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 #221 Posted 31 October 2015 - 04:39 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Fighter, Torpedo Bomber, Dive Bomber progression for carrier-borne aircraft in World of Warships:

 

Tier Carrier Fighter

Torpedo

Bomber

Dive

Bomber

IV Hosho

Mitsubishi 1MF

Nakajima A2N2

Mitsubishi 1MT

Mitsubishi B1M

(none)
V​ Zuiho

Nakajima A2N2

Nakajima A4N

Mitsubishi B1M

Nakajima B3N

Aichi D1A1

Aichi D1A2

VI Ryujo

Nakajima A4N

Mitsubishi A5M2

Nakajima B3N

Yokosuka B4Y

Aichi D1A2

Aichi D3A1

VII Hiryu

Mitsubishi A5M2

Mitsubishi A6M2

Yokosuka B4Y

Nakajima B5N2

Aichi D3A1

Aichi D3A2

VIII Shokaku

Mitsubishi A6M2

Mitsubishi A7M1

Nakajima B5N2

Nakajima B6N

Aichi D3A2

Yokosuka D4Y2

IX Taiho

Kawanishi N1K5-A

Kyushu J7W1

Nakajima B6N​
Aichi B7A

Yokosuka D4Y2

Yokosuka D4Y3

X Hakuryu

Mitsubishi A8M

Nakajima J8N1 (Kikka)

Aichi B7A

Yokosuka R2Y1-B

Yokosuka D4Y3

Nakajima J5N1

 

 


Edited by J311yfish, 03 November 2015 - 06:00 AM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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


Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Chokai #222 Posted 31 October 2015 - 06:53 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 45 battles
  • 958
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    12-13-2012

View PostJ311yfish, on 31 October 2015 - 04:39 PM, said:

Fighter, Torpedo Bomber, Dive Bomber progression for carrier-borne aircraft in World of Warships:

 

Tier Carrier Fighter

Torpedo

Bomber

Dive

Bomber

IV Hosho

Mitsubishi 1MF

Nakajima A2N2

Mitsubishi 1MT

Mitsubishi B1M

(none)
V​ Zuiho

Nakajima A2N2

Nakajima A4N

Mitsubishi B1M

Nakajima B3N

Aichi D1A1

Aichi D1A2

VI Ryujo

Nakajima A4N

Mitsubishi A5M2

Nakajima B3N

Yokosuka B4Y

Aichi D1A2

Aichi D3A1

VII Hiryu

Mitsubishi A5M2

Mitsubishi A6M2

Yokosuka B4Y

Nakajima B5N2

Aichi D3A1

Aichi D3A2

VIII Shokaku

Mitsubishi A6M2

Mitsubishi A7M1

Nakajima B5N2

Nakajima B6N

Aichi D3A2

Yokosuka D4Y2

IX Taiho

Kawanishi N1K5-A

Kyushu J7W1

Nakajima B6N​
Aichi B7A

Yokosuka D4Y2

Yokosuka D4Y3

X Hakuryu

Mitsubishi A8M

Nakajima J8N1 (Kikka)

Aichi B7A

Yokosuka R2Y1-B

Yokosuka D4Y3

Nakajima J5N1

 

 

The N1K5 is weird. Every carriers second tier planes in each slot, both nations, is the first tier for the next ship. Except that little buger. I have no clue why.


The (not so) amazing Chokai is back! And he's hit all his personal goals sans one! Seriously though, nice to be back, looks like he game is improving. I continue to try to recruit new people.


J311yfish #223 Posted 01 November 2015 - 02:11 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

A close look at the timeline for the carriers and aircraft above suggests that it is based upon an idealized history that does not acknowledge heavy losses incurred at Philippine Sea (06/19/1944-06/20/1944) or the changes in production/development strategy resulting from that.  I intend to look at it very closely to see what might be understood for WoWP.

 

 


Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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


Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Chokai #224 Posted 01 November 2015 - 06:55 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 45 battles
  • 958
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    12-13-2012

View PostJ311yfish, on 01 November 2015 - 02:11 AM, said:

A close look at the timeline for the carriers and aircraft above suggests that it is based upon an idealized history that does not acknowledge heavy losses incurred at Philippine Sea (06/19/1944-06/20/1944) or the changes in production/development strategy resulting from that.  I intend to look at it very closely to see what might be understood for WoWP.

 

 

Sounds good. You would know better than me but I am checking mainly do to vanity. 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 (not so) amazing Chokai is back! And he's hit all his personal goals sans one! Seriously though, nice to be back, looks like he game is improving. I continue to try to recruit new people.


J311yfish #225 Posted 01 November 2015 - 01:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostFog_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.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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


Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Chokai #226 Posted 01 November 2015 - 09:33 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 45 battles
  • 958
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    12-13-2012
Interesting. Thank you for the info my friend!

The (not so) amazing Chokai is back! And he's hit all his personal goals sans one! Seriously though, nice to be back, looks like he game is improving. I continue to try to recruit new people.


pyantoryng #227 Posted 02 November 2015 - 02:21 PM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2133 battles
  • 8,430
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
I've swapped the A8M model onto one of my carriers from back when I still captained carriers...it looks basically like the A7M but with the J7W1's 6-blade props...

WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

J311yfish #228 Posted 03 November 2015 - 07:16 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View Postpyantoryng, on 02 November 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

I've swapped the A8M model onto one of my carriers from back when I still captained carriers...it looks basically like the A7M but with the J7W1's 6-blade props...

 

That is interesting, and appropriate.  A report from the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey describes 6-bladed propellers as being experimental at war end.  They are also found on J4M, R2Y1, Ki-93.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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


ScorchTrials_ #229 Posted 08 November 2015 - 07:27 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2 battles
  • 391
  • Member since:
    07-04-2015

WOW...amazing. i have no words

 


 

ScorchTrials_.png

 

 


J311yfish #230 Posted 09 December 2015 - 09:47 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

121,315 views since creation 34 months ago = 3568 views/month = 120 views/day = 5 views/hour average over the lifetime of the thread.

 


Edited by J311yfish, 09 December 2015 - 09:56 AM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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 #231 Posted 17 December 2015 - 03:50 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Minor update -- work in progress

 

Given the relatively chaotic nature of Japanese Navy aircraft development which was aggravated by 1) loss of carriers; 2) limits of production; and 3) shift to defensive strategy; and given the treatment of carrier-based aircraft progression by World of Warships, I propose to revisit the PURPLE and GOLD lines to bring them to greater clarity, and to remove doubts that might be associated with certain aircraft.

 

 

Doubts:

-- Kugisho P1Y3 -- the proposed parent aircraft for the Kugisho Ohka human-guided missile -- too radical for the game?

-- Kugisho Tenga -- absent or no information -- paper, or vapor?

-- Fuji T1F2 -- yes, an engine development from the Kikka's Ne-20 engine, but timeline and low forward armament may render it obscure/absent

 

Resolution 1:

-- B7A to Tier VI -- Homare engine progression is on par with Ki-84-I, not A7M

-- J5N1 to Tier VII -- Homare engine progression from B7A, yet twin-engine due to land-based status, precursor to Kikka.

-- Kikka horizontal shift

-- R2Y2 horizontal shift

-- R2Y3 horizontal shift

 

Resolution 2:

-- Kugisho P1Y1 removed

-- Kugisho P1Y3 removed

-- Kugisho Tenga removed

-- Aichi S1A to premium status

-- Fuji T1F2 removed


Edited by J311yfish, 17 December 2015 - 11:26 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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 #232 Posted 27 December 2015 - 03:26 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Minor updates

 

1) resolved Kawasaki at tiers II, III, IV, based on the BMW VI engine currently in-game for Germany at tiers I and II (Arado 65, Arado 68, Heinkel He 51), and USSR at tier II (M-17 engines for Tsh-2, TsKB I-7), and Kawasaki Ki-5.  This makes the progression to Ki-61 cleaner.

 

2) cleaned up Navy dive bombers and torpedo bombers in manner described above.  I have included torpedo bomber progression alongside the dive bomber progression (despite the limited or absent forward armament) for illustration only because I believe that it informs the use of the Kugisho MXY7 Ohka human-guided missile carried by Kugisho P1Y3, and because it helps to explain the origin of Nakajima Kikka.  The "torpedo bomber line" could (and presumably would) be excluded while leaving the Kikka line intact.


Edited by J311yfish, 02 January 2016 - 11:32 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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


pyantoryng #233 Posted 30 December 2015 - 02:51 PM

    Colonel

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2133 battles
  • 8,430
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I found this thread on WoWS board: http://forum.worldof...93#entry1546993

 

There, ArdRaeiss says something about the A8M - I've quoted his post and linked the image he included for convenience.

View PostArdRaeiss, on 30 December 2015 - 12:08 PM, said:

Still better than "yet another" A6M.

Uhm... A8M was the further modification of A7M3. Nearly the same hull,better engine(Ha-44-21). Actual mostly unknown paper project. Anyway, the J7W as it was build is not carrier-compatible. Are you asking for more fantasy over something real?

 

 

Spoiler

 

What do you make of it? Of course, he doesn't cite his source because he apparently doesn't think that this thing has essentially 0 info.


Edited by pyantoryng, 30 December 2015 - 03:57 PM.


WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

J311yfish #234 Posted 31 December 2015 - 01:04 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View Postpyantoryng, on 30 December 2015 - 02:51 PM, said:

I found this thread on WoWS board: http://forum.worldof...93#entry1546993

 

There, ArdRaeiss says something about the A8M - I've quoted his post and linked the image he included for convenience.

 

 

Spoiler

 

What do you make of it? Of course, he doesn't cite his source because he apparently doesn't think that this thing has essentially 0 info.

 

There are many problems with that thread.  Here are a few:

 

-- There is much banter back and forth in that thread [WoWS: Full Aircraft Tech Tree Ideas] without anyone naming their sources.

-- Conclusions are then built upon unverifiable information without the usual disclaimers to indicate that it is speculative in nature.

-- A developer is defending the choice of A8M in the WoWS tech tree because he claims that someone told him it was in Edwin Dyer's book #2.  That is ridiculous for at least 4 reasons:

 

1) The information presented does not come from Dyer's book #2.  I know because I have the book.

2) The information presented actually conflicts with Francillon.  The Francillon text is not hard to come by and is so far the most comprehensive source in English, and any deviation from it is enough on its own to invite further scrutiny.  The fact that no one has mentioned the conflict is an indicator to me that no one has bothered to look closer.

3) The developer is using a "burden of proof" defense, also known as an "appeal to ignorance."  Logical fallacies are hallmarks of mental laziness and irresponsibility in those that employ them.  I grant that even disciplined minds can make mistakes, but this display is not a desirable thought process to have in a researcher.

4) The developer should have verified the information himself before accepting it as valid for integration.

 

I could say more on that but I think I have said enough.  

 

Now, as for the information presented, and whether it stands up to scrutiny:

 

Source = Edwin Dyer

 "When the end of the war arrived for Japan, just two A7M1 prototypes had been built, only a single production A7M2 Model 22 had rolled off the line, and the fourth, sixth and seventh prototypes were the only other airworthy A7M2 aircraft remaining.  The other prototypes were never completely repaired.  Still, the story of the A7M would continue into the last gasp of the IJN's attempt to find a war-winning fighter, the Mitsubishi A8M Rifuku.  But the Rifuku story is for another time." (Dyer #2, 90)

 

The story of the A7M begins on page 85, and ends on page 90, with only the last paragraph mentioning A8M.  To be clear, Dyer does not offer narrative, specifications, or imagery.  The greater information actually comes from Francillon:

 

Source = Rene Francillon

 "Another derivative [of A7M] was being jointly developed by Mitsubishi and Nakajima to meet the requirements of a 20-Shi specification calling for a Ko (A) Type Carrier Fighter, issued on April 7 1945.  The Rifuku was to make use of the A7M3-J airframe and was to be powered by either a Nakajima [Ha-41] 21 or a Nakajima [Ha-44] 13.  This aircraft was in its initial design stage when Japan surrendered." (Francillon, 403)

 

The engines claimed by Francillon for the supposed-A8M are in conflict with the unverifiable claim.

 

Now for the supposed sources:

 

Here is the source claimed by the developer in the thread above (09/2014 reply in 08/2013 WoWS.ru thread), which in turn references this thread at Secret Projects forum (10/2013 reply in 03/2010 thread).  If you are registered with the Secret Projects forum, you will see the supposed A8M 3-view in question (copied to imgur by Ainen and linked again by ArdRaeiss), along with a data table that claims to be from Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft 1900-1945, Vol. 1 - Mitsubishi.  The data table has not been posted by Ainen or ArdRaeiss, for whatever reason, but supposing the data table to be valid (for the sake of argument), there is disagreement there too about the supposed A8M and its implementation in WoWS -- propeller with 4 blades, not 6 as implemented in WoWS.

 

There is a document floating around on the internet that claims to be ATIG(Air Technical Intelligence Group) Report No.45 dated 11/05/1945, in which Nakajima's progress on engine development is discussed:

 

Block Quote

 "In the opinion of the design engineers ... The most promising engine among the experimental group which might have been in production within six months was considered the Ha-44-13.  This engine (2940 cu.in.) was rated at 2500 HP take off and 2100 HP at 19,600 feet."

 

If that information is correct, then the claimed Ha-44-21 engine is beyond that which was considered to be most promising at the end of the war, being a later iteration of the Ha-44-13.

 

All of this to say that the lack of consistency (and integrity in the entire process) is unfortunate.


Edited by J311yfish, 31 December 2015 - 01:48 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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 #235 Posted 31 December 2015 - 06:47 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

One more thing.  I have seen the book that is claimed to be the source of the data table [Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft 1900-1945, Vol.1].  It is actually from there that many of the 3-views for this project were derived (along with those of Francillon, Mikesh, Bueschel, and the Docavia book by Bernard Millot).  I can confirm these things:

 

1) the artwork of the supposed A8M 3-view is not consistent with the artwork of that book:

-- A7M1, A7M2, A7M3-J -- all by K. Komuro.  These images were scanned from the book by me this past summer

 

2) the supposed A8M data table is not consistent with the data table of that book:

-- A7M data only, no "20-Shi" data available

 

Now, I will grant that it is possible that the 20-Shi specifications are hidden somewhere in the Japanese text in one of the other volumes, but even given that (generous) allowance, there is still no mention of any other volumes used as a source.

 

Anyway, I think the burden of proof resides with those making the claim that inclusion is warranted, so I am going to leave this alone.

 


Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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 #236 Posted 01 January 2016 - 02:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostJ311yfish, on 31 October 2015 - 04:39 PM, said:

Fighter, Torpedo Bomber, Dive Bomber progression for carrier-borne aircraft in World of Warships:

 

Tier Carrier Fighter

Torpedo

Bomber

Dive

Bomber

IV Hosho

Mitsubishi 1MF

Nakajima A2N2

Mitsubishi 1MT

Mitsubishi B1M

(none)
V​ Zuiho

Nakajima A2N2

Nakajima A4N

Mitsubishi B1M

Nakajima B3N

Aichi D1A1

Aichi D1A2

VI Ryujo

Nakajima A4N

Mitsubishi A5M2

Nakajima B3N

Yokosuka B4Y

Aichi D1A2

Aichi D3A1

VII Hiryu

Mitsubishi A5M2

Mitsubishi A6M2

Yokosuka B4Y

Nakajima B5N2

Aichi D3A1

Aichi D3A2

VIII Shokaku

Mitsubishi A6M2

Mitsubishi A7M1

Nakajima B5N2

Nakajima B6N

Aichi D3A2

Yokosuka D4Y2

IX Taiho

Kawanishi N1K5-A

Kyushu J7W1

Nakajima B6N​
Aichi B7A

Yokosuka D4Y2

Yokosuka D4Y3

X Hakuryu

Mitsubishi A8M

Nakajima J8N1 (Kikka)

Aichi B7A

Yokosuka R2Y1-B

Yokosuka D4Y3

Nakajima J5N1

 

 

What WoWS aircraft progression might look like if it were re-imagined to follow a historical timeline:

 

Tier

Carrier

Fighter

Torpedo

Bomber

Dive

Bomber

IV

Hosho (1922)

Nakajima A1N (1927)

Nakajima A2N (1929)

Mitsubishi B2M (1929-1932)

Kusho B3Y (1932-1936)

(none)

V​

Zuiho (1937)

Nakajima A2N (1929)

Nakajima A4N (1934)

Kusho B3Y (1932-1936)

Kusho B4Y (1935-1938)

Aichi D1A1 (1934-1937)

Aichi D1A2 (1936-1940)

VI

Ryujo (1933)

Nakajima A4N (1934)

Mitsubishi A5M (1935-1940)

Kusho B4Y (1935-1938)

Nakajima B5N (1937-1942)

Aichi D1A2 (1936-1940)

Aichi D3A (1937-1945)

VII

Hiryu (1939)

Mitsubishi A5M (1935-1940)

Mitsubishi A6M2 (1941)

Nakajima B5N (1937-1942)

Nakajima B6N (1943)

Aichi D3A (1937-1945)

Kusho D4Y2 (1944)

VIII

Shokaku (1941)

Mitsubishi A6M2 (1941)

Mitsubishi A6M5 (1943)

Nakajima B6N (1943)

Aichi B7A2 (1944)

Kusho D4Y2 (1944)

Aichi B7A2 (1944)

IX

Taiho (1944)

Mitsubishi A6M5 (1943)

Mitsubishi A7M2 (1944)

Aichi B7A2 (1944)

Nakajima Kikka (1945)

Aichi B7A2 (1944)

Nakajima Kikka (1945)

X

Hakuryu (____)

Mitsubishi A7M2 (1944)

Nakajima Kikka (1945+)

Nakajima Kikka (1945)

Nakajima Kikka (1945+)

Nakajima Kikka (1945)

Nakajima Kikka (1945+)

Sources:  aircraft introduction/production dates from this thread; carrier commission dates from Wikipedia.

 

Fighters:

-- A6M5 added

-- A7M2, not A7M1, because A7M1 was considered to be a disappointment

-- N1K5-A removed

-- J7W1 removed

-- A8M removed

-- Kikka delayed as a fighter because it was intended first as a vehicle for bomb delivery

-- Kikka keeps original naming convention

Torpedo Bombers:

-- early torpedo bombers might need work, I don't know much about them (yet)

-- J5N1 removed (more could be said about this)

-- R2Y1-B removed (more could be said about this)

Dive Bombers:

-- D4Y3 removed because it was a radial adaptation of the original design

-- B7A2 takes over both functions

-- Kikka takes over both functions

 

This is a work in progress.  I don't play WoWS with regularity so looking at DPS values, or comparison to U.S.A. in detail, etc. is kind of beyond the scope here (for now).

 

The goal here is to provide a conservative progression that is less fanciful and works within the confines of historical precedent.


Edited by J311yfish, 01 January 2016 - 02:16 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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 #237 Posted 02 January 2016 - 05:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Update

-- re-organized to show Navy/Army anti-shipping collaboration (P1Y / Ki-67); analogous developments (Ohka / I-Go); bomber, reconnaissance, and other minor contributions to development (LIGHT GRAY)

-- added torpedo bombers to operational locations

-- added Mitsubishi Ki-30, Mitsubishi Ki-51Mansyu Ki-98 from 'alternates'

 


Edited by J311yfish, 04 January 2016 - 01:27 AM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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 #238 Posted 09 January 2016 - 11:29 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Production values in yellow and orange

 

By the numbers:

 

IJAAF

13747 -- IJAAF fighter line produced primarily by Nakajima at Ota

_4564 -- IJAAF fighter line produced primarily by Kawasaki

_3258 -- IJAAF twin-engine bombers produced by primarily by Mitsubishi and Nakajima at Ota

_3095 -- IJAAF attack aircraft (Mitsubishi)

_3044 -- IJAAF attack aircraft (Kawasaki)

_2747 -- IJAAF reconnaissance aircraft

_2184 -- IJAAF light attack aircraft

_1230 -- IJAAF point-defense interceptor line produced primarily by Nakajima at Ota

____8 -- IJAAF high-altitude heavy fighter interceptors

____5 -- IJAAF heavy fighters

 

IJN

11258 -- IJN carrier fighter line produced primary by Nakajima (6570 total A6M variants by Nakajima, more than twice as many as Mitsubishi)

_4184 -- IJN carrier dive bomber and land-based attacker line

_3722 -- IJN carrier and land-based torpedo bomber line

_3494 -- IJN twin-engine bombers produced primarily by Mitsubishi at Nagoya

_2053 -- IJN land-based interceptor and fighter-bomber line (Kawanishi)

 

Totals:

25693 = IJAAF

17495 = IJN

^ total aircraft produced that are relevant to the game (no bombers, flying boats, floatplanes, reconnaissance, transports, etc.)

 

Conclusion:

If implementation is in any way dependent on production values, then the order of introduction would be:

 

1. IJAAF fighters (Nakajima)

2. IJAAF fighters (Kawasaki)

3. IJAAF attack aircraft (Kawasaki, Rikugun, Mitsubishi)

4. IJN dive bombers (Aichi, Kusho/Kugisho, Nakajima)

5. IJN fighter-bombers (Mitsubishi, Kawanishi)

6. IJAAF point-defense interceptors

7. IJAAF heavy fighters <---- premiums along the way?

 

// production update

 

Production values in yellow:


Edited by J311yfish, 12 October 2016 - 11:48 AM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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 #239 Posted 12 January 2016 - 04:56 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

ARMAMENT

 

​This thread originally had information for both IJN and IJA.  It has now been split into 2 posts due to forum constraints:

-- Imperial Japanese Army armament

-- Imperial Japanese Navy armament


Edited by J311yfish, 01 April 2018 - 02:39 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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 #240 Posted 23 January 2016 - 04:12 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2644 battles
  • 1,371
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Quick overview of Allied codenames

 

Work in progress

 

-- detailed engine information from Aircraft Engines of the World (series), by Paul H. Wilkinson (1941, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948).  It may be possible to obtain reasonable estimates for engine upgrade modules for prototype aircraft based on engine dimensions, chronology, other aircraft that made the transition, etc.  The standardized information provided by Wilkinson may also help to resolve the disparity in the reporting of engine ratings (some report takeoff horsepower, others power at altitude, etc.).

 

-- imagery in Meatballs and Dead Birds, by James P. Gallagher (2004 Stackpole).  This may reveal lesser-known experimental armament or field modifications, such as the unusual turret modifications of the J1N1.

 


Edited by J311yfish, 23 January 2016 - 04:17 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

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

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users