command of the theatre, and they stuck the IJA with them while they based the IJN air units out of the more historically famous airfields at Rabaul, Buna, and Lae.

IJAAF units operated under the 6th Army Flying Division (theatre command) in two air armies, the 4th and 22nd. Overall, the IJAAF had 18 Sentai that rotated through the New Guinea AO, and several independant Chutai. However, the IJAAF never had all 18 Sentai operating at the same time. IJAAF units trickled into the theatre piecemeal, and due to supply, combat losses, disease, and the rough conditions, IJAAF unit strengths for all units tended to be below normal, in some cases disasterously so, like the hard luck 248th.

Initial Sentai all operated the Ki-43, in all configurations. The Ki-61's didnt show up until early 1943, when the 68th and 78th Sentai tranferred into the theatre, they were the only OFFICAL units to operate the Ki-61. The Ki-61's where proceeded into the theatre by the Ki-43-II's, which were arriving in larger numbers, but the other Sentai continued to operate Ki-61-I aircraft at the same time as the Ki-43-II's, mainly since the supply of new aircraft was erratic, and due to the constant operational losses and damage.

As far as the game is concerned, its not very accurate for IJAAF units in New Guinea. IJAAF combat units didnt start active operations until December of 42, so the Ki-43's you see in mid 42 didnt exsist. IJAAF strength peaked in March/April of 43 and plummeted rapidly thereafter due to losses, lack of supply and lack of pilots. By the end of 43, the supply situation became so critical that most units were operating in numbers that made it impossible for them to be effective against allied units, they lingered on until April of 44, but after a series of actions of landings by the Allies and a relentless bombing campaign, the IJAAF units in the area ceased to be operational past that point. The remaining Sentai in the theatre were offical disbanded in July of 44.

J_Anonymous
05-18-2006, 07:25 PM
Today's Japan Self Defense Force does not have the US equivalent of Annapolis and West Point. All officers attend the same Defense Force Academy and receive the same training early in their career, so that officers of different branches get along throughout their career. In some operational theaters, IJN and IJA officers were not even on speaking terms because they loathed each other. I don't know exactly when the trend began but Naval Academy attracted the very best people and competed with Tokyo Imperial University (the most prestegeous university) for recruiting the best students. Japan is an island nation after all, when they think about "defense" or "war", the first thing that comes to mind was probably the ocean (there is no such thing as land border).

LEBillfish
05-18-2006, 11:13 PM
Thanks Ernst_Rohr for chiming in on the ground forces in PNG as though I have a lot of information on them I tend to skip over it to get to what I'm looking for. However, I would like to add to or contest possibly your account of air unit leadership there. What you mention up till mid 43, not beyond.

Started writing this out but found a text in "Japanese air operations in New Guinea, by Shindo Hiroyuki" that spells it out better...

"[Chapter 3] Japanese air operations in New Guinea
The commitment of army air forces to the South Pacific.

The next stage in Japanese air operations over New Guinea involved the deployment of
Japanese army air forces in the region. After the Americans landed on Guadalcanal
Island in the Solomons on 7 August 1942, the Japanese air forces based in Rabaul were
forced to make increasingly greater efforts in the Solomons, while continuing their
campaign against New Guinea. The air battle in the Solomons was fought principally by
naval aircraft and, as this commitment grew, the Japanese army€s air forces would play a
greater role over New Guinea.

On 11 November Hattori Takushiro, of the Army General Staff, called for the deployment
of army air forces to the region in order to regain air superiority. With estimates of
future American air power projecting 24,500 US air force and navy first-line planes
operating in the South Pacific by December 1943, it was now recognised that the most
urgent need facing Japan was to increase air power.

Faced with looming defeat on Guadalcanal, and with setbacks in their drive on Port
Moresby from the withdrawal of Japanese forces from Kokoda, the Japanese military
finally decided to commit some of its air forces to the South Pacific. On 18 November an
Army€"navy central agreement on operations in the South Pacific Area was signed, and
the 6th Air Division was committed to the New Guinea front. In accordance with the
agreement, 60 Nakajima Type 1 €œOscar€ fighters of the 11th Sentai (air group) reached
Rabaul via Truk on 18 December, and almost immediately became involved in air defence
operations (1st Hikousentai also came into theater). By the end of the month they were flying missions against targets such
as Buna on mainland New Guinea. On 29 December, army heavy bomber units were
ordered to deploy from Burma to New Guinea.

On 4 January 1943 the army and navy high commands ordered that operations on New
Guinea be continued. The purpose of Japan€s operations in the South Pacific was to
€œsecure a position of superiority€. Lae, Salamaua, Wewak and Madang on New Guinea
were to be strengthened or occupied, and the area north of the Owen Stanleys was to be
secured so that it could function as a base for operations aimed at Port Moresby. The
Japanese then had 164 army and 190 navy aircraft on their bases at Rabaul and the
surrounding area. Thereafter, Japanese air operations over New Guinea were conducted
principally by the army, operating out of Wewak and other bases.

Further commitment and destruction of army air forces

On 25 March 1943, in recognition of the importance of the New Guinea front to Japan€s
war efforts, a revised Army€"navy central agreement was concluded. This resulted in a
substantial commitment to the defence of Lae and Salamaua and the strengthening of
bases along the northern New Guinea coast, while a delaying operation would be fought
in the Solomons. The assault on Port Moresby, while officially still a long-term objective,
was, for all practical purposes, abandoned.

Reflecting this revised strategy, the army decided to strengthen its air forces in the New
Guinea area. The 68th and 78th Sentai of the 14th Air Brigade, flying the Kawasaki Type
3 €œTony€ fighter, arrived in Rabaul in late April and were duly deployed to New Guinea.
The 13th Sentai, flying the Kawasaki Type 2 €œToryu€ twin-engine fighter and the 24th
Sentai, flying the venerable €œOscar€ began arriving in Rabaul in late May.

The situation changed further when the Japanese discovered that the Allies were constructing
airfields in the New Guinea highlands, at Mount Hagen and Bena Bena, which
would threaten the Japanese airfields at Madang and Wewak. Ground operations to
meet these new threats were immediately planned. To provide further support the 7th
Air Division, which was formed in late January 1943, was deployed to Wewak on 19
June.

While the actual deployment of these air units was delayed due to the insufficient readiness
of bases in New Guinea, army air strength €" at least on paper €" was steadily reinforced
during this period. The army made another organisational change during this
period, when it created the 4th Air Army to exercise overall command over the 6th and
7th Air Divisions. The new air army was formed in mid-June, and its headquarters had
deployed to Rabaul by 10 August.

Eventually about a quarter of the army€s air forces would be committed to the South
Pacific. Considering that most of these units were the best that the army had, and would
be subjected to losses of approximately 50 per cent per month, this was indeed a major
commitment by the army.

The major 7th Air Division units deployed to New Guinea in July 1943 at this time were
the 59th Sentai (fighters), 5th Sentai, 7th Sentai (heavy bombers) and 61st Sentai (heavy
bombers). Meanwhile, on 9 July, the 6th Air Division also moved its headquarters to
Wewak."

So essentially, the 6th Hikoushidan (air Division), 7th Hikoushidan, & 14th Hikoudan ((Air Brigade) 68th & 78th Hikousentai) along with smaller independant Chutai were absorbed by the 4th Koukuugun (Air Army) for the remainder of the campaign. This is as far as I can find in all accounts is how the structure stood from late July/early August on........Naturally, the 5th AirForce and Kenny "the Beast" began their attacks once the lions share were stationed at Wewak on through Hollandia and till the end of the war essentially eliminating the 4th Koukuugun from its beginnings (kept units often to single digit to even 0 planes for much of the conflict).........(however I can state for certain some of the dates on this account are slightly off)


Size wise and often the order of command is as follows from top to bottom;

Kougun Koukuutai -or- Dai-Nippon Rikugun Koukuutai = Imperial Japanese Army Flying Corps
Koukuusogun = Supreme Air Army
Koukuugun = Air Army
Hikoushidan = Air Division
Hikoudan = Air Brigade
Hikousentai = Air Regiment
Chutai = Company
Shotai = Flight


Further I assembled the following from "MacArthur's Eagles, by Lex McAulay" which needs to be added and subtracted from as units rotated in and out (33rd & 248th Hikousentai a prime example).

The Nippon Rikugun Koukuutai (Japan Army Flying Corps)....formed the 4th Kokugun (AIr Army) on July 28th which was made up by the;

2nd Battalion, 102nd Regiment (airfield construction)

6th Hikoushidan (flying division) which included;
An air training brigade,
10th, 13th, 114th, 24th, 45th, & 208th Sentai
83rd Chutai
25th, 47th, 48th, 51st, 209th airfield battalions
22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th Airfield companies,
5th, 6th, 10th, 11th airfield construction units
2-9th Mobile repair squads,
73rd & 81st ground companies,
9th transport unit

14th Hikoudan which included the
68th & 78th Sentai
20th, 72nd, 81st Chutai
A raider unit
A photographic unit

12th brigade included
21st & 22nd AIrfield battalions,
23rd airfield company
1st regiment
two telephone & radio companies
5th air signals unit
4th Air inteligence unit
6th Meteorology unit
12th field meteorology unit
14th air repair depot
209th base depot
14th air supply depot
17th ship aircraft depot

7th Hikoushidan included
3rd & 9th flying brigades
5th, 7th, 59th, 61st, 75th Sentai
70th & 74th Chutai
20th, 28th, 35th, 38th, 40th airfield battalions
29th airfield companies
4th & 9th airfield construction units
three repair squads
298th automobile company
69th & 123rd ground company
43rd construction company

8th Naval development unit (to gather food and resources to be sent to japan)
9th Shipping engineer regiment


Rammjaeger, sorry you asked yet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Rammjaeger
05-19-2006, 01:11 AM
Thanks for all the info! It appears that there were no IJAAF units stationed in New Guinea in July 1942, or Tarawa in Nov 1943 or Palau in 1944. I guess we should rather have New Britain, Philippines and Formosa in the IJA campaign.

With respect to books, I'm mainly interested in the IJAAF air defense of the Philippines in 1944-45 and that of the Japanese home islands in 1945.

Ernst_Rohr
05-19-2006, 01:14 AM
Billfish,
I think thats more an "add to" rather than a "contest". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I did simplify the command structure somewhat, yours is more detailed.

As far as units go, the 4th Army was operationally in charge of New Guinea and based out of Wewak, and later, the Phillipines, and was based out of Manila. While the IJAAF commitment was signifigant, 4th army commanders were also very alarmed at the considerable losses that the New Guinea theatre was suffering, and by some sources delayed shipping replacements, supplies and new fighters to the AO due to those concerns. Additionally, some sources also cite evidence that 4th army rotated out several of the more famous Sentai for propaganda and morale purposes (and to conserve veteran pilots) while allowing the remaining Sentai in theatre to operate as attrition units. Looking at some of the unit histories tends to suggest that this has a element to truth to it. Operationa unit stregth for most units was 50% operational up to April of 43. After April of 43 unit strength dropped rapidly due to allied blockades and losses of supplies and replacements. By the summer most units averaged only 25% operational aircraft inventories, and some were drastically lower.

On the operationa end, the stuff I have lists the following Sentai as involved in New Guinea;
1st Sentai- 2nd unit in theatre, Dec 42, Ki-43
4th Sentai- April 43(?), Ki-45, pulled out for home defense and reequipped with Ki-84
5th Sentai- May 43, Ki-45, recalled to Japan, remained with Ki-45 for bomber intercept
6th Sentai- May(?)43, Ki-32 bomber
7th Sentai- May 43, Ki-49, recalled late 43
11th Sentai- 1st unit in theature, Dec 42, Ki-43
12th Sentai- May(?) 43, Ki-21 bomber
13th Sentai- May 43, Ki-43-II & Ki-45, recalled to Formosa (Taiwan) rearmed with Ki-45 & Ki-84
14th Sentai- May(?)43, Ki-21 bomber
24th Sentai- May 43- Ki-43-II, recalled Oct 43 to Manila and requipped with Ki-84
26th Sentai- May 43, Ki-43/Ki-43-II/Ki-44, recalled late 43 to Formosa/Okinawa (served in ever IJAAF theatre)
33rd Sentai- May(?)43, Ki-43/Ki-43-II/Ki-44, redeployed to CBI theatre late 43
59th Sentai- July 43, Ki-43 & Ki-43-II, recalled Feb 44 to Japan, requipped with Ki-61 and Ki-100
68th Sentai- June 43, Ki-61, destroyed in April 44, disbanded offically in July 44
63rd Sentai- June 43, Ki-43/Ki-27, destroyed, disbanded July 44 (seems to be an attrition unit)
77th Sentai- June 43, Ki-43/Ki-27, destroyed completely, no surviors, offically disbanded in July 44
78th Sentai- June 43, Ki-61, reduced to 0% strength due to attrition April/May 44, disbanded July 44
248th Sentai- Jun 43, Ki-43/Ki-27, destroyed completely, officially disbanded July 44, "Bad Luck" unit

IJAAF aircraft in theatre;
Mitsubishi Ki-46 "Dinah"
Nakajima Ki-43 I/II Hayabusa "Oscar"
Kawasaki Ki-61 I Hien "Tony"
Kawasaki Ki-45 KAI Toryu "Nick"
Tachikawa Ki-36 "Ida" (2 man single engined recon/ground attack)
Kawasaki Ki-48 "Lily" (4 man, 2 engin bomber)
Mitsubishi Ki-51 "Sonia" (2 man single engine bomber/ground attack)
Heavy Bomber Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally" (7 man, two engined medium bomber)
Nakajima Ki-49 Donryu "Helen" (8man, two engined "heavy" bomber)

Several documents list a a couple of the Sentai that redeployed from the CBI theatre as having the Ki-44, but all the aircraft seem to have been retained in the CBI theatre or shipped to Japan for home defense.

LEBillfish
05-19-2006, 11:09 AM
Ernst_Rohr;

Do you have a book and document list that you utilize you can post?.......Reason I ask is I like picking up what I don't have (and am just beginning so have many to get).

Thanks K2

ojcar1971
05-19-2006, 01:13 PM
Hi Nimits, Iowa????. Japanese forces invading EEUU? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Are you a Japanese secret agent making propaganda? We'll not surrender! Remember Pearl Harbor! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

RSS-Martin
05-19-2006, 03:00 PM
A nice campaign would be, although pretty well towards the end of the war, those interceptor missions against the incoming B-29´s. I know the game is lacking those Ki-44´s Tojos and the Ki 45 Nicks, but the Ki-61 was used and to a certain degree the Ki-84, if you add for the last few months those P51´s as escorts I think that can be rather challenging.

Ernst_Rohr
05-19-2006, 05:37 PM
Ernst_Rohr;

Do you have a book and document list that you utilize you can post?.......Reason I ask is I like picking up what I don't have (and am just beginning so have many to get).

Thanks K2

Sure, be glad to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Japanese Army Air Force Aces 1937-45, Henry Sakaida, Osprey 1997
JAPANESE ARMY AIR FORCE UNITS AND THEIR ACES : 1931-1945, Ikuhiko Hata, Grub Street 2002 (I highly recommend this book, Hata has a lot of original sources to work from and some really good info.)
Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa: In Japanese Army Air Force Service, Richard M. Bueschel, Sciffer Publishing 1995 (Great art plates and markings guide, also has a book on the A6M2 Zero and one of the Ki-27)
New Guinea, US Army Military Press, 1984 (excerpts of this are availible on the web)

On the Web;
Japanese Air Operations in New Guinea, Shindo Hiroyuki, http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/WebI/Chapters/$fi...ter3.pdf?OpenElement (http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.nsf/WebI/Chapters/$file/Chapter3.pdf?OpenElement)
248th Hiko Sentai, a "Hard Luck" Fighter Unit, Richard Dunn,
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/248th/248th.htm
(www.j-aircraft.com (http://www.j-aircraft.com) has a lot of very good research articles and source material)

Nimits
05-19-2006, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by ojcar1971:
Hi Nimits, Iowa????. Japanese forces invading EEUU? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Are you a Japanese secret agent making propaganda? We'll not surrender! Remember Pearl Harbor! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I meant Iwo Jima . . .

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LEBillfish
05-19-2006, 08:03 PM
Ernst_Rohr;

Thanks for the reply..........Sadly I'm all set with those and I say sadly in that it's nice to find something new.

If New Guinea interests you with great stories of the allied side, yet seemingly almost more of the Japanese....With loads of "exact stats" for the Japanese.....The entire book quite purely about the 4th Koukuugun vs. the 5th AirForce then purchase "MacArthur's Eagles, by Lex McAulay, ISBN1-59114-479-5".

Ernst_Rohr
05-19-2006, 08:56 PM
Roger that Billfish, I dont have that one, will add it to the list! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rammjaeger
05-21-2006, 03:48 AM
I've seen maps of the battles on Tarawa and Peleliu and according to them there were airfields on both islands prior to US invasion. If the IJAAF indeed never used them, what was the point in having those airports?

LEBillfish
05-21-2006, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
I've seen maps of the battles on Tarawa and Peleliu and according to them there were airfields on both islands prior to US invasion. If the IJAAF indeed never used them, what was the point in having those airports?

To land Navy planes upon.....Hon again, you really need to understand that the Army and Navy were two separate groups. The Navy not just ships and sea forces, yet also having land based planes, troops and so on.

csThor
05-21-2006, 06:25 AM
Well ... the main problem of the DGEN campaigns is simply the fact that they were patched together by the same people who programmed the DGen program itself. Starshoy had to produce a "working" version of the required files within a short amount of time (and this was the case for FB, AEP and PF) so historical facts, historical accuracy or even a basic historical layout (meaning campaigns based on the deeds of individual units to represent the flow/change of the war) had to be forgone - there was no time to do that.

Researching the necessary amount of information takes a lot of time and people dedicated to the cause. Neither FB nor AEP nor PF were given the time necessary to do that research so we ended up with the shallow representations of campaigns we know.
Today - with the latest DGen incarnation - we have all the necessary tools to delete the old campaigns and start from scratch again, but given the end of FB/PF's commercial life and the approaching BoB on the horizont it's not really sensible to do it.
I know that guys like Amagi, Nimitz or GregSM have put a lot of work into their prospective projects (Disaster, TruePacific and Greg's updated templates), but IMO this "variation" of 3rd Party projects has caused more problems than solved. I didn't install any of their work as I wasn't sure what exactly would change or if my own tweaking (towards historical correctness) would be thrown out of the window. Additionally having separate AddOns like BoE, TLD or Ostfront doesn't help the player, either, as they make keeping an overview even more difficult (even though I was involved with Ostfront I didn't have any influence on the decision about the way it was released).

What would be the optimum way? IMO throwing away the original campaigns and make new ones (for Eastern Front and Pacific), combine them with the BoE and Ostfront campaigns in a sensible way and you'd have a winner. But as the latter two are commercial products this is unfortunately not going to be possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Nimits
05-21-2006, 05:22 PM
Today - with the latest DGen incarnation - we have all the necessary tools to delete the old campaigns and start from scratch again, but given the end of FB/PF's commercial life and the approaching BoB on the horizont it's not really sensible to do it.
I know that guys like Amagi, Nimitz or GregSM have put a lot of work into their prospective projects (Disaster, TruePacific and Greg's updated templates), but IMO this "variation" of 3rd Party projects has caused more problems than solved. I didn't install any of their work as I wasn't sure what exactly would change or if my own tweaking (towards historical correctness) would be thrown out of the window. Additionally having separate AddOns like BoE, TLD or Ostfront doesn't help the player, either, as they make keeping an overview even more difficult (even though I was involved with Ostfront I didn't have any influence on the decision about the way it was released).

Enhanced DGen is pretty much just replacement templates, along with a slightly modified campaign organization (splitting some campaigns into two or three parts, eliminating some of the extraneous single-plane/single-operation careers and replacing them with more relevant ones. Depending on what sort of modifications you have done, you should be able to incorporate most if not all of Enhanced DGen.

As for True Pacific, well, it is really intended to be an all inclusive redisgn of the Pacific careers. Again, I don't know what sort of mods you have done to the campaigns on your computer (though if you would be interested in sharing ideas, I might be interested in incorporating them into True Pacific), but everything in True Pacific is designed to be as close to 100% historically accurate (although generally at a 1/2 or 1/3 scale, to keep FPS playable) as possible, in certain cases (where info is available) down to the exact number and placement of AAA and artillery batteries. I still have a ways to go, and my research is not perfect, but there is nothing in True Pacific that was not included or excluded without some sort of historical reference in mind, and if you can show me something that can be made more historically accurate, I will do it.


What would be the optimum way? IMO throwing away the original campaigns and make new ones (for Eastern Front and Pacific), combine them with the BoE and Ostfront campaigns in a sensible way and you'd have a winner. But as the latter two are commercial products this is unfortunately not going to be possible

While I cannot speak much to the default or add-on ETO campaigns, the point of True Pacific is to rework, 100%, the PTO/CBI Dgen careers, including at some point (probably when I have added some more of the new operations such as Eastern Solomons, Cape Engano, and Japan 1944) reorganizing and adding to all the careers so that they follow the paths of individual squadrons or airgroups, rather than whole service branches.

I eventually would like to combine my work with that of Amagi and GregSm, and release an all-encompassing DGen career set, including versions designed to work with default, BoE, and Ostfront (TLD is a bit more difficult, seeing as how it takes of many career slots and is, in fact, highly non-historical).

csThor
05-22-2006, 08:23 AM
Nimitz - I wasn't slamming you or your ideas (though I think you already know that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I also only mentioned you as this is the PF board and the discussion was about PF campaigns. I - quite frankly - don't care about the PTO. I am a LW historian with just exactly that area of interest, but my own experiences fit into this particular discussion, too. (so I can't help you with TP, as I have only the fundamental knowledge about the PTO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

The problem I have is simply that I don't know which sources for example Amagi used in his "disaster". I have quite a specific view on how the campaigns should be structured and how they should be running. To me the orientation towards specific units is the key element here - something that was working in the old Aces over Europe! I had a rather interesting "disagreement" (or discussion) with another mate over at SimHQ who said that my idea of representing at least some individual units was too much and not really necessary - you can guess my answer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
There's a major showstopper, though, as all russian and german campaign slots are taken by the various addons (Ostfront and TLD already collide here; Disaster has hassles with it, too) so doing more is simply impossible (to change this situation MG would have to reprogram some part of the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif).

If Maddox Games was to allow more campaign codes (say 2 or 3 letters/numbers) we'd have more than enough slots to sort out the hassles, but I just can't see that happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Nimits
05-24-2006, 09:29 PM
Naw, I didn't take it as a slam agains myself or others at all; I was just clarifying some things.

Frankly, There are enough campaigns slots (36 by last count) to build plenty of of Gruppen, Group, Wing (or equivalent) for each and every side in the careers. It might require overwriting some of the careers from BoE and Ostfront, but the individual campaigns from those add-ons could be kept more or less intact, and simply distrubted through a new structure. This would require 2-3 separate versions of the mod (for use with BoE and Ostfront), but, as long as the files are kept straight, there would be no real difficulty (just a case of adding or removing a few lines of text). The only real troubles would be the American and British campaigns (since USAAF and RAF have to share campaign slots between the PTO and ETO), and with working around TLD. My take on the TLD conflicts is that, in fact, one should not be unduley concerned about them; TLD already conflicts with most of the other ETO add-ons (paid and freeware), and quite frankly, it's post-1945 campaigns really would not fit into the structure we are talking here anyway. IMHO, it would be a case of using either TLD or the new career structure; the two would most probably have to be incompatible.

The only thing standing in the way is the current lack of someone with the time to do the research and editing. My modding time for PF is still taken up with True Pacific, and while I could make intelligent work of Western Allied campaigns, I quite frankly like the knowledge or library to do much for the VVS, Luftwaffe, Finns, Romanians, Slovaks, Italians, etc. If you or someone else would like to tackle it, I would be more than happy to give what limited support which is within my power.

LEBillfish
05-24-2006, 09:59 PM
Well if any of you are interested in New Guinea/Britain in say April 43-July 44, give me a shout.....From particularly the Japanese side that is an area I study.

JG54_Lukas
05-24-2006, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
I have quite a specific view on how the campaigns should be structured and how they should be running. To me the orientation towards specific units is the key element here - something that was working in the old Aces over Europe!

I agree with you on this. I noticed the German fighter campaign files all refer to specific units, instead of Army groups. (With time), one could make very believable JG 54, 51, and 52 campaigns, which would cover every front from the beginning to the end of the war. But, like you said, we're way too late in FB's life cycle for that likelihood to happen.

In the future, though, I'd like to see a campaign system set up along the lines of Aces over Europe. This would reduce file clutter and make the addition of new planes and units much easier. To use the Eastern Front and Germany as an example:

-Fighter: Bf 109s, Fw 190s, and (very late) Me 262s and Ta 152s
-Bomber: He 111s and Ju 88s, (very late) Me 262 JaBos
-Dive bomber: Ju 87s and Fw 190 Fs
-Heavy Fighter: Bf 110s
-Ground attack: JaBo 109 Es, Fw 190s

And the same idea would apply for the Soviet side, of course.

csThor
05-24-2006, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Nimitz:
Frankly, There are enough campaigns slots (36 by last count) to build plenty of of Gruppen, Group, Wing (or equivalent) for each and every side in the careers.

That is enough to produce a selection of individual units, but not for a total display. But since I also think that a few selections are enough to represent the course of war those 36 slots should be enough. BUT:

Given the limited mapset of Il-2/FB/AEP/PF choosing such units will be a little tough. Additionally - and this especially applies to german Stuka and Bomber units - we lack the ability to switch units within the campaign so we cannot display changes of unit name (e.g. in 1943 all Stukageschwader [StG] became Schlachtgeschwader [SG]) or a transfer to some other theater (e.g. in 1944 JG 51 had to give up its 3rd, 7th and 12th Staffel for the Defense of the Reich, 12./JG 51 being renamed 4./JG 302). Since Starshoy has disappeared and doesn't react to mails I cannot see such a feature being introduced anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
For this reason and the gaps in the mapset choosing suitable units will be a little tough. Secondly such a project would require the purchase of both "Ostfront" and "Battle over Europe", since both AddOns have content that is necessary for an appropriate display for both the russian and german campaigns.

Nimits
05-25-2006, 04:46 PM
No game to date has tried to build a campaign for every unit involved in a multi-campaign or war-long career. You simply pick the most famous, most active, and/or most representative squadrons.

As for switching unit designations, yeah, that is a problem that cannot be solved; the "workaround" is to put both squadrons in the campaigns squadrons file, you can pick one, so you will be right 50% of the time. The gaps in the mapset are there, they are bad (and downright deplorable in the PTO). A few more maps are coming, but basically we have to make do with what we have. Units changing theater is not a problem at all. Example: for a JG 51 career, in 1944 just switch it to anti-bomber campaigns on the Berlin or Northwest Europe maps. Switching between the PTO and ETO cannot be done, but that is the only limitation.

The DGen careers will never be "perfect," but with a little creativity and work, they can be made so much better. My only worry is that it is so far not clear whether Starshoy is or is not going to continue to support DGen. I hope he is, but should he choose not to, the lack of support for the coming Manchuria planes and the handful of remaining bugs in DGen would pretty much make continued development of True Pacific for DGen pointless.

BTW, Ostfron and Battle Over Europe are, IMO, both worth the purchase price.


I agree with you on this. I noticed the German fighter campaign files all refer to specific units, instead of Army groups. (With time), one could make very believable JG 54, 51, and 52 campaigns, which would cover every front from the beginning to the end of the war. But, like you said, we're way too late in FB's life cycle for that likelihood to happen.

For an official add-on, yes, most probably the time has passed (especially as it seems DGen is no longer being updated in offical patches or add-ons).

However, to actuall create or replace a new career requires all of about 1-3 minutes of typing. The research, to see which campaigns and planes fit each unit best would take a while, but once that info is known, actually reeorganizing the careers is child's play.

-HH-Quazi
05-25-2006, 04:51 PM
I just want to say that the information shared in this thread is super and appreciated. Thanks all, especially you Billfish. Your knowledge about this is mind blowing.