Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Chokai, on 01 November 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:
The Kikka would NOT have been able to work as a carrier plane right? With the engines, weight, etc it would have not been feasible?
The short answer is:
"Technically feasible but historically unprecedented."
The longer answer is that, according to all sources that I have seen in English:
1) it was not conceived that way
-- the origin of the Kikka (Orange Blossom) parallels development of the Ohka (Cherry Blossom) following a meeting in 08/1944, two months after the Battle of Philippine Sea ("Marianas Turkey Shoot"), the Allied invasion of Normandy, and the arrival of B-29's over Japan. It was to be a "special attack" ("special" as in surprise or suicide), catapult-launched twin-engine aircraft with rocket-assisted take-off (RATO) and no landing gear. It was to use the Tsu-11 engine until greater jet power was developed. In 12/1944 the role changed from "special attack" to "close air support bomber" and with this new role was assigned the name Kikka for the first time. Delays in development occurred due to B-29's, dispersed production, and the decision to wait or re-fit for more powerful engines as they materialized. Dyer claims that a fighter-interceptor version remained on the drawing boards at war end, and in the context of other bomb-delivery methods/developments it does make sense.
2) it would not be designated that way if assigned to carrier duty.
-- "J" signifies a land-based aircraft, as J1N1, J2M, etc. However, is it possible that the design and intention of the aircraft were initiated before the loss of carriers, and that the "J" was affixed at some point after that occurrence? That could be the case for J5N1, for which there is very little information. Though it was developed on the basis of the J1N1, the wingspan has been scaled down and appears to be agreeable with other carrier-based aircraft. It could make sense, given that D4Y3 was a radial conversion to a more reliable engine, that a twin-engine approach (as P1Y) was considered as a means to achieve greater range or payload. There is not much information about J5N, except that it was conceived before the loss of the carrier Taiho 06/1944, flight tested after (07/1944), and that it was altered several times before termination 01/1945 to focus on Kikka.
Also, nitpicking the designation of those aircraft named Yokosuka -- there is a mention somewhere by Mikesh that though the "Y" signifies "Yokosuka", it actually refers to a geographical area, and not the actual designer or manufacturer, which changed names several times (such as Kusho to Kugisho). So, if Mikesh and Dyer are to be believed, then the naming convention used in WoWS is not entirely correct and they should instead be called:
-- Kusho D4Y2
-- Kusho D4Y3
-- Kugisho R2Y1
But that fact is not widely known, and so it may be a concession to rely upon more popular and recognizable names. That would account also for the unaltered "J" designation.
Now, there are some other unusual features and I hope to get more into it at some point but here are some bullets:
-- A7M1 was considered to be underpowered with the Homare engine 05/1944, which was not resolved until A7M2 10/1944. By then production of A7M was eclipsed by N1K2-J and its follow-on developments. The N1K5 represents the apex of that development, with engine power and armament greater than A7M. Francillon claims the N1K5 prototype was destroyed by B-29's prior to completion.
-- J7W1 being after N1K5 makes sense given engine, armament, chronology.
-- A8M after J7W1 is puzzling primarily because there is approximately zero information about it in English. Dyer says only that it was on the drawing board, which means to me that it was not pursued because of the loss of carriers and loss of hope for ever again developing an offensive posture. It is conceivable that the design was developed around the time of disappointment with A7M, but I speculate. In reality the A7M was instead pursued as a spin-off variant A7M3-J to intercept B-29's with schrage-musik configuration.
-- Kikka as the highest-available fighter for the Tier X aircraft carrier Hakuryu (for which there is zero information) in this context makes sense, but only if the carriers were not lost (such as at Midway and Philippine Sea), and from there if Hakuryu were actually built. The only information known about it (that I can see) is what they advertise in-game, that it was designed in 1942 (no month given). If designed before Midway 06/1942, it would be the logical extension of necessary Japanese development to maintain and improve upon offensive capability. Note however that this predates any conception of Kikka by 2 years. That is why I say that the development is based upon an "idealized" history -- because the developments would have to be assumed to occur, as a logical extension, from the height of Japanese power (before carrier loss), and then development achieved in a convergent manner to render possible the use of Japanese jets on carriers.
I am not saying that I disagree with their approach -- sometimes fiction is more interesting than reality -- but the manner of their approach is not one that I could reliably employ for WoWP because I am not a developer. I have estimated tier IX/X aircraft development only because the J7W2/J7W3 precedent was established. With WoWS there is a new precedent, and a new way to think about things. It will be interesting to see if there is any agreement in the future between WoWS and WoWP.
Edited by J311yfish, 01 November 2015 - 05:14 PM.
4
