Jump to content


[spoiler] what the Japanese tech tree could look like

Japan Mitsubishi Aichi Kawanishi Kyushu Kawasaki Nakajima Tachikawa Mansyu Rikugun

  • Please log in to reply
301 replies to this topic

J311yfish #181 Posted 10 February 2015 - 09:21 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2391 battles
  • 1,337
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostCarl_the_Cuttlefish, on 09 February 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

J3llyfish, I was looking at the Aichi divebombers, and according to Wikipedia, they were very manuverable, more so even than the Zero's. Do you think the maneuverability and the speed of these planes would warrent bumping them up a tier higher, especially the D4Y and up? The B7A was more maneuverable than a A6M5, had the same weapons, and would likely have more HPs plus having bombs, so I think that could maybe qualify as tier VII. What do you think? The only problem is theres a hole at tier IV, maybe the D3A with the bigger engine they used as a fighter later in the war?

 

I have endeavored to create a tree that is true to quantifiable historical specs so that any deviation on the part of the devs might be instantly understood as necessary for game balance.  If I were to take liberties at estimating the value of airframes based on subjective narrative then it would muddy the water that I have sought to keep clear.  I am not saying that a line can't be stretched, or shouldn't be stretched, only that it should not be done by me.  I am not an aeronautical engineer and I do not intend to develop that level of specialized knowledge.

 

However, let us suppose for a moment that you wanted to stretch the Aichi line.  These are the types of things that you might want to consider -- quick blurbs because I am short on time:

 

1. horizontal agreement with respect to engines, armament, chronology of other lines

-- I have used the current Mitsubishi line as a timeline basis for all other lines.  The only chronological oddity, if going by first flight date alone, is the Aichi M6A.  I made an exception because of its prolonged development time (designed to fit on submarine carrier, neat story, check it out), and the fact that it obviously derived from D4Y, and same designers, etc.

-- D4Y's engine is tethered to Kawasaki Ki-60.  It is the same German engine produced under license by both the Navy (Aichi) and Army (Kawasaki).

 

2. if you ignore all that and take liberties, here are more targeted considerations

-- D3A1/2 -- wouldn't stretch well without fiction because otherwise ~100 km/h slower than A6M1 at Tier IV

-- D4Y1/2 -- tethered to Ki-60; wouldn't stretch well without fiction because underarmed.  Later variants suicidal in nature and lose original concept of the plane.

-- M6A -- not really

-- B7A -- "could" be stretched to tier VII as it uses same engine as A7M, yet stops there.

-- B8A -- a scaled-down B7A for better performance -- there is very little information on this so it would certainly take imagination on part of the devs, but this might also be a good choice to extend the line one tier.  It might involve the same engines as used on A7M, but I do not have data to substantiate; engines may have resembled the N1K2-J (and beyond), that is speculation.

-- There is also the S1A to consider, if it is to be considered as derivative of earlier Aichi designs.  I think the answer is yes, however the shift in role or use of two engines might warrant outright detachment from the line; that is just not something I am comfortable doing.  The current British heavy fighter line for example is a complicated mosaic.

-- Kikka -- you have mentioned this idea before, the idea of moving the Kikka to the end of the Aichi line so as to be an extension there.  I have not forgotten about that.  Kikka is an oddity as the above shows.  Initial design was to deliver bombs, not dogfight -- interceptor versions were to follow later.

 

There could be more to say on these things but I have to start my day!


Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


Carl_the_Cuttlefish #182 Posted 10 February 2015 - 03:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 12 battles
  • 1,416
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012

View PostJ311yfish, on 10 February 2015 - 02:21 AM, said:

 

I have endeavored to create a tree that is true to quantifiable historical specs so that any deviation on the part of the devs might be instantly understood as necessary for game balance.  If I were to take liberties at estimating the value of airframes based on subjective narrative then it would muddy the water that I have sought to keep clear.  I am not saying that a line can't be stretched, or shouldn't be stretched, only that it should not be done by me.  I am not an aeronautical engineer and I do not intend to develop that level of specialized knowledge.

 

However, let us suppose for a moment that you wanted to stretch the Aichi line.  These are the types of things that you might want to consider -- quick blurbs because I am short on time:

 

1. horizontal agreement with respect to engines, armament, chronology of other lines

-- I have used the current Mitsubishi line as a timeline basis for all other lines.  The only chronological oddity, if going by first flight date alone, is the Aichi M6A.  I made an exception because of its prolonged development time (designed to fit on submarine carrier, neat story, check it out), and the fact that it obviously derived from D4Y, and same designers, etc.

-- D4Y's engine is tethered to Kawasaki Ki-60.  It is the same German engine produced under license by both the Navy (Aichi) and Army (Kawasaki).

 

2. if you ignore all that and take liberties, here are more targeted considerations

-- D3A1/2 -- wouldn't stretch well without fiction because otherwise ~100 km/h slower than A6M1 at Tier IV

-- D4Y1/2 -- tethered to Ki-60; wouldn't stretch well without fiction because underarmed.  Later variants suicidal in nature and lose original concept of the plane.

-- M6A -- not really

-- B7A -- "could" be stretched to tier VII as it uses same engine as A7M, yet stops there.

-- B8A -- a scaled-down B7A for better performance -- there is very little information on this so it would certainly take imagination on part of the devs, but this might also be a good choice to extend the line one tier.  It might involve the same engines as used on A7M, but I do not have data to substantiate; engines may have resembled the N1K2-J (and beyond), that is speculation.

-- There is also the S1A to consider, if it is to be considered as derivative of earlier Aichi designs.  I think the answer is yes, however the shift in role or use of two engines might warrant outright detachment from the line; that is just not something I am comfortable doing.  The current British heavy fighter line for example is a complicated mosaic.

-- Kikka -- you have mentioned this idea before, the idea of moving the Kikka to the end of the Aichi line so as to be an extension there.  I have not forgotten about that.  Kikka is an oddity as the above shows.  Initial design was to deliver bombs, not dogfight -- interceptor versions were to follow later.

 

There could be more to say on these things but I have to start my day!

Thanks, that was interesting. I guess I didn't think about having them line up chronologically but that makes sense. I was just thinking that given these planes are likely to have more HP's than the current IJN line, cause their multirole, and cause they have a rear gunner and have some ordinance as a mission as well and would most likely be the most manuverable line on the game(?), they would be able to compensate for airspeed and armament. However, the only two, like you mentioned, that could be stretched would be the B7A and the D4Y. The B8A could include some of the later B7A items and the B7A in game could be an early version of it? They D3A is too slow for tier IV I think. 


"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm whining in my posts 

And why do we balance???


J311yfish #183 Posted 18 April 2015 - 10:26 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2391 battles
  • 1,337
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Design team for the Prototype 12 fighter, what would become the Mitsubishi A6M.

 

This information comes from the book "Eagles of Mitsubishi" by the designer Jiro Horikoshi.

 

Role Name
Section Chief Jyoji Hattori
Chief Design Engineer Jiro Horikoshi
Computing Yoshitoshi Sone (Chief)
  Teruo Tojo*
  Takeshi Nakamura*
Structures Yoshitoshi Sone (Chief)
  Yoshio Yoshikawa
  Sadao Doi
  Toshihiko Narahara
  Seiichi Mizoguchi
  Shigeo Suzumura
  Shokichi Tomita
  Jyoji Kawamura
  Masao Tomoyama
Propulsion Den-ichiro Inoue (Chief)
  Shotaro Tanaka (leadman)
  Kiichiro Fujiwara
  Ken-ichiro Ubuta
  Kazuya Yasue
  Tadami Yamada
Armament Yoshimi Hatakenaka (Chief)
  Yoichi Ohashi
  Hideo Koda
  Naoichi Takeda
  Mitsuyoshi Eguchi
  Shozo Shibayama
  Masahiko Morikawa
Landing Gear Sadahiko Kato (Chief)
  Takeyoshi Mori
  Keijiro Nakao

* Tojo and Nakamura replaced by Sadao Kobayshi and Masao Kawabe in 1940. (Horikoshi, 33)

 

"There also were many other temporary helpers.  The principal members of each group had been on my team since the time we designed the Type 96 [Mitsubishi A5M], and all knew each other.  I cannot overemphasize how much this helped in accomplishing the difficult task we faced." (Horikoshi, 33)

 

The book is short (133 pages) but excellent because it provides a firsthand account of the design process, as well as flight testing, employed by Mitsubishi, and puts the A6M in context with other developments.  If I were starting the tech tree project from scratch I think that it would be among the best sources to begin with.


Edited by J311yfish, 18 April 2015 - 10:29 PM.

Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


EasternDragon_2014 #184 Posted 18 April 2015 - 11:53 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4 battles
  • 1,206
  • Member since:
    05-08-2014
The requirement of more diversity is very good balancing, which this game lacks currently

CaptCeele #185 Posted 26 April 2015 - 04:46 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 14
  • [DVLS] DVLS
  • Member since:
    02-28-2014

yes please!! we need the Nakajimas and Kawasakis around our skies.... they are so damn elegant,....  I've always been afraid they become a premium or a gift, very rare aircraft

 



CaptCeele #186 Posted 26 April 2015 - 04:48 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 14
  • [DVLS] DVLS
  • Member since:
    02-28-2014
... sorry , I repeated my reply,

Edited by CaptCeele, 26 April 2015 - 04:49 AM.


J311yfish #187 Posted 26 April 2015 - 03:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2391 battles
  • 1,337
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

The Homare engine had exceptional takeoff power per frontal area.  In the designer's words (Ryoichi Nakagawa), "it is clearly seen that the Homare engines surpassed the world standards of the time."

 

 

 

The power output was reduced by the realities of war, however, which required the Homare to run on lower-quality fuel and lubricants.  There was also the challenge of performance at high altitudes.  The design team had to make adjustments during the life cycle to make it perform better under those conditions.  Nakagawa explains the technical challenges in greater detail (source below).

 

Homare production:

 1943 -- 200 

 1944 -- 5,400 -- implemented in Shiden, Hayate, Ginga, and Saiun [among others] beginning late 1944.

 1945 -- 3,150 

 

Prior to development of the Homare (1940+), he had been responsible for further development of the Sakae engine (1936+)  as used in Zero, Hayabusa (Oscar), Irving (Gekko).

 

After the war, he joined Fuji Precision Machinery Co. and assisted with the research and development of jet engines (1953+).  Fuji's automotive division outgrew other products and was later named Prince Motor Co., Ltd., which later merged with Nissan (1966).  He eventually led the R&D division at Nissan and brought experience from automobile racing to mainstream vehicles (such as sensor feedback mechanisms).

 

Nakagawa also contributed to A History of Nakajima Aircraft Engines (1987), a more thorough history (240 pages), but unfortunately that text is in Japanese and as far as I know there is not an English translation available.

 

Source:

From Aircraft to Automobiles and Automotive Electronics: Remembrances of an Internal Combustion Engineer, by Ryoichi Nakagawa (SAE 1990) -- 45 pages


Edited by J311yfish, 26 April 2015 - 03:34 PM.

Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


Carl_the_Cuttlefish #188 Posted 27 April 2015 - 04:35 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 12 battles
  • 1,416
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012
Interesting material J3llyfish!

"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm whining in my posts 

And why do we balance???


J311yfish #189 Posted 02 May 2015 - 10:56 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2391 battles
  • 1,337
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Considering the existence of Shenyang JL-1A-37 for China at Tier VIII (claimed to be a development of the Shenyang JJ-1 jet trainer that did not materialize), perhaps there is greater hope that something might materialize for the later tiers of post-war Japan.  An article from Flight magazine (04/1955) gives a quick overview of Japan's reconstruction by company (1952-1955).  Highlights (aircraft and engines):

 

 

 

 

Mitsubishi

-- liaison with North American Aviation, Inc.

-- scheduled manufacture of Mitsubishi F-86F Sabre; biggest aircraft production program in the country.

-- JTM-1 advanced trainer with swept wing; prototype to be powered by an American-built Continental Marboré turbojet; production version to be powered by a 2200 lb thrust turbojet of Japanese design (author speculates the engine to be the Fuji JO-1 prototype turbojet then under development, a continuation of the Ne-20 turbojet of 1944-1945, in turn derived from German BMW 109-003)

 

Kawanishi ⇒ Shin Meiwa

-- negotiations to produce Douglas aircraft.

-- KJT-01 light jet trainer (project and mock-up stage as of article publish date) to be powered by an unspecified unit of 4500 lb thrust "suitable for all forms of basic military training."

 

Toyo

-- formed summer 1952 and led by former Kawasaki chief engineer Yoshio Hashiguchi [sidenote:  some sources claim that Yoshio Hashiguchi worked for Kawanishi]

-- liaison with Fletcher Aviation Corporation of California; license to manufacture FD-25A Defender ground attack aircraft

 

Kawasaki ⇒ Kawasaki-Gifu / Kawasaki-Kikai

-- permitted to overhaul and manufacture Lockheed F-94C Starfire.

-- repair and overhaul of Allison J33 turbojets; wanted to produce under license but denied by Japanese government (see Japan Jet Engine Company monopoly below)

 

Tachikawa

-- "remained more or less intact during the 'forbidden' period' -- no further significant details given.

 

Ishikawajima

-- [sidenote: Ishikawajima and Tachikawa may be the same company, there is some confusion about naming pre-war and post-war; both may have been based in Tachikawa; conflicting sources]

-- small staff at work upon the development of subsonic ramjets for at least 2 years.

 

Nakajima ⇒ Fuji

-- liquidated after the war, assets divided among 12 companies; 5 of those companies (among others) united to form Fuji Heavy Industries mid 1953.

-- Fuji FJT-51 development of jet trainer, highly-swept wings, to be powered by (unspecified) turbojet of ~4500 lb thrust.  No further details given.

-- author here claims Fuji T1F1 prototype was to be powered by Fuji JO-1 turbojet, but due to delays in the follow-on development of the JO-1 engine (J-3), it flew instead with a Bristol Orpheus engine, finally produced in that manner as the T-1A.

 

Japan Jet Engine Company

-- government-backed monopoly for the development of jet engines; plans to produce General Electric J47 turbojet under license for the Mitsubishi-built F-86F Sabres.

 

Conclusion

So, fledgling post-war reconstruction and reliance on foreign technology to some degree to get going again.  WG's treatment of France might be a reliable indicator for Japan (as well as Italy) given the similarity of circumstances.


Edited by J311yfish, 03 May 2015 - 06:02 PM.

Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


hwang_fighter #190 Posted 03 May 2015 - 07:05 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1 battle
  • 69
  • [WORD] WORD
  • Member since:
    08-22-2014
They should make a North Korean tech tree with soviet planes

Psicko23 #191 Posted 03 May 2015 - 05:19 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 24 battles
  • 2,722
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View Posthwang_fighter, on 03 May 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

They should make a North Korean tech tree with soviet planes

North Korea wasn't established until after world War 2. They also have so many more important lines to make such as filling up the Japan tech tree,  making a French and Italian line,  and so forth. 



hwang_fighter #192 Posted 03 May 2015 - 06:15 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1 battle
  • 69
  • [WORD] WORD
  • Member since:
    08-22-2014
Yeah

hwang_fighter #193 Posted 03 May 2015 - 06:17 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1 battle
  • 69
  • [WORD] WORD
  • Member since:
    08-22-2014
I'm facinated with the shenyang where can I find more pictures of it

J311yfish #194 Posted 11 May 2015 - 01:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2391 battles
  • 1,337
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Back to the drawing board

I thought that I might go back to the drawing board on this project to see it with fresh eyes, resolve some of the inadequacies, and get an idea of what considerations might be required for balanced play.  I said earlier that I was not going to go down this road, and that it really is a developer problem, but sometimes my curiosity and/or impatience gets the better of me, so here we go.  The idea here is to identify the "hard" areas of the tree that are unlikely to change, identify the "soft" areas of the tree that will require creativity on the part of the developers, as well as critique some of the choices I made to work around challenges (essentially cheating).

 

This is what I don't like about version 4.53:

1. Kawasaki and Aichi have been compressed (down-tiered) to compensate for the difficult transition from biplane to monoplane.  It is a very disruptive choice, and I cheated, so I would like to make it right.

2. Absence of "stretch" for workhorse aircraft (Ki-43, Ki-84).  This isn't fair to those aircraft; they should be stretched in manner similar to A6M, Bf 109, P-51, etc.  They're capable, and I erred against stretching for the sake of simplicity, so I think it should be made right.

3. Overall heavy fighter progression still needs clarification (1- vs. 2-seat, high vs. low, night fighters, recon/bomber mods, etc.).  It's kind of a mess.

4. Overall jet progression still needs clarification.  Should collaboration between Army/Navy be shown in the tree?  Collaboration with U.S. companies post-war?  Some indication or precedent from developers would be helpful here (such as treatment of French tree).

 


 

Hard pavement (horizontal agreement)

First, the "hard" areas.  Below you can see color-coded equivalencies between the Navy and Army.  They are derived from issued specifications (Navy vs. Army), aircraft role, historical narrative, and engine modules in-game.  Chronology and designers (both primarily vertical concepts) have already been accounted for.  The overall principle is that horizontal (modular) agreement is desirable and that decisions for the entire tree should be made with that in mind.  This means that to avoid severe balance changes further down the road, any new line developed for Japan will have to also consider those that are not yet released.  This is especially true in the case of Nakajima and Kawasaki due to their challenging transition to monoplanes (more detail on this below).

 

 

Nakajima Ki-11 = Kawasaki Ki-5

The army rejected these monoplane designs and instead fell back on the biplane design Ki-10 while monoplane designs caught up.  This development lag and retro use of a biplane design is what makes the Kawasaki line complicated.  How you work around this problem has implications for the rest of the line (discussed later).

 

Mitsubishi A5M = Mitsubishi Ki-18 = Mitsubishi Ki-33 = Nakajima Ki-27

A5M monoplane finally a success, adapted for Army specs as Ki-18 and Ki-33 but rejected to the shock of Mitsubishi; contract instead awarded to Nakajima's development of Ki-27.  Same engine, conceptually similar.  Meanwhile Ki-10's performance is still good for a biplane but fighting obsolescence (though not to the same extreme as Fiat CR.42 for Italy).

 

Mitsubishi A6M = Nakajima K-43

Same engine, same concept, kind of obvious.  Both are workhorses for the Navy and Army, production stretched for the duration of the war.

 

Mitsubishi J2M = Nakajima Ki-44

Both made use of a bomber engine adapted to the airframe in order to serve duty as an interceptor (emphasis on speed/climb rather than outright maneuverability).  Low wing area reminiscent of the Kawasaki Ki-78 concept aircraft that was inspired by Me 209.  D4Y also this level because of equivalence to Ki-60's engine, also the fact that Horikoshi considered the engine early in the development of J2M.  Both eclipsed by next generation.

 

Kawanishi N1K1-J/N1K2-J = Nakajima Ki-84 = Aichi B7A = Mitsubishi A7M

Next generation after inadequacies of A6M, Ki-43 and J2M, Ki-44 revealed through combat.  Nakajima Homare engine for all with same or similar progression.  A7M ordered to use Homare engine against Horikoshi's wishes, finally abandoned in favor of Mitsubishi engines; B7A planned to do the same.

 

Nakajima Ki-87 = Tachikawa Ki-94-II

Next iteration, prototype form at war end, designed to overcome the challenge of higher altitudes.  Meanwhile Aichi goes to 2 engines (S1A), Mitsubishi goes to rocketry (J8M), and Nakajima pursues jet engines (Kikka).

 

So, those are the "hard" areas -- those relationships that are unlikely to be deviated from because horizontal agreement (down to the module level) is assumed to be desirable for balance purposes.

 


 

Now the "soft" areas that are made evident from the above -- those areas that hinge upon detailed investigation of sources in Japanese and possibly creative solutions:

 

Soft pavement 1 (biplane to monoplane)

Nakajima Ki-11 and Kawasaki Ki-5 monoplane prototypes lack engine/armament upgrades because they did not proceed to production.  Logical fiction or else obscure information from Japanese sources would be required to bring them to fruition.  There is also the problem of Ki-5 being used as a premium rather than for progression (as of sometime last year), but the in-game Ki-5 test/gift plane has since then vanished into obscurity -- perhaps they are aware of the complication and have moved to reinstate it for progression.  If Ki-5 is not used for progression, then the most obvious workarounds are: 

--- 1) as I have done, down-tiering Ki-10, Ki-28, Ki-60 and stretching Ki-61, and consequently down-tiering D4Y, M6A, B7A for horizontal agreement (a very disruptive method);

--- 2) use Ki-10-I and Ki-10-II to cover both tiers (that is what the Army did after all until Ki-27 was online).  On paper there does not appear to be much in the way of upgrades for Ki-10, but in pictures there appear to be refinements to the airframe, both subtle and obvious (such as inclusion of a cockpit cover), that are not necessarily accounted for in narrative.  Further investigation is needed to pursue that avenue.  

If Nakajima Ki-11 is not viable as a lead-in to Ki-27 (due to lack of information), Ki-12 as a continuation of Type 91 could make sense as both were derived from Dewoitine designs.  Ki-12 uses a French engine, so if logical fiction is necessary along those lines then looking sideways to Dewoitine development in France might be a fair way to estimate the modular progression.

-- [placeholder -- Nakajima K-11/12, Kawasaki Ki-5]

 

Kawasaki Ki-28 prototype lacks engine/armament upgrades to be competitive at tier IV because it did not proceed to production.  It would be necessary for developers to identify what those engine/armament upgrades would be in order to make it work.  Follow-on development of the BMW engine produced under license by Kawasaki would be necessary, possibly looking sideways to development in Germany, meaning logical fiction or else further research with Japanese sources required.  

-- Ki-10 biplane to Ki-28 monoplane in pictures (source = Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft 1910-1945, Volume 4, Kawasaki, edited by Tadashi Nozawa and Takashi Iwata).

 

Aichi line in general would require great attention in order to be balanced due to lack of armament upgrades, and gap in transition to monoplane design.  Nakajima D2N and Kusho D2Y monoplanes were both rejected while Aichi relied instead on just upgrading the engine of the D1A (the D1A2 is also known as the D2A).  If the D2N or D2Y were utilized to avoid the over-stretching of the D3A, then it would be necessary to do some thorough research from Japanese sources to figure out how best to proceed.  I took a cheap way around this (because I do not read Japanese) by simply moving everything down a tier, so that their weaker armament (tier down) is compensated by more powerful engines (tier up).  I admit that it is not the most elegant solution, particularly since variables like maneuverability and durability have not been accounted for.

-- [placeholder -- D2N and D2Y]

 


 

Soft pavement 2 (heavy fighters and jets)

Kawasaki Ki-64 is obviously derived from Ki-61, but the question remains about whether or not it is considered to be a "heavy fighter."  I am inclined to say no in part because it makes things more complicated.  It is obviously an upgrade to the Ki-61, moreso than the Ki-100 which was produced instead due to technical challenges and the realities of war.  If Ki-64 is absolutely considered to be a heavy fighter then Ki-100 (engine as used in A6M5) would have to be up-tiered and could require attention to make it competitive.  There is also the matter of transition to Ki-94-II, which I still believe to be the best way to continue Kawasaki to tier VIII.

 

Heavy fighters in general -- whether or not to bifurcate into single-seat and two-seat, high-altitude vs. ground attack, whether or not to make use of adapted reconnaissance or bomber airframes, etc.  This is a complicated mosaic like the current U.K. heavy fighter line.  I can explode it with detail but until the developers make greater indications (such as whether or not 75mm is viable for anti-fighter combat), it is difficult to proceed with absolute clarity.  

 

Tiers VIII, IX, X -- an obvious challenge, and a "very soft" area that requires much attention on the part of the developers.  Should collaboration between Army and Navy on jet/rocket technology near the end of the war be indicated?  It is difficult to proceed here, and difficult also to identify whether or not post-war designs for jet trainers or licensed production are permissible or desirable.  More research in this area can only come from Japanese sources, perhaps unpublished post-war records directly from those companies.  In the meantime, the use of Mitsubishi J8M as a premium is a mild indicator that other avenues for VIII-X will be pursued.

 


 

moving forward

-- gather finer information (from Japanese sources where possible) to clarify the transition to monoplane which is otherwise unfairly glossed over at the expense of later tiers.

-- wait for clues from Wargaming as to how they intend to proceed with heavy fighters / jets.

 


 

tl;dr

-- transition to monoplane design complicates Nakajima, Kawasaki, Aichi at tiers II and III

-- obscure sources in Japanese or logical fiction required to create balanced progression

-- still no clear indicators for treatment of Japanese heavy fighters

-- still no clear indicators for treatment of Japanese jets


Edited by J311yfish, 12 May 2015 - 02:09 AM.

Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


hwang_fighter #195 Posted 13 May 2015 - 06:11 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1 battle
  • 69
  • [WORD] WORD
  • Member since:
    08-22-2014
The ki 61 reminds me of a p 51

J311yfish #196 Posted 25 May 2015 - 11:26 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2391 battles
  • 1,337
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Version 4.71 update

 

-- the Japanese tech tree project has evolved steadily from humble beginnings (02/2014) to become very detailed and accountable.

-- as of the time of this update (05/29/2015), the thread has been viewed nearly 97,000 times.

 


 

Quick overview

 

1. All engine modules assigned to tiers based on engines already in-game (finally!)

-- Nakajima Kotobuki, Nakajima Hikari, Mitsubishi Zuisei, Nakajima Sakae, Mitsubishi Kinsei, Nakajima Homare, Kawasaki Ha-140

-- BMW and Daimler-Benz to approximate those of Aichi and Kawasaki

-- Pratt & Whitney to approximate late Nakajima Homare

 

2. Production models have been stretched as their engines and historical narratives allow (Ex. Ki-43-I, Ki-43-II)

-- the assignment of engine modules (part 1 above) made this possible

 

3. Development relationships and roles clearly identified for accountability

-- a single vertical line indicates a relationship established by designer, role, engine, or concepts (Ex. A4N, A5M)

-- a double vertical line indicates revision (continuity) of the same aircraft (Ex. A6M1, A6M2, A6M5)

 

4. Details and 3-views added for many aircraft (ongoing).

 

5. Information moved around among various posts so that future growth is not impeded.

 


 

 

MITSUBISHI

-- A8M project shown above for accountability sake only; terminated in early design stage, minimal information.

-- J8M removed from progression due to premium status.

 

PURPLE BOX

-- D3A and D4Y have been stretched according to their development history and anticipated engine module tiers.

-- P1Y Ginga added though there are many variations so further inquiry is needed.  The "Yokosuka Tenga" jet project is supposed to have been a P1Y Ginga adapted to use the jet engines then under development for the Kikka.  If more information can be found on that project (sources in Japanese) then there might be a way to bridge the P1Y to R2Y2.

-- These aircraft remain generally weak on forward armament ("tiered down") and must rely on more powerful engines ("tiered up") to accommodate bomb payload and tail gunner.

-- S1A and P1Y are both twin-engine aircraft but to keep visual representation simple they have been left with their originating branch (this will be resolved later).

 

MAROON BOX

-- Ki-38 is visible only to explain the relationship between D3A and Ki-45.  Ki-38 was an interim design that was not carried through to completion, but (like the D3A) championed the elliptical wing designs of Heinkel.  It was also to use two in-line engines (most likely at this point in time the BMW VI, as used on Heinkel He-111, and built under license by Kawasaki).

-- If Heinkel design influence is not to be acknowledged, then the pre-Ki-45 spot could be filled haphazardly via Army co-op aircraft such as Ki-32 (used BMW VI engine), but calling the Ki-32 a "heavy fighter" muddies the description so I think it should be avoided.  If you go that route then there is also the matter of the Ki-30, Ki-36, and Ki-51 Army co-op aircraft to choose from, and their armament is generally low.

-- Ki-66 has been added; it was to be a twin engine dive bomber yet did not proceed beyond prototype stage because the designs were carried over to the Ki-48-II light bomber.  Up to five engines identified for progression prior to Ki-102's arrival.  Armament would have to be interpolated based on role and adjacent aircraft.  The attack role is resumed with Ki-102 and Ki-93 (both of which use 57mm cannons).

-- Ki-96 and Ki-108 have been made parallel to indicate their single-seat relationship to their two-seat origin.

-- Guided bombs and the aircraft intended to carry them will be investigated in the future (Ex. Kawasaki I-Go, Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka).

 

RED BOX

-- Ki-61-I, Ki-61-II, and Ki-100 placed appropriately based on their engine progression.  Ki-100's use of the Kinsei 62 engine eclipses that of the A6M5 due to (significant) performance at altitude.  It is frequently described as one of Japan's best fighters of the war and competed with P-51D (in-game, also Tier VII).  Ki-61-I, Ki-61-II, Ki-100 data table also reworked in greater detail (ongoing).

-- Ki-64 officially designated a heavy fighter, and relationship to Ki-83 heavy fighter made clear by Tomio Kubo's Ki-73 coupled-engine plan.

-- Ki-94-I added just because it fits very neatly into the scheme above (2 engines in one fuselage as Ki-64 and Ki-73) and shows relationship to Ki-94-II.

-- Kawasaki did not pursue jet technology so progression stops there unless it resumed by obscure post-war designs or collaboration with Lockheed.

 

GREEN BOX

-- Ki-43, Ki-44, and Ki-84 have finally been stretched according to their development history.

-- Kikka is still here because I think it is a stretch to call it a "heavy fighter."  It would certainly be helpful/neat to put it between Ki-108 and Ki-201, but due to low armament and fledgling Ne-20 engine, leaving it as a regular fighter (in manner similar to fledgling Gloster Meteor I premium).

-- Army's version of J8M, the Ki-200/202 is still potentially there for interceptor progression.

-- Fuji T1F1 prototype developed after the war was to use a further development of the Ne-20 engine.  It may be a good choice for Tier IX or X because it continues the story and would represent the Japan Air Self Defense Force (1954).  Details are scarce so more research needed.

 

Alternates

-- Aichi E16A "Paul" floatplane added (Tier IV); it has 20mm cannons, was developed for use as a dive bomber, and contributed to development of the Aichi M6A.

 

Mystery

-- Aichi M6A's 17mm forward armament option is still a mystery.  Mikesh is the only (English) author to have mentioned it, as far as I can tell.

-- Mansyu Ki-98 is still kind of a mystery, in part because the English name of the company is represented many ways, but based on chronology and narrative here I think it was a further development of Mitsubishi's discarded J4M design according to Army specifications.  If used for progression then I think close knowledge of production in Manchuria could be used to interpolate engine/armament progression (such as Ki-84-I and prototype Ki-116 produced by Mansyu at Harbin).

 

Moving forward

-- There is not much to do except add minor details, or modify slightly as Wargaming releases new aircraft.

-- Minor details that could be added include P1Y variants and Tenga jet details if any; engine horsepower at altitude (all aircraft); longer naming conventions (such as Aichi D3A = "Navy Type 99 Carrier Bomber"); identification of foreign design influence.

-- Major revision would only follow the introduction of bombers, specialized munitions (suicide glide bombs, radio-guided bombs, etc.), flying boats, floatplanes.

-- Layout in this left-to-right manner (Navy on left, Army on right) puts "equivalent" Navy/Army aircraft (such as A5M and Ki-27, A6M and Ki-43) far apart, and centralizes the struggle for land-based twin-engine solutions.  It can make sense when you are building the tree in totality but in the short term (as individual lines are added) it does not necessarily make sense to do that.  A better visual representation might be to have Mitsubishi and Nakajima (the two largest producers) back-to-back, with Aichi/Yokosuka and Kawasaki at the periphery, but it kind of depends on how Tier IX and X are handled and I don't want to speculate about that!

-- onward and upward

 


Edited by J311yfish, 30 May 2015 - 03:37 PM.

Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


J311yfish #197 Posted 06 June 2015 - 05:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2391 battles
  • 1,337
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Version 4.80 update

 

How I Learned to Quit Worrying and Love the (Ohka) Bomb

 

 

Quick overview

 

0. Service naming conventions added

-- (Example: Army Type 3 Fighter = Ki-61)

 

1. Yokosuka naming convention revised 

-- "Yokosuka" was a general name based on geographical area (designated by "Y").

-- Specific manufacturer names were Yokosho, Kusho, Kugisho, Ichi-Gisho based on timeframe.  

-- Therefore the Yokosuka aircraft have been named accordingly (Francillon does not do this, but Dyer does, as well as sources in Japanese).

 

Date Long name Acronym
1914 - 1932 Yokosuka Kaigun Ko-Sho (Yokosuka Naval Arsenal) Yokosho
04/01/1932 - 04/01/1939 Kaigun Koku-sho (Naval Air Arsenal) Kusho
04/01/1939 - 02/15/1945 Kaigun Koku-Gijutsu-Sho (Naval Technical Air Arsenal) Kugisho
02/15/1945+ Dai-Ichi Kaigun Gijutsu-Sho (1st Naval Technical Arsenal) Ichi-Gisho

Source:  Mikesh, 262.

 

2. Implications due to Mitsubishi J8M premium

-- Katsuodori at Tier VII -- from Ki-44-II via large-caliber caseless ammo concept; to Ki-200 via point-defense interceptor concept

-- Ki-200 at Tier VIII -- Army analogue of J8M

-- Ki-202 at Tier IX -- or as module development of Ki-200 at Tier VIII.

 

3. Unique Attack aircraft

-- Kugisho P1Y still needs clarification due to the many subtle variants (engine/armament), however major progression exists through guided bomb modules via the MXY7 Ohka (800-1200kg and engine progressions).

-- if implemented, the P1Y (and its follow-on development Tenga) would provide a unique and radical progression of attack aircraft for Japan.

-- Kugisho P1Y used as testbed aircraft also for Tsu 11, an early Japanese jet influenced by Italian Campini jet design.

-- Kugisho Tenga was to use Ne-30 jet engines (to start) but the project was canceled and would have been eclipsed by later jet engines anyway (those already in-game).

-- Therefore Kugisho P1Y and Kugisho Tenga added accordingly as bridge to Kugisho R2Y2, anticipated to be Tier X based on engines also used by J7W2.

 

4. Native jet engine development for Tier X.

-- Kugisho Ne-20 engine was to be used by Nakajima Kikka

-- Kugisho Ne-20 development continued by Ishikawajima-Harima after the war (1953+).

-- Fuji (a fragment of what was formerly known as Nakajima) designed and built the first post-war Japanese jet, the Fuji T1F1.

-- delays in development led to the use of the Bristol Orpheus in Fuji T1F1, the same engine used Italy's Fiat G.91, anticipated to be Tier X for Italy.

-- the Ne-20 descendent engine, Ishikawajima-Harima J3, was finally used in the Fuji T1F2.

-- Therefore Fuji T1F2 is a Tier X aircraft in the Nakajima line.

-- further details are a work in progress.

 

5. classes at Tier X

-- Nakajima Ki-201-II is a logical extension of Ki-201 based on the (fictional) Ne-440 engine given to J7W3.

-- if all of the above were done, then Japan would have the following at Tier X:

 

Multirole Attack Heavy Fighter Fighter
Kyushu J7W3 Kugisho R2Y2 Nakajima Ki-201-II Fuji T1F2

 

-- ^ that's 2 for Navy, 2 for Army, and that's PFG.

 

Future updates

-- guided munition details (Ohka, Kawasaki Ki-148 Igo-I-B)

-- details/polish

 


Edited by J311yfish, 06 June 2015 - 08:34 PM.

Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


Raindrops #198 Posted 07 June 2015 - 02:11 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

Hah! Finally caught up with the latest updates! Excellent work as always, J311y. On this last one though, considering WG's little "politically correct" changes every once in awhile, I doubt we would be able to see the bomb - at least, not as itsself. Makes me wonder if it could be sufficiently altered to give the Japanese that unique ability while still slipping past correctness censors.

 

Too bad about the J8M though. It is a bummer that the only Japanese updates since beta have been premiums, it's more cutting down future possibilities than building the tree up.


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


J311yfish #199 Posted 13 June 2015 - 10:54 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2391 battles
  • 1,337
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Developer choices for current Japanese line and implications for the rest of the Japanese aircraft

 

Below is a historical account of aircraft and modules from which the current Japanese line is derived.

-- Modules in gray are those that have been omitted from progression

-- Modules highlighted in orange are those that have been used for premium aircraft.

-- Modules highlighted in yellow are those that have been fictionalized.

-- [some details for A6M1 and A6M2 are missing from this analysis, they'll be added later]

 

Part 1 - Aircraft and module selection

 

Part 2 - Thoughts and implications

 

 


Edited by J311yfish, 03 January 2016 - 08:27 PM.

Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


J311yfish #200 Posted 13 June 2015 - 11:12 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2391 battles
  • 1,337
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Quick update 4.81:

-- Kugisho P1Y tier VI and VII, including Kugisho MXY7 Ohka bomb and Kawanishi Baika bomb for which it was to be a parent aircraft.

-- Kugisho Tenga tier VIII based on projected conversion of P1Y to use jet engines.  Wide latitude for developer interpretation.

-- Kugisho R2Y2 tier IX based on J7W2's engine precedent.  Non-descript armament = wide latitude for developer interpretation.

-- Kugisho R2Y3 tier X based on J7W3 precedent.

 


 

Future updates:

 

Kikka placement:

[X] -- implications of current line of Japanese aircraft

[X] -- details for "B series" of carrier attack bombers

[X] -- manufacturer location list and the aircraft produced there by date

[_] -- the story of jet engine development in Japan, and the true origin of Kikka

^ All of the above are necessary for accurate Kikka placement.  It has been a mistake to consider it to be merely an extension of the main Nakajima fighters (several reasons).

 

guide bombs:

[_] -- Kawasaki Ki-102b's I-Go-1-A details

^ This is to account for the Army's (radio-guided) analogue to the Navy's (human-guided) Ohka and Baika bombs.

 

night fighters:

[_] -- all aircraft known to have used (or planned to use) radar

^ This may shed more light on Nakajima J1N1 and establish the context by which Aichi S1A is to be evaluated.


Edited by J311yfish, 20 June 2015 - 01:56 PM.

Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures






Also tagged with Japan, Mitsubishi, Aichi, Kawanishi, Kyushu, Kawasaki, Nakajima, Tachikawa, Mansyu, Rikugun

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users