Ares Games
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Nakajima C6N1-S Saiun

  1. #1

    Default Nakajima C6N1-S Saiun

    I haven't seen anyone mention this unit yet, so I figured I would.

    First deployed in mid-'44 at the Marianas, the C6N1 was purpose-built as a fast-recon aircraft, as assigning torpedo-planes was proving inadequate (translation: US fighters kept shooting them down); the C6N1-S was a modification of the design to the night anti-bomber role, removing one of the three crewmembers, and installing a pair of 20mm Type 99 cannon firing upward (the style the Germans called "Schrage Musik"). The great failing of the night-fighter variant was Japan's lack of an effective air-search radar.

    With the advent of rules for upward-firing cannon, and the appearance of bombers, I figure it's about time this unit saw the light of day (so to speak).

    Top speed: 397MPH
    Loaded weight: 11,596 lbs.
    Climb to 20K': ~8 min
    Service Ceiling: 35K'

  2. #2

    Default

    Or the 30mm cannon equipped one?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Nakajima C6N1-S Saiun 65_8.jpg 
Views:	127 
Size:	91.3 KB 
ID:	138665
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  3. #3

    Default

    I certainly would not like that one up my chuff.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Or the 30mm cannon equipped one?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Nakajima C6N1-S Saiun 65_8.jpg 
Views:	127 
Size:	91.3 KB 
ID:	138665
    Only one C6N used the (single) 30mm cannon, so that does rather limit its deployment. :)

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Only one C6N used the (single) 30mm cannon, so that does rather limit its deployment.
    "What if"? There is only one report about the use of this "prototype", and it was inconclusive. So what. How prevalent and useful were SPAD XII's with the 37mm cannon?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  6. #6

    Default

    Originally designed as a long range reconnaissance aircraft it fulfilled it's role admirably being able to give nearly complete immunity from interception by allied fighters. But I do like the twin 20mm canon variant.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  7. #7

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    For a second there, I thought you meant the Aichi M6A Seiran....another interesting plane.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    For a second there, I thought you meant the Aichi M6A Seiran....another interesting plane.
    Interesting, but not really useful -- it was armed about as poorly as the Saiun main model (a single aft 0.30), and was painfully slow (295 MPH top-end).

    I find the C6N interesting due to its performance as a three-seat recon bird; imagine if they'd developed it as a single-seat fighter....

  9. #9

    Default

    My take on it:
    Nakajima C6N Maneuver deck: O(--) (no 60 degree turn or extreme SS); hits: 18; ceiling: 12; climb: 4; guns: - : A/A.
    C6N1-S: Maneuver deck: O(--) (no 60 degree turn or extreme SS); hits: 18; ceiling: 12; climb: 4; guns: C-C SM forward. I assume the rear gun is removed for it.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    My take on it:
    Nakajima C6N Maneuver deck: O(--) (no 60 degree turn or extreme SS); hits: 18; ceiling: 12; climb: 4; guns: - : A/A.
    C6N1-S: Maneuver deck: O(--) (no 60 degree turn or extreme SS); hits: 18; ceiling: 12; climb: 4; guns: C-C SM forward. I assume the rear gun is removed for it.
    Karl
    Correction: Chris, did you mean to type 379mph? This is what the sources I checked said (though they might all be copying 1 source).
    Change Maneuver deck to Q* (no extreme SS).
    Karl
    Last edited by Jager; 08-01-2014 at 19:01.
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Correction: Chris, did you mean to type 379mph?
    I typed "379"; there's no telling what this keyboard is going to turn that into, tho'. (One of the many reasons I F***ing Hate Computers.)

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    I typed "379"; there's no telling what this keyboard is going to turn that into, tho'. (One of the many reasons I F***ing Hate Computers.)
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  13. #13

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Interesting, but not really useful -- it was armed about as poorly as the Saiun main model (a single aft 0.30), and was painfully slow (295 MPH top-end).

    I find the C6N interesting due to its performance as a three-seat recon bird; imagine if they'd developed it as a single-seat fighter....
    I dunno about not being useful. I think a submarine launched bombing mission of the Panama Canal could be interesting

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    I dunno about not being useful. I think a submarine launched bombing mission of the Panama Canal could be interesting
    Just looking at the bombloads: Short of suicide runs, the M6As couldn't have done much to the Canal locks; the 800kg bomb is big, but there's only one, and they aren't that accurate.

  15. #15

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Just looking at the bombloads: Short of suicide runs, the M6As couldn't have done much to the Canal locks; the 800kg bomb is big, but there's only one, and they aren't that accurate.
    Perhaps 6 torpedoes aimed at the lock gates or a target ship within the locks would have been sufficient?
    Don't know what the defensive fighter coverage may have been.
    Of course, the Japanese planes could have been decked out in American markings.

    Suicide mission? I don't think the Japanese, at that stage of the war, would have been averse to that idea. Now...consider the damage possibility of 6 kamikaze attacks with bombs...
    The mind boggles...
    Last edited by Grey; 08-28-2014 at 13:07. Reason: added text.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Perhaps 6 torpedoes aimed at the lock gates or a target ship within the locks would have been sufficient?
    Not really -- unless the ship was carrying ammo, it would only delay traffic, not stop it. Three days isn't going matter when your cities are about to get nuked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Don't know what the defensive fighter coverage may have been.
    By 1945, even the Canal Zone defense had late-model P-40s or better -- more than enough to deal with M6As.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Of course, the Japanese planes could have been decked out in American markings.
    Um, no. The twin floats would be a dead giveaway, if nothing else was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Suicide mission? I don't think the Japanese, at that stage of the war, would have been averse to that idea. Now...consider the damage possibility of 6 kamikaze attacks with bombs...
    The mind boggles...
    Given the accuracy of suicide attacks against even slow-moving targets, it would require a "perfect storm" of bad luck on the US's part for a Japanese attack to accomplish anything.

  17. #17

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Not really -- unless the ship was carrying ammo, it would only delay traffic, not stop it. Three days isn't going matter when your cities are about to get nuked.



    By 1945, even the Canal Zone defense had late-model P-40s or better -- more than enough to deal with M6As.



    Um, no. The twin floats would be a dead giveaway, if nothing else was.



    Given the accuracy of suicide attacks against even slow-moving targets, it would require a "perfect storm" of bad luck on the US's part for a Japanese attack to accomplish anything.
    I respectfully disagree with you on every point.
    The attack would have come as a complete surprise...which counts for a lot.

    EDIT:

    The floats did not have to be fitted to launch the plane airborne, plus they were jettisonable, if enhanced performance needed. Remember, this is a kamikaze mission.

    These are not 'rookie' pilots. They were well trained.

    The engine was inline, not radial...odd for Japanese ID silhouettes.

    ONE significant hit on a critical canal feature disables the entire canal. Sure, it's only temporary, anything can be fixed and/or rebuilt. Secondary damage is also possible. (Tankers are pretty easy to ID from other ships)

    Etc. etc. Roll the dice and see what happens.
    Last edited by Grey; 08-28-2014 at 22:15.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    The attack would have come as a complete surprise...which counts for a lot.
    It would not -- between the extensive aerial patrols (land and sea), the landside installations (with radar), the sea patrols (with radar), and so on, intruders would not have come within 100 miles of the Canal without being spotted, IDed, and (in this case) annihilated. This was not 1941; folks were paying a lot more attention, and were expecting someone to try something.

    http://www.history.army.mil/books/ww...rd-US/ch12.htm -- and subsequent chapters in the same book detail the Canal Defenses -- which extended *far* beyond the Canal proper.

    [QUOTE=Grey;305893]The floats did not have to be fitted to launch the plane airborne,

    Incorrect -- in order to launch from the I-400s, they needed the floats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    plus they were jettisonable, if enhanced performance needed.
    Said performance was still much slower than any fighter of the period, even the second-line kit guarding the Canal Zone. With bombload, they were even slower.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    These are not 'rookie' pilots. They were well trained.
    They were not well-enough-trained to make up for a 100-MPH shortfall in top-speed, and bricklike handling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    The engine was inline, not radial...odd for Japanese ID silhouettes.
    They also looked nothing like anything in the Allied arsenal, with or without floats. Twin-floats would be a dead giveaway, as no Allied unit used them; and none of the Allied inlines had a silhouette like the M6A. UnIDed flight coming from the ocean, with unfamiliar airplane shape....

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    ONE significant hit on a critical canal feature disables the entire canal. Sure, it's only temporary, anything can be fixed and/or rebuilt. Secondary damage is also possible.
    First, they have to get there -- which isn't going to happen (QED). Second, they have to score a hit -- accuracy of dropped bombs in that period is pitiful (something like 20%, which is why a ETO bomber raid required hundreds of bombers dropping thousands of bombs to accomplish a mission); and even suicides hit less than 1/4 of the time.

    And that still doesn't change the outcome of the War -- instead of taking the Canal, the ships go around the Cape of Good Hope or through Suez, cross the Indian Ocean, and enter PTO from that direction. Delays shipments by maybe a week, if that.

    Taking out the Canal in '45 does not significantly alter the War's outcome -- forcing the US to end bomber raids over Japan *does*. Which is why the C6N night-fighter is a missed opportunity.

    (Idle thought: US is forced to end bombing raids over Japan, so switches to raids over China, putting the Nationalists in a better position postwar vs. the Chi-Coms.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    (Tankers are pretty easy to ID from other ships)
    Is that why the "highly-experienced" Japanese crews at Coral Sea (before the IJNAF got the *&^%$#! kicked out of it at Midway and the Marianas) IDed _Neosho_ as an aircraft carrier (and _Sims_ as a heavy cruiser)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Etc. etc. Roll the dice and see what happens. ;)
    I have -- the Japanese could not get within one-way launch range of the Canal before being spotted, and vaporized. :)

    Japan needed more, and better, fighters in '44 and '45; a one-off suicide strike at the Canal was not going to accomplish anything. Japan's least, best hope for a mere negotiated peace was lost at the "Last Stand of the Tin-Can Sailors"; any chance of winning the war outright disappeared Dec. 7 1941....

  19. #19

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    CSADN, you are missing the whole point of a "Canal Attack" gaming scenario.

    "The floats could be jettisoned in flight to increase performance or left off altogether for one-way missions."
    Air International October 1989, pp. 183–4.

    "A crew of four could prepare and launch all three in 45 minutes (or 15 minutes if the planes' pontoons were not attached). As the Seiran would normally be launched at night, parts and areas of the plane were coated with luminescent paint to ease assembly in the dark."
    Paine, Thomas O., I Was A Yank On A Japanese Sub, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Volume 112, Number 9, Issue 1003 (September 1986), p. 73-78

    "As the war continued and Japan's fortunes declined, however, security around the Canal grew increasingly lax. In January 1944 Commander Fujimori personally interviewed an American POW who had done guard duty there. He told Fujimori that defensive air patrols had virtually ceased, since it was considered increasingly unlikely the Axis powers would ever attack the locks. This further convinced Fujimori of his plan's feasibility."
    (See Wiki article on the I-400 class; link below)

    I don't think it would have been all that difficult to sneak in under the umbrella of this fool-proof defensive umbrella of 1945, that you speak of. In fact, I will postulate that this air of confidence could precisely work against the Americans, and for the Japanese. Folks in the backwaters are more likely to be less vigilant and lackadaisical. Keep in mind, that the Japanese weapon here was completely unknown to the Allies until AFTER the war.

    To dismiss the whole idea as not altering the outcome of the war, even if successful, completely misses the point for a gaming scenario. The War is full of scenarios that were actually played out to their doom. The mission's impact on the war effort is quite irrelevant...win or lose.

    In addition, had the attack been performed (win or lose) it might have had an impact in slowing down the war's ultimate time table. The paranoia generated from such an attack may have made the Allies more cautious, considering their opponent which appeared to be on his knees, could even launch such a brazen attack. Even the attempt by the Japanese could have had severe psychological implications (besides just a propaganda coup). Certainly not that it would have mattered in the long run, but for the short term, almost certainly.

    More information here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-c...a_Canal_strike

    I think it would be a great gaming scenario.
    Last edited by Grey; 09-01-2014 at 11:06.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    "The floats could be jettisoned in flight to increase performance or left off altogether for one-way missions."
    Air International October 1989, pp. 183–4.
    Which is quite irrelevant, as even without the floats, the M6A was still substantially slower than US second-line fighters; catching and killing an inbound strike would be painfully easy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    "A crew of four could prepare and launch all three in 45 minutes (or 15 minutes if the planes' pontoons were not attached). As the Seiran would normally be launched at night, parts and areas of the plane were coated with luminescent paint to ease assembly in the dark."
    Paine, Thomas O., I Was A Yank On A Japanese Sub, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Volume 112, Number 9, Issue 1003 (September 1986), p. 73-78
    Pity none of the class survive; I'd be interested in seeing if they actually could pull off three airplanes in 45 minutes, with or without floats. Given what the chop in "Pacific" is like, I'm having a hard time believing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    "As the war continued and Japan's fortunes declined, however, security around the Canal grew increasingly lax. In January 1944 Commander Fujimori personally interviewed an American POW who had done guard duty there. He told Fujimori that defensive air patrols had virtually ceased, since it was considered increasingly unlikely the Axis powers would ever attack the locks. This further convinced Fujimori of his plan's feasibility."
    (See Wiki article on the I-400 class; link below)
    So I've read; it doesn't quite cage with what I've read from other sources (never mind some folks who were there).

    Also: *When* was that POW stationed there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    I don't think it would have been all that difficult to sneak in under the umbrella of this fool-proof defensive umbrella of 1945, that you speak of. In fact, I will postulate that this air of confidence could precisely work against the Americans, and for the Japanese. Folks in the backwaters are more likely to be less vigilant and lackadaisical.
    Possibly (in fact: IIRC, the Japanese plan was to fly over Colombia, and hit the Gatun lack from the *east*, on the assumption the eastern defenses would not be paying attention), but it's not something I'd be willing to bet on.

    There's another factor, which has been discussed in aid of other possible anti-Canal attacks: The canal was designed with the notion of Catastrophic Damage Being Inflicted in mind -- say, for example, a ship carrying large amounts of something explosive decides to Go Boom in transit, or a ship gets away from its handlers and crashes into the lock gates. Destruction of one lock would not be enough; it would require also taking out the safeties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Keep in mind, that the Japanese weapon here was completely unknown to the Allies until AFTER the war.
    Not the case -- the US captured the _I-400_s. The silence was based around the fact those things were technological marvels for the time; subs bigger than them would not be built until the US _Ethan Allen_ *NUCLEAR* subs. They were classed much the same as jet engines and the V2 rockets -- they stayed military secrets until well after the war, to the point the US scuttled the _I-400_s rather than let the Soviets have a peek at them (does *that* plot sound familiar, Tom Clancy fans? >:) )

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    To dismiss the whole idea as not altering the outcome of the war, even if successful, completely misses the point for a gaming scenario. The War is full of scenarios that were actually played out to their doom. The mission's impact on the war effort is quite irrelevant...win or lose.
    Very true -- which is why I would suggest going with the plan the Japanese eventually settled on: A suicide attack on Ulithi....

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    In addition, had the attack been performed (win or lose) it might have had an impact in slowing down the war's ultimate time table. The paranoia generated from such an attack may have made the Allies more cautious, considering their opponent which appeared to be on his knees, could even launch such a brazen attack. Even the attempt by the Japanese could have had severe psychological implications (besides just a propaganda coup). Certainly not that it would have mattered in the long run, but for the short term, almost certainly.
    This assumes a level of paranoia (and stupidity) on the US military's part which, while not unknown (see "Halsey, William", and "MacArthur, Douglas" >:) ), was certainly uncommon. So long as the supplies kept coming, it mattered not a whit how they arrived. There's also the question of "who knew about the nukes, and the fact the US had no intention of invading the Home Islands".

    Now, on the other hand: Giving the Japanese a *far* better anti-bomber aircraft, and seeing the reaction when the vaunted B-29 squadrons are coming home down 25-30% after every raid -- well, we all know the aftermath of the Schweinfurt/Regensburg raids; now imagine that happening to the USAAF's "newest and best" units. *That* is how to convince the foe's High Command to Back Off. (And Japan had access to a design very similar to the Me-262 on the boards....)

    In short: I don't have a problem with someone running a "Canal Attack" scenario which makes some amount of sense -- for ex.: Someone transplants the forces which hit Pearl Harbor in '41 to a Canal strike in '41 -- but "six single-engine suicide planes going against the Canal locks" doesn't make any kind of sense; the Canal is just plain Too Big for that to work. (At least the guy at Enfilade this year running the "H6As and E14Ys attack Oregon" scenario admitted it was Extremely Silly. :) )

  21. #21

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    Not the case -- the US captured the _I-400_s.
    "Japan surrendered before the Ulithi attack was launched, and on August 22, 1945, the crews of the submarines were ordered to destroy all their weapons..."



    "Officers of I-400 in front of the plane hangar, photographed by the US Navy following the surrender of the submarine at sea, one week after the end of hostilities."

    "15 August 1945:
    The Imperial Palace, Tokyo. Emperor Hirohito (Showa) broadcasts an Imperial Rescript that calls for an end to the hostilities.
    18 August 1945:
    At 2100 (JST), Captain Ariizumi receives an order from Vice Admiral Daigo to cancel the operation. Later that day, I-400 and I-401 are ordered to return to Kure.
    26 August 1945:
    I-400 receives an order to hoist the designated black flag of surrender with a black ball and to disarm the boat. The three M6A1 Seiran, with false American markings, are run out of the hangar, their bombs detached, then the aircraft are assembled, run up and catapulted unmanned into the sea. I-400s derrick drops the bombs into the ocean. All 20 Type 95 torpedoes are fired out and codes, logs, charts and secret documents are also destroyed.
    27 August 1945:
    At 1200, I-400, flying the black flag, is sighted by one of Task Force 38's aircraft. The plane reports I-400's location at 38-40N, 143-12E. I-400 surrenders to destroyers USS BLUE (DD-744) and MANSFIELD (DD-728) 500 miles NE of Tokyo."

    They surrendered AFTER the war.

    (And Japan had access to a design very similar to the Me-262 on the boards....)
    It was quite further along that that. :


    Nakajima (J9Y) "Kikka"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Kikka
    Last edited by Grey; 09-01-2014 at 19:28. Reason: added WIKI link

  22. #22

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pelikan

    Interesting too. As for the 43rd Fighter Squadron stationed in Panama during 1945: "Unit activities ran down with the end of the war in Europe in May 1945. The squadron ceased all flying activities in June."

    P-40N in Panama, May 1944


  23. #23

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    As for intercepting bombers, don't neglect the Mitsubishi Ki-109.



    A 75mm gun, has to count for something.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    As for intercepting bombers, don't neglect the Mitsubishi Ki-109.



    A 75mm gun, has to count for something.
    I can't help but think that, for the weight, multiple 20mm/30mm cannon would do a better job against aircraft.
    Karl'
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  25. #25

    Grey's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Brian (Grey)
    Location
    WA & OR
    Sorties Flown
    156
    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    I can't help but think that, for the weight, multiple 20mm/30mm cannon would do a better job against aircraft.
    Karl'
    May as well stick with the Ki-84 then.


  26. #26

    Default

    Not for night fighting
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    "Japan surrendered before the Ulithi attack was launched, and on August 22, 1945, the crews of the submarines were ordered to destroy all their weapons..."
    I know all that -- the _I-400_s still ended up in US possession. Perhaps "captured" wasn't the right word, but I couldn't think of a better one at the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Kikka
    Again, not the best choice of word, but considering they only got off one or two test flights before shutting down the program, I can't think of a better description.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    As for intercepting bombers, don't neglect the Mitsubishi Ki-109.

    A 75mm gun, has to count for something.
    Big, heavy, and inaccurate; plus, not sure how much faster (if at all) they were than the B-29s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Not for night fighting
    Tell that to the F6F and F4U night-fighter pilots.

    Japan's great failing was a lack of a usable airborne radar system. Given what Japan is known for these days, the irony is Biblical....

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Or the 30mm cannon equipped one?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Nakajima C6N1-S Saiun 65_8.jpg 
Views:	127 
Size:	91.3 KB 
ID:	138665
    Mike, would you consider creating a card for the C6N1 recon version, and one for the C6N1-S?



Similar Missions

  1. WGSF Official Nakajima B5N2 Kate thread
    By pflanzer in forum Painting Showcase
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 07-20-2023, 08:04
  2. Nakajima A6M2-N Stats
    By Lt. S.Kafloc in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-26-2014, 05:25
  3. Stats for Nakajima B5N Kate
    By Black Sheep One in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-15-2014, 10:16
  4. Looking for a Nakajima Ki-27 1/144
    By Kaiser in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-06-2013, 10:06
  5. Sweet Nakajima A6M2-N Type 2
    By richard m schwab in forum 1/144 Scale Dawn of War
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-23-2011, 17:30

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •