Ares Games
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Japanese Custom House Plane questions - including Rear arcs for HF base planes

  1. #1

    Default Japanese Custom House Plane questions - including Rear arcs for HF base planes

    So I've been doing my PTO campaign and trying to make the missions historically accurate and to mix things up. So I have been doing proxy's and making some cards using cut and paste.

    In playing it led me to the following questions:

    1) Should the Oscar use a regular C deck, or the modified one for the Zero's? I thought I saw somewhere that they were nimble as well.
    2) Was the A6M5 Zero as maneuverable as the A6M2? Do their decks need some 90 degree turns or sideslips? Or are they in the B, F, and E decks. I don't recall the E decks having things like that in them.
    3) The Ann and the Val are identical for all intents and purposes. Rear arcs for fighter bases are set.
    4) For planes like the Lily & the Kate. How do we determine rear arcs for a Heavy Fighter Base? Do we use a standard rear fighter arc? A Beuafighter arc? An ME-110 rear arc? A Heinkel arc? I wasn't sure how wide it becomes in this case. The guns appear to be essentially over each other. Tail gunners seem to have an arc established (from the B17, while for other bombers dorsal or ventral, it usually says clock positions.

    Gunnery Notes:
    Kawasaki Ki-48-I and Ki-48-II Lily:
    Dorsal gun: rear arc, level to high, A/A
    Ventral gun: rear arc, low, A/A.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Japanese Lily.jpg 
Views:	100 
Size:	79.6 KB 
ID:	191081

    http://japaneseaircraftofwwii.blogsp...-48-redux.html
    Although, from the images here - the dorsal gunner might have more range of fire.


    I think I'll lose the house notes for armor & fuel plating for the Ki48-II (ie #2 & #3) if I get to any of them. 557 Kawasaki Ki.48-I bombers were built before the first of three prototypes of the Ki.48-II made its appearance in February, 1942.

    The principal differences between the Ki.48-I and -II were to be found in the engines, defensive armament and armour protection. The new model had Nakajima Ha.115 fourteen-cylinder air-cooled radials rated at 1,130 h.p. for take-off and 1,100 h;p. at 9,350 ft., the fuel tanks were protected, and 12.5-mm. and 6.5-mm. fore and aft armour protection was provided for the crew members. Initially the defensive armament remained a trio of 7.7-mm. guns, but the additional power permitted an increase in bomb load to 1,760 lb. in maximum loaded condition. Whereas the Type 99 Model 2a (Ki.48-IIa) was built as a level bomber, the Model 2b (Ki.48-IIb) was fitted with dive brakes under each wing, and was capable of dive-bombing attacks up to an angle of sixty degrees. Late production machines of this type featured a dorsal fin extension. The Model 2c (Ki.48-IIc) was essentially similar to the Model 2b apart from the addition of a single 12.7-mm. gun to the defensive armament.



    Aircraft Deck Guns S Guns L Rear gun Damage Ceiling Climb Base Rules Notes Ammo

    Aichi D3A2 Val I A A A/A 17 F 1,2,3
    Mitsubishi Ki-30 Ann I A A A/A 17 10 6 F 1,2,3

    Kawasaki Ki-48-I Lily D A A see notes 20 11 5 HF 1,2,3
    Kawasaki Ki-48-II Lily D A A see notes 21 12 5 HF 1,2,3

    Mitsubishi A6M2 Reisen C A-C-C C 18 13 3 F `
    Mitsubishi A6M2-11 Reisen C A-C-C C 14 13 3 F 1,2,3
    Mitsubishi A6M2-21 Reisen C A-C-C C 14 13 3 F 1,2,3
    Mitsubishi A6M3-32 Reisen C A-C-C C 15 13 3 F 1,2,3
    Mitsubishi A6M5-52 Reisen B A-C-C C 16 13 3 F 3
    Mitsubishi A6M5-52b Reisen F B-C-C A-C 17 13 3 F 3
    Mitsubishi A6M5-52c Reisen E A-B-C-C B-C 18 13 3 F 3
    Last edited by Gotham Resident; 03-18-2016 at 11:10.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gotham Resident View Post
    So I've been doing my PTO campaign and trying to make the missions historically accurate and to mix things up. So I have been doing proxy's and making some cards using cut and paste.

    In playing it led me to the following questions:

    1) Should the Oscar use a regular C deck, or the modified one for the Zero's? I thought I saw somewhere that they were nimble as well.
    2) Was the A6M5 Zero as maneuverable as the A6M2? Do their decks need some 90 degree turns or sideslips? Or are they in the B, F, and E decks. I don't recall the E decks having things like that in them.
    3) The Ann and the Val are identical for all intents and purposes. Rear arcs for fighter bases are set.
    4) For planes like the Lily & the Kate. How do we determine rear arcs for a Heavy Fighter Base? Do we use a standard rear fighter arc? A Beuafighter arc? An ME-110 rear arc? A Heinkel arc? I wasn't sure how wide it becomes in this case. The guns appear to be essentially over each other. Tail gunners seem to have an arc established (from the B17, while for other bombers dorsal or ventral, it usually says clock positions.

    This is what I have done and will in my campaign scenarios:
    1) No, I justed used the regular C Decks.
    2) Since I won't encounter these for a bit - I will have time to do some research.
    3) ---
    4) I decided to make the Lily - top (4 to 8), bottom (5 to 7).

    Now to make my card and draw the lines.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gotham Resident View Post
    This is what I have done and will in my campaign scenarios:
    1) No, I justed used the regular C Decks.
    2) Since I won't encounter these for a bit - I will have time to do some research.
    3) ---
    4) I decided to make the Lily - top (4 to 8), bottom (5 to 7).

    Now to make my card and draw the lines.
    I've heard that the Oscar was about as agile too Mischa, maybe a C+ deck would be good. I have also heard that the Nexus A6M2 stats are more akin to an A6M5 so a C deck without modifications probably works nicely while the A6M2 gets reduced hit points but adds in those 90 degree turns.

  4. #4

    Default

    I do have 1 scenario left for the 488th (I have 2 to post, hopefully tonight), so perhaps I will use the C+ decks for the Oscars in the finale. It will give me practice for when I get to the USS Hornet and their battles against the A6M2.

    Our suggested decks for the A6M5 don't use the C interestingly.

    Mitsubishi A6M5-52 Reisen Deck: B, Short: A-C-C, Long: C Dmg 16
    Mitsubishi A6M5-52b Reisen Deck: F, Short: B-C-C, Long: A-C Dmg 17
    Mitsubishi A6M5-52c Reisen Deck: E, Short: A-B-C-C, Long B-C Dmg 18

    I have 2 A6M5's (and 2 Hellcats & 2 Helldivers) eventually coming from Miscellaneous Miniatures, so eventually I will need to prepare some decks to use. But I'm not close to the those scenarios.

  5. #5

    Default

    That's interesting, sharing a deck with the BF 109 then? The Tony, and finally the Yak-1. The main difference from the C deck being speed I take it? I don't have access to these unofficial aircraft stats since the files don't seem compatible with my phone so I appreciate you posting them here for me to see. I have an E and F deck with no planes claiming them so maybe I'll order up an A6M5 or two.

  6. #6

    Default

    If you need any of them, let me know and I'm happy to share. In the first post are several planes, just not "clearly" broken out (they aren't formatted properly). I was hoping Zoe or Karl would pop by and share their thoughts on the A6M5 question.

  7. #7

    Lord_Ninja's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Lucas
    Location
    Tennessee
    Sorties Flown
    414
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gotham Resident View Post
    So I've been doing my PTO campaign and trying to make the missions historically accurate and to mix things up. So I have been doing proxy's and making some cards using cut and paste.

    In playing it led me to the following questions:

    1) Should the Oscar use a regular C deck, or the modified one for the Zero's? I thought I saw somewhere that they were nimble as well.
    2) Was the A6M5 Zero as maneuverable as the A6M2? Do their decks need some 90 degree turns or sideslips? Or are they in the B, F, and E decks. I don't recall the E decks having things like that in them.
    1. The Oscar and the Zero are an interesting pair to compare. On one hand, the Zero had 11 sq feet (1.04 m sq) extra wing surface while with a lighter empty weight. But when planes depicted flying in Wings we have guns loaded and the a/c fueled up. So when comparing the loaded weights, the Zero typically had 454 lb (206 kg) weight increase over the Ki-43. So given the circumstances, the Ki-43 does deserve the mythical "C+" deck of the A6M2.

    2. Here is where I feel like the Japanese continue to be treated as an afterthought in this game. The original C deck had no special cards, no higher turn rate cards or extreme side-slips. And then later on it's stated by someone supposedly quoting something official that it was a mistake to put the stats and C deck with the A6M2 variant because those stats and the C-deck were more meant in line the A6M5 variant, which to me feels more like a cop-out and blatantly false.

    Compared to the Bf-109E and the Spitfire Mk. I/II
    A6M5 Speed was 570km/h (354 mph) vs 109E-4 570km/h (354 mph) (The Exact SAME!) and Spitfire Mk. I/II 580 km/h (362 mph)

    Conclusion of Speed, either the A6M5 should have a faster deck or the B deck needs to be nerfed in speed to be inline with the C deck.

    Weights (In relation to wing area, or a general view of Wing Loading and Maneuverability)
    (It's hard to find the typical loaded weight of the three airplanes, if someone has the numbers feel free to add them, until then, I am using empty weights)
    A6M5 Empty weight (Typical of most variants) 1,778 kg (3,930 lbs) Bf-109E-4 2,005 kg (4,421 lbs) Spitfire Mk.I/II 1,953-2,059 kg (4,306-4,541 lbs)
    Yet we also have the wing area of the three as 21.3 m2 (229.27 ft2), 16.16 m2 (174 ft2), and 22.48 m2 (242.1 ft2) respectively.

    Using the empty weights provided (And I would rather use the "typical loaded weights" not Max load weights, so please someone help me find them) We can see the A6M2 has a rough wing loading of 17.16 lbs/ft2 to the Spitfire's (Using the best weight to ft2 provided) 17.79 lbs/ft2.

    General Conclusion? The A6M5 was basically an unfair fight for any 1941 BoB participant.

    Which begs the question, why can't we give the A6M5 a card deck (A theoretical A+ deck) that keeps it somewhat competitive for Late War air combat?

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Ninja View Post
    1. The Oscar and the Zero are an interesting pair to compare. .... So given the circumstances, the Ki-43 does deserve the mythical "C+" deck of the A6M2.

    2. General Conclusion? The A6M5 was basically an unfair fight for any 1941 BoB participant.
    Which begs the question, why can't we give the A6M5 a card deck (A theoretical A+ deck) that keeps it somewhat competitive for Late War air combat?
    So noted. C+ deck for the Oscars. An A+ deck. Hrm. I don't think I have a regular A deck. How about a B deck? lol. Or an amalgam I can make from using cards from other decks. So what do you tink they would need? A slipslide? The "90" turn?

  9. #9

    Lord_Ninja's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Lucas
    Location
    Tennessee
    Sorties Flown
    414
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default

    The A deck is basically a B deck with the slipsides. I'm not sure if the Zero needs the 90 degree turn but it would be fitting to have the 60 degree turns of the Mk. IX. Until we get slower version cards that match the original decks than using the 90 degree turns of the biplanes could give it a boost.

  10. #10

    Default

    Oh, wait, I do have an A deck - I have the Dawn of War Flying Legends booster pack! Just the cards no models, so I forgot about them. Sweet. I will send Karl & Zoe a note about this thread to get their thoughts.

  11. #11

    Default

    I use the C+ deck for the A6M2 and Oscar.
    I will use the A+ deck for the A6M5.

  12. #12

    Default

    Sorry if I missed it but what is the A+ deck?

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    Sorry if I missed it but what is the A+ deck?
    I'm still working on it Peter.
    But for the Zero A6M5 I will use an A deck with two slow 90 degree turns. Therefore the A+ deck.

  14. #14

    Default

    I have been reading this thread, though haven't had time to write a reasoned post.
    I never really considered checking the official planes, though we knew about the hits for the Zero.
    It's been raised before, that the Zero needs a 60 degree turn; 90, however, is too much.
    The D.520 is too slow with the D deck, and not fast enough for any of the 360mph decks.
    Looks like a relook might be in order.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    I have been reading this thread, though haven't had time to write a reasoned post.
    I never really considered checking the official planes, though we knew about the hits for the Zero.
    It's been raised before, that the Zero needs a 60 degree turn; 90, however, is too much.
    The D.520 is too slow with the D deck, and not fast enough for any of the 360mph decks.
    Looks like a relook might be in order.
    Karl
    I'll just add the 60 for the C+ and one to the A+ if it doesn't have it (replacing a slower turn).

    Were you able to look at rear arcs for HF bases? Is there a standard?

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gotham Resident View Post
    Were you able to look at rear arcs for HF bases? Is there a standard?
    No, there isn't a standard I know of; when I was figuring arcs for unofficial aircraft, I would consult the Fighting Wings rules, if that plane was in them. Otherwise, web searches and common sense.
    In at least 1 case, JD might be wrong, and the rear arcs for the Dauntless is probably too narrow too.
    However, there is a difference between how far you can train a gun, and how far you can accurately aim and fire it. I would err on the side of caution.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus



Similar Missions

  1. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 09-13-2014, 01:59
  2. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 08-05-2014, 16:56
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 02:13
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-21-2012, 06:38
  5. Two Seater Rear Gunner Blind Spot House Rule Suggestion
    By Cujo8-1 in forum WGS: House Rules
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-11-2009, 17:41

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
  •