PDA

View Full Version : Ki 100 why does it... ?



relcox
03-24-2008, 12:37 AM
"The emergency measure of adapting a Ki-61-II-KAI fighter to carry a Mitsubishi radial engine resulted in an excellent interceptor fighter, one of the best used by the Army during the entire war. Missions began in March 1945; from the first engagements the Ki-100 showed its good qualities against the USAAF B-29 heavy bombers at high altitudes, and showed itself equally effective against U.S. Navy carrier fighters." (From Wiki)

Just had a go in this in the Home Islands campaign and it was like trying to fly a tank, could not even catch a B29!

"Thread title edited by woofiedog."

Feathered_IV
03-24-2008, 01:01 AM
Try setting your supercharger to stage2 after 3000m. Engage your WEP boost and put your prop pitch at 100%. You will FTW, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DKoor
03-24-2008, 01:19 AM
That fighter doesn't suck, its a good fighter it does lack speed tho, but it redeem itself by being one of the more reliable JAAF fighters.

relcox
03-24-2008, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Try setting your supercharger to stage2 after 3000m. Engage your WEP boost and put your prop pitch at 100%. You will FTW, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Not using C.E.M. settings yet, does this still apply?

JtD
03-24-2008, 04:19 AM
It sucks because 1500 Japanese hp are less than 1500 Allied hp and 3000 Japanese kg are more than 3000 Allied kg.

R_Target
03-24-2008, 06:08 AM
Despite what Wiki says, the Ki-100 wasn't that great a plane. J2M, N1K2, and Ki-84 were significantly better.

In-game, it's a fun plane to fly and is certainly dangerous against IL2's emasculated F6F.

R_Target
03-24-2008, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
It sucks because 1500 Japanese hp are less than 1500 Allied hp and 3000 Japanese kg are more than 3000 Allied kg.

Yes, sort of like how TAIC data is Holy Gospel when it shows a Ki-84 doing 427mph, but Yank Propaganda when it shows an F6F doing 409mph.

JtD
03-24-2008, 06:50 AM
Maybe 409 mph are not take that serious because it says in the report "the data obtained being of a qualitative rather than a quantitative nature". (Means: "Don't take the numbers too serious.")

OTOH, there are a dozen tests that try to measure the top speed as good as they can and end up between 370 and 390 mph.

Bremspropeller
03-24-2008, 06:52 AM
Is the in-game J2M some sort of über?
If it ain't, I can hardly figure why it wasn't liked by the Japaneese.
Appears to be their best ride, along with the Ki-84.

R_Target
03-24-2008, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Maybe 409 mph are not take that serious because it says in the report "the data obtained being of a qualitative rather than a quantitative nature". (Means: "Don't take the numbers too serious.")

I would consider somebody in an airplane trying to kill you serious enough to warrant accurate results.


OTOH, there are a dozen tests that try to measure the top speed as good as they can and end up between 370 and 390 mph.

If there were dozens of tests available, I would certainly be interested. Mike Williams has a dozen or so up on his site. Most of them list top speeds at Military Power of 375-390 mph. IL2 F6F at Military Power is substantially slower, needing Combat Power to make 385 mph.

R_Target
03-24-2008, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Is the in-game J2M some sort of über?
If it ain't, I can hardly figure why it wasn't liked by the Japaneese.
Appears to be their best ride, along with the Ki-84.

If you mean over-modeled, I don't believe so. I think it's accurately done.

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-24-2008, 07:52 AM
The Ki100 is a decent and fun ride in this sim. It was obviously not a superior design or even designed specifically as-built, but rather a comglomeration of available parts (i.e. engines and airframes).

It's not the ride that either the J2M or the Ki84 are, but it's capable for sure.

JtD
03-24-2008, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:

I would consider somebody in an airplane trying to kill you serious enough to warrant accurate results.

Maybe you would, the engineers back then obviously didn't.




If there were dozens of tests available, I would certainly be interested. Mike Williams has a dozen or so up on his site. Most of them list top speeds at Military Power of 375-390 mph. IL2 F6F at Military Power is substantially slower, needing Combat Power to make 385 mph.

Combat <-> Military is a difference of about 5mph in top speed. You'd just get more speed at lower alt, increase of about 25-30 mph. Much like SpitIX/SpitIX25.

R_Target
03-24-2008, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Maybe you would, the engineers back then obviously didn't.

Why would they have tactical trials if they didn't consider it serious? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Can you show me where it specifically says (as opposed to your interpretation of what you think it says) in the TAIC testing that the numbers should be considered inaccurate?


Combat <-> Military is a difference of about 5mph in top speed. You'd just get more speed at lower alt, increase of about 25-30 mph. Much like SpitIX/SpitIX25.

F6F at WEP Combat Power will be faster than Military Power up to critical altitude for high blower. The IL2 F6F at WEP follows the curve for Military Power all the way down to Sea Level.

Tater-SW-
03-24-2008, 10:04 AM
Ki-100:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
[Mass]
Empty 2350.0
TakeOff 3200.0
Oil 30.0
Fuel 420.0
Nitro 50.0

[Params]
Vmin 150.0
Vmax 530.0
VmaxAllowed 860.0
VmaxH 589.0
HofVmax 6000.0
CruiseSpeed 410.0
</pre>

F6F-5:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">[Mass]
Empty 4580.0
TakeOff 6991.0
Oil 80.0
Fuel 680.00
Nitro 61.0

[Params]
Vmin 160.0
Vmax 512.0
VmaxAllowed 800.0
VmaxH 611.0
HofVmax 8000.0
CruiseSpeed 310.0

</pre>

Yeah, the ki-100 is nerfed and the f6f-5 is uber. LOL

JtD
03-24-2008, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:

Why would they have tactical trials if they didn't consider it serious? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Can you show me where it specifically says (as opposed to your interpretation of what you think it says) in the TAIC testing that the numbers should be considered inaccurate?

I quoted them above. Are you familiar with the terms "quantitative" and "qualitative"? If not, then let me just say you need to bash them, not me. I'm just the messenger.


F6F at WEP Combat Power will be faster than Military Power up to critical altitude for high blower. The IL2 F6F at WEP follows the curve for Military Power all the way down to Sea Level.

I have no clue what exactly you are trying to tell me here, but thank god there are charts around that show exactly how it is.

Tater-SW-
03-24-2008, 10:34 AM
My post above shows the exact reality of il-2, not testing. I find it particularly interesting that the ki-100 gets to go 60kph faster before ripping apart. There are no late war IJN/IJA fighters that do not fall apart at higher speeds than the F6F and F4U except the A6Ms.

The ki-100 also has considerably tougher ailerons, elevators, and flaps for some completely inexplicable reason (60% tougher).

R_Target
03-24-2008, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I quoted them above. Are you familiar with the terms "quantitative" and "qualitative"? If not, then let me just say you need to bash them, not me. I'm just the messenger.

Yes, I'm familiar with the terms. And there's no need for a messenger, as I already have the document. What I don't need is an interpreter, as in: "Means: "Don't take the numbers too serious."



I have no clue what exactly you are trying to tell me here, but thank god there are charts around that show exactly how it is.

Sorry that you didn't understand, I thought I made it as clear as possible. And yes, it is fortunate that there are charts showing the error. Where can I find these "dozens" of tests you refer to?

R_Target
03-24-2008, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
My post above shows the exact reality of il-2, not testing. I find it particularly interesting that the ki-100 gets to go 60kph faster before ripping apart. There are no late war IJN/IJA fighters that do not fall apart at higher speeds than the F6F and F4U except the A6Ms.

The ki-100 also has considerably tougher ailerons, elevators, and flaps for some completely inexplicable reason (60% tougher).

It's all about game balance. Early A6M is nerfed to give Wildcats a chance, and F6F is nerfed for late A6M balance.

JtD
03-24-2008, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:

Yes, I'm familiar with the terms. And there's no need for a messenger, as I already have the document. What I don't need is an interpreter, as in: "Means: "Don't take the numbers too serious."

Then why do you think the figure of 409 mph matters in any way when it comes to F6-F performance? Because, if you read & understood what they are trying to tell you in that preface, you'd realize that these 409 mph are worthless as a performance figure.


Sorry that you didn't understand, I thought I made it as clear as possible. And yes, it is fortunate that there are charts showing the error. Where can I find these "dozens" of tests you refer to?

Mike Williams site is a good place to start. It has lots of tests at 52" and some investigating the effects of 60". You can thus very easily and reliably estimate the max speed region the F6-F reached. 409mph is pretty far out. I also have some things on my hard drive, but I am pretty sure it was you who pointed me to them. So I guess you know these as well.


It's all about game balance. Early A6M is nerfed to give Wildcats a chance, and F6F is nerfed for late A6M balance.

Then why is the late A6M model worse than optimum performance, i.e. another 20 km/h or so?

Tater-SW-
03-24-2008, 12:21 PM
Which A6M, and how fast is it supposed to be?
All A6Ms from the A6M5 on have exactly the same numbers:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> Vmin 150.0
Vmax 462.0
VmaxAllowed 730.0
VmaxH 555.0
HofVmax 6000.0
</pre>

tater

Patriot_Act
03-24-2008, 12:23 PM
Let's add swept wings on the Me-262 to correct a COG issue.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Maybe the Me-262 breaking the sound barrier.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
I got it... we will accuse everyone of using, no, better yet, STEALING
German designs for every modern jet plane! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

That ought to turn this into a real slam fest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

I am starting to love this forum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

P.A.

JtD
03-24-2008, 12:31 PM
A6M3 - A6M5, we have them at around 555 km/h top and there are figures up to 575 km/h. Not that the 555 km/h were wrong, they most likely are quite good to represent the real thing, but if we were to go by best possible performance one could give the A6M another 20 km/h.

Tater-SW-
03-24-2008, 12:52 PM
A6M3 is identical to the figures I posted above. Actually, all the A6M are the same except

VmaxAllowed

changes.

R_Target
03-24-2008, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Then why do you think the figure of 409 mph matters in any way when it comes to F6-F performance? Because, if you read & understood what they are trying to tell you in that preface, you'd realize that these 409 mph are worthless as a performance figure.

I wouldn't call it worthless, as more information is always welcome. FWIW, I don't think that all F6Fs were flying around at 409mph, because there's too much other evidence showing high 390's-400 mph, but I also don't believe that Ki-84 was rocketing around the Phillipines at 428mph. My original comment was a retort to your implication that Allied planes get favored in Il2.



Mike Williams site is a good place to start. It has lots of tests at 52" and some investigating the effects of 60". You can thus very easily and reliably estimate the max speed region the F6-F reached. 409mph is pretty far out. I also have some things on my hard drive, but I am pretty sure it was you who pointed me to them. So I guess you know these as well.

Yeah, I have all that stuff and a few things more. Testing of water injection performance on serial planes is difficult to come by, although there are results from a modified F6F in one of the tests up at Spitperf, and the 1949 test for USN Standard Characteristics uses Combat Power, albeit on a plane that already had four years of use. The real gripe isn't so much about max speed anyway but about the huge sag at medium and medium-low altitudes (3,000-16,000 ft.) where the IL2 Hellcat at WEP is as much as 30mph slower than real F6F-3's at Military Power 52.5" Hg.

Really, it's not like it matters at this stage of the game. OM received my data and informed me that changes could not be made in time for 4.08. That was 14 months ago.




Then why is the late A6M model worse than optimum performance, i.e. another 20 km/h or so?

I suppose that's debatable, but the A6M2 is a more dire case IMO.

Tater-SW-
03-24-2008, 01:13 PM
Is 345 mph too slow for the A6M2 at 6000m?

R_Target
03-24-2008, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Is 345 mph too slow for the A6M2 at 6000m?

It would be closer. Last time I checked, A6M2 made about 325 mph at 6000m.

Tater-SW-
03-24-2008, 01:21 PM
The settings in the FM data seem to interact with other factors. The max speed IS set to 345 at 6000m. That said, the other factors in there conspire to produce results as tested, I suppose. Might also be map-dependent.

It certainly is pretty funny that the F4U and F6F are unable to dive as fast as any of late war planes the japanese field except the zero by a wide margin. I simply don't believe it.

JtD
03-24-2008, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:

...My original comment was a retort to your implication that Allied planes get favored in Il2...

I didn't mean to imply that, I just think that overall the Japanese planes perform worse that they should. Ki-100 is just one example. A6M2 would be another one.
But in the direct comparison of the F6-F and the Ki-100 I find it funny that the F6-F can turn with the Ki-100. The Ki-100 has all the advantages that count.
I also find it funny how the P-39 out turns the Ki-100, considering that the Ki-100 is significantly better at every single performance figure that counts.
The SeafireL, being of similar weight, size and power, out turns it by a neat 3 seconds.
And feel free to compare it to any Soviet birds - the Ki-100 may have better wing and power loading, it is still getting out turned by almost anything.

Unless the Japanese used rectangle airfoil profiles, the Ki-100 is porked.

---

The late USN birds have foldable wings, while the IJN birds don't. I suppose this is one of the factors that makes the IJA planes dive faster than them. Fastest diving USN plane is the F4-F-3, which hasn't got foldable wings.

Tater-SW-
03-24-2008, 02:21 PM
I honestly think the toughness and things like VmaxAllowed are pulled out of thin air.

While the folding wings sounds plausible, I'd have to wonder about aerodynamic stresses vs impact forces on CV traps, which are considerable.

As for speed issues, the other old argument is fuel quality, which is perfectly legitimate given any attempt to simulate actual meetings between real aircraft instead of "perfect" what-if match ups.

It would be cool to have a performance variable in the FMB (by plane, like AI setting). Randomize planes within 5% envelope or something.

JtD
03-24-2008, 02:57 PM
Personally, I'd love to have a difficulty setting "realistic performance" doing a wear & tear and a random thing for BoB. Not all that sterile optimum (or not) stuff we have now.

R_Target
03-24-2008, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I didn't mean to imply that, I just think that overall the Japanese planes perform worse that they should. Ki-100 is just one example. A6M2 would be another one.
But in the direct comparison of the F6-F and the Ki-100 I find it funny that the F6-F can turn with the Ki-100. The Ki-100 has all the advantages that count.
I also find it funny how the P-39 out turns the Ki-100, considering that the Ki-100 is significantly better at every single performance figure that counts.

I guess one of the benefits of the huge wing on the F6F, along with benign low speed handling, is a better turn. It has the best wing-loading of any of the big American planes barring the P-51. The P-39 I wouldn't expect to be a good turner either.



And feel free to compare it to any Soviet birds - the Ki-100 may have better wing and power loading, it is still getting out turned by almost anything.

I'm not even gonna go there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

As far as the vulnerability of folding wings goes, I don't know enough to say one way or the other. I can say that throughout the development and testing and operational life of the F6F, I've never read any reports of wings shearing off at the fold joint. Some early F6F-3's had the tail torn off in high speed dives, which was observed in subsequent tests and remedied.
Al Vraciu once flew a combat mission with the wings not completely locked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

VW-IceFire
03-24-2008, 08:23 PM
Ki-100 was a relatively reliable and easy to fly plane at a time when aircraft like the J2M and Ki-84 were unreliable and production quality between aircraft were highly variable.

It was not a good B-29 interceptor and follow on turbo supercharged versions were being tested at the end of the war. At low and medium altitudes its possible, mostly on account of its agility and good dive acceleration and speed (for a Japanese WWII fighter), to combat American planes where other types like the Ki-43-II were horribly outdated and an incredible mismatch in capabilities.

Xiolablu3
03-24-2008, 08:50 PM
Wasnt the Ki100 bascially just a Ki61 with a Radial engine?

ElAurens
03-24-2008, 09:05 PM
Yup.

Both our Kawasaki aircraft are a bit out of touch with their reality.

The Ki 61 and 100 should turn better than they do.

The Ki61 should be superior to the P40E, I've yet to see that in game.

The Ki 100 should be more maneuverable than the Ki 61 as it is lighter. It isn't.

And as said earlier in this post, and regardless of the numbers in the code, the A6M2 is at an a-historical disadvantage to the F4F in terms of speed.

And don't even get me started on the completely porked Ki 43 II's stall/spin/slip on a banana peel FM.

DKoor
03-24-2008, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
And don't even get me started on the completely porked Ki 43 II's stall/spin/slip on a banana peel FM. I was kinda http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif when I saw "nasty" Ki-43-II behavior for the first time.

Tater-SW-
03-24-2008, 10:39 PM
Dunno, the zeke/f4f match seems decent to me considering that we all know how NOT to fight a zero. In RL the zeke didn't have a positive k/d vs the F4F, anyway.

The_Cheese2006
03-24-2008, 11:44 PM
First of all, I have two books that say that the F6F-5's top speed was 386 mph. Second of all, if you have problems manouevring with the Ki-43, it's probably because you were not using you combat flaps appropriately. Come to think of it, perhaps a lot of this information is dependant on combat flaps, like the N1K2. Maybe we should see what happens when a Ki-100 uses combat flaps (assuming that hasen't already been tried) to combat an F6F.

LEBillfish
03-24-2008, 11:55 PM
Wow........Lot of nice opinions.

First off, lets instantly dispell the numbers of TAIU....Quite frankly most if not all you read are generated by pilots that have NO idea how to fly the plane at its optimum, were most often individual aircraft that the Japanese had quit using because they had broken down (a good example the Ki-61-I-Ko used, it was so beat up they wouldn't press it and then even still its engine siezed after 3 easy runs) so could not perform, and lastly were never pressed to their limits as "why die to test an outdated heap".

On a secondary note to the thread.....Point blank Nakajima was no slouch aircraft company. Start reading up as to the constant improvement of the Ki-43, and the efforts are world class by even todays standards. The Ki-84 was a stunning aircraft, and though I'm very much against annecdotes, when P-51 piloys report that they simply broke off from "running" Ki-84 as they were impossible to catch if they were...Well that's a big statement and it was NOT the half assed fighter suggested above. It and others like the N1K2+ series were some very heavyweight competition for the allies, and stated by the TAIU as being equivalent to.

To the issue however....

The Ki-100 was a "bandaid" aircraft that some very clever folks put together. It was by no means a next generation fighter, yet a desperation fix to get planes in the air.

However, they did a fine job, slightly slower, it did indeed turn slightly better then a Ki-61 a HUGE statement considering Ki-61's out turned P-40's, Laggs, BF109's, and as determined VERY close to the Ki-43 of which I defy you to find a comparable U.S. turner.

Contrary however to many believing it was a hard core B-29 killer, truth be told like ALL Japanese fighters that saw combat, it struggled to reach their altitudes. Once there it had one shot....don't bring it down well too bad might as well go home. Hence "Shuddering Sky", ram them, and bail out your best chance to get them and to do so many even had their guns removed.

Now the Ki-100 is no Ki-61 diving.....Yet the Ki-61 though planes could keep up with them though in truth most catching once leveled out, proved the aircrafts design took it to dive speeds I know of no other Japanese fighter to of matched.

Want the truth?.....Beginning of the war the Japanese aircraft dominated. Soon after till 45, they were outclassed. Yet by 1944/45 they had caught up and in some cases exceeded once more.....and frankly, if the Japanese had some skilled pilots and an equivalent number of planes by wars end, the U.S. would of had one heck of a lot tougher time then they did.

Be thankful for poor tactics, leadership, and loss of skilled pilots.....As the newer planes were deffinately not lacking.

K2

Tater-SW-
03-25-2008, 12:17 AM
They dominated VERY briefly, mostly vs obsolescent aircraft that were grossly outnumbered. So if by "soon after" you mean 3-4 months, yeah.

They dominated in the Fall of Malaya, ditto for the NEI, and even the Philippines fighting P-40Es with improperly installed guns (electric rechargers mistakenly not connected for fear of problems resulting in most with nary a functioning gun in combat). The IJN never enjoyed a positive K/D vs the USN, and the tide turned pretty quickly vs the IJA in the SWPA, too.

Like the rest of the war, they pretty much dominated during the execution of operations that were actually planned before the start of hostilities. They did well for the same reason WE did well, oftentimes. "Firstest with the mostest."

Plane and pilot quality are not so very important when it's 60 vs 6, and the 60 have the jump onto the 6 into the bargain. The Fall of Malaya was remarkable. The UK did so many things wrong, and the IJA not only did most things right, they saw the mistakes made by the UK and took every advantage of them. A truly brilliant campaign, marred only by their brutality.

In the long term their abysmal notions of pilot training finished them off. It simply was not sustainable.

The Ki-61/100 was a good aircraft, don't get me wrong. I just find it hard to believe it was tougher and could dive faster (before disintegrating) than an F4U-1D. (and short of destructive testing (which we know was not done), all the break apart numbers are entirely made up)

JtD
03-25-2008, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
They dominated VERY briefly, mostly vs obsolescent aircraft that were grossly outnumbered. So if by "soon after" you mean 3-4 months, yeah.

Up to the point at Midway where the Dauntlesses got the Japanese Carriers, 65 out of 125 US aircraft that came close to Japanese fighters got shot down by them. If you count the ones shot down by AAA and the ones damaged beyond repair and discount the B-17 high alt attack, you get to about 85 out of 110. Not considering the planes that missed the IJN fleet, ran out of fuel and ditched. That was 6 months after the start of the Pacific conflict and I don't see how they did not dominate that early phase of the battle. The US had lost one third of their planes with no effect on the Japanese ships and very low damage inflicted to the Japanese planes.

Of course, 10 minutes later things changed.

JtD
03-25-2008, 01:15 AM
Dive limits for F4-U according to pilot manual:

30000-20000 feet: 300 knots IAS
20000-10000 feet: 350 knots IAS
10000-0 feet: 400 knots IAS

In FB we have 431 knots IAS at all altitudes.

Tater-SW-
03-25-2008, 01:47 AM
Like I said, obsolescent planes, and if fighters, grossly outnumbered.

21 Brewsters and 7 F4F-3s (the latter a good match for the zero).The US fighters from midway were scattered around, and were attacked in smaller groups. In the first wave only 2 of the 7 F4Fs were lost, and that was an engagement where one flight was set upon at something like 5:1 odds. Around half the F2As were lost in a similar engagement later.

They were overwhelmed, and in the case of the F2As, underplaned.

When Navy fighters met Zeros on anything like even terms, they did fine.

Tater-SW-
03-25-2008, 01:50 AM
Those are not the "plane falls apart at speed+1" limits we have in il-2 though. What does the Ki-100 pilot's manual say for comparison?

JtD
03-25-2008, 02:14 AM
I'm not aware of Ki-100 pilot manuals anywhere on the web. But it wouldn't surprise me if there was no dive limit given anyway.

I did 840 km/h the other day in the F4-U and came out undamaged. Pure luck, but still happened.

LEBillfish
03-25-2008, 06:23 AM
Tater, you're somewhat forgetting also taking New Guinea and holding it quite handily dominating till mid 43, as they did many other places as well......Fact of the matter is though, it's often not so much the planes or pilots, yet the situations their commanders put them in.....and absolutly equal terms makes for an equal outcome. So don't be so sure that equal planes made for less losses the planes making up the difference.

The point here the aircraft.....and just like in all theatres between all sides, NO ONE ever held all the cards forever, it always swung back and forth from an aircraft aspect.....and there is nothing unreasonable or un-natural about that. Yet to the contrary there is.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

K2

Tater-SW-
03-25-2008, 09:51 AM
^^ great link.

Once Buna fell, the NG started getting far more of a pounding. Since Buna was primary until then (dec 42), there was not much effort put into NG other than bomber missions to Lae, etc.

While certainly a fight, I'd not describe that period as being dominated. They bombed the hell out of Buna, "dominated" would have left Buna more intact, and we were outside the airfield (troops) by the end of 42. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Dominated" certainly implies air superiority. Had the IJA/IJN dominated the AFs at Port Moresby, Buna would simply not have been successfully bombed, and in fact, 1942 would have been characterized by entirely defensive air ops from there. Since it was back and forth, I'd say this was a balanced period. That's one reason it is more interesting, BTW.

Shame the "NG" (Papua) map is so poorly done, and so small. A decently large one would be one of the best maps in the game.

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/Maps/SWPA_Slot_size.jpg
Red squares are a, um, theoretical, yeah, totally theoretical map size. Getting a few miles N-S would get PM in there, too... worth it. Course if New Britain were entirely done and it was a simple cut and paste job, then such a map would be so much easier.

Would make for an awesome 5th AF campaign, not to mention a decent IJAAF campaign, finally.
Even if a-historical, you could move planes up to tsili-tsili for a more reasonable time to target on the western most rectangle there.
tater

LEBillfish
03-25-2008, 02:04 PM
Hon, look at the very map you post.....Where was the southern most expansion by the Japanese. That's pretty darn close to over-running let alone dominating the air. The Japanese big problem was on the ground.

Now we're not talking buffalo's and hawks at this point, we're talking P39's, P400's, P40's of various modelsand even Spitfires eventually (though I'm not sure when they arrived and I believe were kept close to home for defense) . Where the Allies did well aircraft wise were the B17's (though outdated ones), as really G4M and the lions share of single engine bombers quite simply did not compare.

Without domination of the air they would not of reached as far as they did into the Solomons, New Britain, and develop northern New Guinea...That takes us into 1943...Once into 43, very quickly the tide shifted in the eastern islands (though dates I cannot state the Solomons not my bag), and come August 43, the tide totally turned.

We're not talking the 3rd quarter of 39, 40, 41, 42.....We're talking about the third quarter of 43 when things really started to shift in air domination.....That leaves only 2 years of a very long war.

and though simply opinion....If there had been no "Ultra", yet most of all no Kenny, then even that tide shift might of been "longer" coming.

K2

Tater-SW-
03-25-2008, 02:24 PM
Domination is not where they were, but having air superiority, IMO. The US had air superiority over the beaches at D-day, for example.

The IJN/IJA had air superiority in Malaya, for sure, and the NEI, and Philippines.

In the SWPA, they had an air WAR, not air superiority. They could not, and did not do as they pleased with no significant worries from the air. I'll maintain that it was a period of relative balance. The Japanese were on the attack in Mid 1942 in PNG, hacking their way towards Port Moresby. Allied airpower certainly played a role in turning them back (impossible if the IJAAF had air superiority). Not to mention the IJN failure at milne bay, lack of air superiority mattered there, as well.

As for the Slot, the IJN never dominated. It was a sort of aerial meatgrinder for a few months (which the US won), after which the tide turned (from ~February '43 on) and it was the US/Commonwealth on the march.

All during this time 5th AF bombers were hitting both places like Bougainville, as well as Rabaul. That is not "being dominated," sorry.

Not saying it was a walk in the park, mind you. I think the period of japanese domination in the air, meaning complete air superiority, was VERY short lived, and in fact ended with, or soon after, the initial period of expansion planned before hostilities began.

That period was followed by a period of effective parity in the air war, sometimes one side winning, sometimes the other.

By 1944, it was starting to become allied domination on par with the way the IJAAF/IJNAF dominated the West during the period of initial expansion.

<S>

tater

LEBillfish
03-25-2008, 03:11 PM
Noooooooooo.....Check your dates as to Rabaul, it really saw little action after the invasion till very late like dec. 43/early 44, and sorry, little harassment raids of a handful, single digits of bombers sneaking about in darkness doesn't negate control of the skies.

Flying hundreds of miles behind the lines on rare occasions does indeed state superiority, the domination aspect in that the allies were purely defensive as far as New Guinea went till the push was stopped on the ground.

We're also not talking Europe, for either side advance warning though both sides had radar rather poor. In kind we're not speaking about heavily populated area's, crossing vast wilderness does not equal reaching say the german coast as far as possible visual sightings.

Be sure, the allies were on the run and pushed to their limits till 43. It only due to the tenacity of those there they kept the foot hold.

K2

p.s......Simply look at maps outlining advancements, and check the dates......My comments not a slam of the allies, yet giving great credit for holding out till help really started to come.......The same holding out the Japanese did later on, yet never had any hope of relief though no doubt unknown to most.

Tater-SW-
03-25-2008, 03:27 PM
We bypassed the airfields for the most part. Advancing to build airfields is a different matter.

Just checked day by day missions of the 5th AF, and we bombed Rabaul 5 times in August, 9 times in September (30 B-17s doesn't count, huh?), 11 times in October, Only 2 in November, 5 attacks in December. 12 in January, 1943. Almost all were daylight attacks (I only say almost in case some were not. Due to targets listed, I'd be surprised if any were at night at all), many aimed at shipping. Note that the days not bombing Rabaul were spent bombing other targets assuming the weather was good.

My point wasn't that they were being dominated, but that they certainly did not have air superiority. The unescorted bomber raids against German targets---where Germany had air superiority---were frightful. The loss rates were high enough not to be sustainable. That was simply not the case in the SWPA. "Dominate" implies total air superiority, IMO. This is something the japanese did indeed have, but only during the initial expansion. After that, there were periods where both sides did better and worse, from day to day, hour to hour, but looked at over battle/campaign timeframes, it was rough parity. Later, it went to domination on the allied side where it was all the japanese could do to get off the ground in many places.

LEBillfish
03-26-2008, 10:01 AM
Cross checking information yet sorry, still not going for it as what I'm finding thus far are RAAF PBY's used to bomb sporadically, and "small" formations of B17's out of Townsville, Austrailia of the 19th Bomb Group used.....Once finally getting re-established, it is mentioned how in March a flight of B24's flew to Port Moresby YET had to bring their own bombs as there the total stockpiles were "2-500# bombs"......The first "tactical" air strike from New Guinea, to New Guinea consisting of "5" five B-24's at the end of march and it goes on.

The highlight however being a group of RAAF P-40's that really fought hard to defend Port Moresby, ground troops though that task difficult, yet even attacked the Japanese base at Lae.

All very brave and very well fought efforts considering the truly overwhelming odds.....Yet fact of the matter is it was a hold out action. Nothing like the attacks by the Japanese however.

I'll go over the various books and such I have that would apply to try and get some numbers (something like 200 now), and try and post a "1942-mid 43" group of action reports.

Patriot_Act
03-26-2008, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Dive limits for F4-U according to pilot manual:

30000-20000 feet: 300 knots IAS
20000-10000 feet: 350 knots IAS
10000-0 feet: 400 knots IAS

In FB we have 431 knots IAS at all altitudes.

Corsair fanboys bristle at the thought that their favorite
plane can not dive well...
F4U-1 series planes were capable of diving
past the ability of the flight control surfaces to stay
attached.

Not that it mattered much since they were as fast in level flight than a Zero could safely dive.

Problems were solved in the F4U-4 and later planes.

P.A.

Tater-SW-
03-26-2008, 12:15 PM
The period of initial expansion includes the (failed) attempts at PM. My numbers were for August and on. Bottom line is that we were not fighting a mere holding action post Guadalcanal, as I said, a period of balance.

The key here is to define "dominate" otherwise we talk in circles. Dominate means utter air superiority on the scale the japanese had in Malaya, etc. That was simply not the case in the SWPA for very long.

So again, I'm not saying that the IJA wasn't even doing better than the allied air forces in the period in question, just that they were not "dominating" them. To be dominated you must be sustaining untenable losses that will result in your ultimate demise if not checked.

You could actually make an argument that given the poor pilot training efforts on the part of the japanese, ANY losses above some bare minimum were unsustainable for them, too.

BTW, if small formations of B-17s were bombing Rabaul in broad daylight (which is absolutely true, many times were talking about less than 1 squadron type strengths), they could not possibly continue if the IJNAF/IJAAF were "dominating" the USAAF. 6 bombers in daylight, and they don't take unsustainable losses and keep coming back?

In a period that the Allies unambiguously dominated in the air, how well would 6 unescorted G4Ms do over a major Allied airbase, do you think?

About as well as VT-8 in the neighborhood of the Kido Butai I'd imagine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tater

Bremspropeller
03-26-2008, 12:16 PM
F4U-1 series planes were capable of diving
past the ability of the flight control surfaces to stay
attached.

...which is not a feat unique only to the F4U http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Tater-SW-
03-26-2008, 12:24 PM
I'm not arguing that the dive speed (the "fall apart speed," that is) is wrong for the F4U, I'm unsure of it in relation to IJA/IJN planes that with the exception of the Zero are universally better in that regard.

So 800kph might be fine for the F4U-1, but what proof is there that demonstrates the Ki-100 should be 860kph, exactly?

Tater-SW-
03-26-2008, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:

I'll go over the various books and such I have that would apply to try and get some numbers (something like 200 now), and try and post a "1942-mid 43" group of action reports.

You don't happen to have any images of Kieta or Tenekow airstrips (Bougainville) in there, do you?

tater

fordfan25
03-26-2008, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Patriot_Act:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Dive limits for F4-U according to pilot manual:

30000-20000 feet: 300 knots IAS
20000-10000 feet: 350 knots IAS
10000-0 feet: 400 knots IAS

In FB we have 431 knots IAS at all altitudes.

Corsair fanboys bristle at the thought that their favorite
plane can not dive well...
F4U-1 series planes were capable of diving
past the ability of the flight control surfaces to stay
attached.

Not that it mattered much since they were as fast in level flight than a Zero could safely dive.

Problems were solved in the F4U-4 and later planes.

P.A. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>what were the problems that were solved

fordfan25
03-26-2008, 11:10 PM
"One particularly interesting kill was scored by a Marine Lieutenant R.R. Klingman of VMF-312 Checkerboards, over Okinawa. Klingman was in pursuit of a Kawasaki Ki-45 Toryu ("Nick") twin engine fighter at extremely high altitude when his guns jammed due to the gun lubrication thickening from the extreme cold. He simply flew up and chopped off the Ki-45's tail with the big propeller of the Corsair. Despite missing five inches (127 mm) off the end of his propeller blades, he managed to land safely. He was awarded the Navy Cross.[38]."


lol try that in game