Japanese carriers aircraft issues

[wot_2016_gunner]

This are a couple of issues with a couple of japanese aircrafts on the CVs that i'd like to ardress. I have to say however that it's nothing regarding the actual gameplay of the ships. These issues however could be corrected by just adding some letters.

 

So, the issue that i have is the fact of having the N1K2-J and the J5N on Japanese carriers, because they were never designed for carriers in the first place. Of course they are of the Imperial Japanese Navy, but that doesn't mean directly that they are carrier based. However, just by looking at the name, we can make out what kind of aircraft it is, in fact the IJN had actually a very easy to remember way of designation of its aircrafts, where the first letter was the aircraft type, the first number was the numerical order (A6M means that it came after the A5M, pretty simple), the second letter is the first letter of the manifacturer (M=Mitsubishi, K=Kawanishi, N=Nakajima, Y=Yokusuka, A=Aichi) and the second number, the modification. An optional third letter meant a certain specialized version. Here is the first letter designation with their respective meanings.

 

A - Carrier-based fighter

B - Carrier-based bomber or torpedo bomber

C - Carrier-based Reconnaissance

D - Carrier-based dive bomber

E - Shipboard Reconnaissance seaplane

F - Shipboard Observation seaplane

G - Land-based Attack bomber

H - Flying boat

J - Land-based Fighter

K - Trainer

L - Transport

M - Special seaplane

MX - Special Aircraft (Experimental)

N - Fighter seaplane

P - Land-based Bomber

Q - Patrol aircraft

R - Land-based Reconnaissance aircraft

S - Night fighter

 

So, analising the two aircrafts above:

 

N1K2-J means:

N = Fighter seaplane (because it was originally designed as a seaplane)

1 = number 1

K = manifacturer Kawanishi

2 = modification 2

-

J = Land-based Fighter version

 

 

J5N means:

J = Land-based Fighter

5 = number 5

N = manifacturer Nakajima

 

As you can see, they are both land base aircrafts (i whould also point out that the C6N on the Hakuryu, by designation, it's a reconissance plane) and, while a land based aircraft can take off from a carrier in real life, that doen't mean that it can land back on it (arresting hook and other things). I know that this game it's not a simulator, but i thing you get what i mean.

 

However, there is a very simple and quick solution for WG and that is to change the names that appear in the game with the ones i'm suggesting below as they are more accurate.

 

Change:

 

N1K2-J => N1K3-A which was the actual carrier based version of the fighter, with only prototypes built. It looked identical to the one we have in game, so no new model is needed.

 

C6N => C6N1-B the proposed torpedo carring variant of the C6N (only project)

 

J5N => J5N1-B for the ones with torpedoes and J5N1-D for the dive bombers.

 

I think that changing these names whould take a max of 10 minutes if you are really slow. As i said I know that this doesn't affect anything about the gameplay of these ships.

[Panocek]

Wonky plane selection was reported at the beginning of the REEEwork, if not during Public Tests at the end of 2018. Was it changed? No? Then consider it working as intended

 

Same could be applied to Midway, where BTD Destroyer is considered upgrade over AD Skyraider, when IRL it was other way around.

 

Heck, HVARcats on Midway still have... intriguing rocket placement. No wonder they can't hit crap

[wot_2016_gunner]

26 minuti fa, Panocek ha scritto:

Same could be applied to Midway, where BTD Destroyer is considered upgrade over AD Skyraider, when IRL it was other way around.

i actually wanted to say that too, but i prefered not to

[CptMinia]

Interesting point, I'm pretty sure I read about these designations before but never looked at it in wows and never questioned it. This could be an unfortunate circumstance of immersion>reality. Question is will WG acknowledge it or do anything about it? Probably not... 

[Panocek]

5 minutes ago, CptMinia said:

Interesting point, I'm pretty sure I read about these designations before but never looked at it in wows and never questioned it. This could be an unfortunate circumstance of immersion>reality. Question is will WG acknowledge it or do anything about it? Probably not... 

Simple model swap should be all thats necessary, as plane selection back in RTS days was pretty good for IJN carriers. Same with Graf Zepp and Stukas - I don't think anyone would bat an eye with Stuka going around what, 200kts? Even more so as if going with good ol Wikipedia, Ju87 top speed in level flight is/was 383km/h or 207kts.

 

But then B7A on Shokek could go above 300kts

[Pikkozoikum]

The easiest solution would be to get rid of stock planes/upgrade planes. Using only "stock planes" without any upgrades. Thus we would gain more plane models and could distribute them on the CVs.

The D3A1 e.g. is a stock plane on Ryujo... one of the most iconic planes and it is stock - almost unused. How bad is that?

I don't like the J5N, especially not for TB AND DB, that's so boring

 

In the german forum we had once a thread about redesigning the planes choice, and it was a pretty nice choice.

I try to translate @stinkmorchel choice:

 

T4 pre war

T6 early war

T8 mid-late wart

T10 late, post war

Attackplanes aka JaBo/KI Fighter

 

IJN

T4   A4N , D1A, B4Y1

T6 A6M2. D3A, B5N

T8 A6M5 , D4Y1, B6N

T10  A7M, D4Y3, B7A

 

USN

T4  F3F, SBC, BM-2

T6  F4F, SBD,  TBD

T8  F6F,  SB2C, TBF

T10  F4U-4, AD-1, BTD

 

RN

T4 SeaGladiator, Swordfish

T6 SeaHurricane,Albacore (ist aber auch Doppeldecker..)

T8 Seafire III, Barracuda

T10 SeaFury, Spearfish

 

Graf Zeppelin

T8 Fw190D, Ju87E, Fw190F

 

T8 Kaga with T6 planes choice

T8 Saipan with T10

[wot_2016_gunner]

1 minuto fa, Pikkozoikum ha scritto:

I don't like the J5N, especially not for TB AND DB, that's so boring

I think that's because it was never designed to do that? :)

However, i play it in IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 and it is GOD fast.

[Pikkozoikum]

4 minutes ago, wot_2016_gunner said:

I think that's because it was never designed to do that? :)

However, i play it in IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 and it is GOD fast.

I edited my entry with the german forum entry. I liked that choice!

[Panocek]

25 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The easiest solution would be to get rid of stock planes/upgrade planes. Using only "stock planes" without any upgrades.

You still could increase squadron size/composition/payload with "upgrades". 

[Pikkozoikum]

Just now, Panocek said:

You still could increase squadron size/composition/payload with "upgrades". 

True, that would solve the stock/upgrade problem as well.

[stinkmorchel]

its a pitty how WG handles the aircraft choice for the Airgroups.

Because after the rework you are even more a squadron leader than a ship captain.

 

And for real aircraft fans ist dissapointing IMHO

my first book i bought from my own money as a little boy was a book about Combat Aircraft (i still have it) - and thats over 40 years ago. and i loved the 10years i was heavy involved in the IL2*46 community.

[wot_2016_gunner]

11 minuti fa, stinkmorchel ha scritto:

my first book i bought from my own money as a little boy was a book about Combat Aircraft

i have about 4 shelves full of aviation magazines plus 2 boxes full as well, plus i have the autobiographies of Adolf Galland, Hans-Ulrich Rudel, and Manfred von Richthofen. I also have some naval magazines. 

[Pikkozoikum]

I wish they would change the models like some people suggested

[wot_2016_gunner]

8 minuti fa, Pikkozoikum ha scritto:

I wish they would change the models like some people suggested

J5N Tenrai from the Il-2 1946 modding community of S.A.S. 1946 (https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php)

[Pikkozoikum]

18 minutes ago, wot_2016_gunner said:

J5N Tenrai from the Il-2 1946 modding community of S.A.S. 1946 (https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php)

With changing models I mean changing the type of plane. J5N is a nice landbased interceptor... But I don't want landbased interceptor, I want carrier based Torpedobomber and Divebomber xD

[wot_2016_gunner]

8 minuti fa, Pikkozoikum ha scritto:

With changing models I mean changing the type of plane. J5N is a nice landbased interceptor... But I don't want landbased interceptor, I want carrier based Torpedobomber and Divebomber xD

Sorry for the miss understanding. I do agree with you; tho i actually tried to take off from the Hakuryu (Kai-Tahio in Il-2 1946, see image below, it's not me btw) with full weapons load (the max is a 250kg bomb) and fully fueled and it acutally can take-off from a carrier, but even a B-25 could, so i think you understand. Landing tho... it's another story; it's just too fast (and doesn't have a hook). I was once able to land a P-38 and a Lexington class but i actually got lucky; i was basically on the verge of stalling and i needed almost the full deck to stop.

[Pikkozoikum]

7 minutes ago, wot_2016_gunner said:

Sorry for the miss understanding. I do agree with you; tho i actually tried to take off from the Hakuryu (Kai-Tahio in Il-2 1946, see image below, it's not me btw) with full weapons load (the max is a 250kg bomb) and fully fueled and it acutally can take-off from a carrier, but even a B-25 could, so i think you understand. Landing tho... it's another story; it's just too fast (and doesn't have a hook). I was once able to land a P-38 and a Lexington class but i actually got lucky; i was basically on the verge of stalling and i needed almost the full deck to stop.

I could imagine that landing is an important aspect for carrier based planes ;)

Also did you tryed to take off with a Type 91 Mod 7 Torpedo

or a Typ 99 No. 80 (~800kg) bomb?

It's not just the point "it could start". it's about there are many aspects, why we shouldn't take the plane on a carrier. It was an interceptor, not a Divebomber or Torpedobomber, also it was landbased for a reason.

But it's actually interesting, that you tryed that in a different game, hehe

[BLUB__BLUB]

10 minutes ago, wot_2016_gunner said:

I was once able to land a P-38 and a Lexington class but i actually got lucky; i was basically on the verge of stalling and i needed almost the full deck to stop.

In "that other game"I tried it with B25, worked.

Crash landing no undercarriage down... got repaired... 

[wot_2016_gunner]

3 minuti fa, Pikkozoikum ha scritto:

I could imagine that landing is an important aspect for carrier based planes ;)

Also did you tryed to take off with a Type 91 Mod 7 Torpedo

or a Typ 99 Mod 80 (~800kg) bomb?

It's not just the point "it could start". it's about there are many aspects, why we shouldn't take the plane on a carrier. It was an interceptor, not a Divebomber or Torpedobomber, also it was landbased for a reason.

But it's actually interesting, that you tryed that in a different game, hehe

Sorry but i couldn't because in Il-2 1946 i can only use historical or planned/plausable loadouts; however i have those two loadouts on other aircrafts that however are carrier based. I tried in that way to see if it was at least possible ('cause sometimes it's not)

 

Here is the "historical loadout" from the game

#####################################################################
# Nakajima-J5N1
#####################################################################
Nakajima-J5N1.default                           Default
Nakajima-J5N1.1x250kg                           1x250kg Bomb
Nakajima-J5N1.6xrockets                         6xA2A Rockets
Nakajima-J5N1.none                              Empty

 

[wot_2016_gunner]

Proprio ora, BLUB__BLUB ha scritto:

In "that other game"I tried it with B25, worked.

Crash landing no undercarriage down... got repaired... 

I actually managed to not even scratch that P-38

[BLUB__BLUB]

Just now, wot_2016_gunner said:

I actually managed to not even scratch that P-38

Well tried it with B24 also but wrecked on the smokestack. 

[Pikkozoikum]

6 minutes ago, wot_2016_gunner said:

Sorry but i couldn't because in Il-2 1946 i can only use historical or planned/plausable loadouts; however i have those two loadouts on other aircrafts that however are carrier based. I tried in that way to see if it was at least possible ('cause sometimes it's not)

 

Here is the "historical loadout" from the game

#####################################################################
# Nakajima-J5N1
#####################################################################
Nakajima-J5N1.default                           Default
Nakajima-J5N1.1x250kg                           1x250kg Bomb
Nakajima-J5N1.6xrockets                         6xA2A Rockets
Nakajima-J5N1.none                              Empty

 

Still no idea, why would you pick an interceptor, which never was on a CV instead of an actual carrierbased Bomber? xD

I mean I would rather go with P1Y1, which could actually carrie a 800 kg bomb... still not the best choice but it would be better imo. Though I wouldn't like that as well. Because still a bad plane choice, the only better thing would be, it's a bomber and not a fighter

Funfact, they used the P1Y1 in one of their cinematic intros

[ClappingLollies]

Kremlin exists in the game soooo. Does it really matter? Might as well be UFO's instead of planes. Since we are all about fantasy i mean. 

[Panocek]

9 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

In "that other game"I tried it with B25, worked.

Crash landing no undercarriage down... got repaired... 

Landing with naval jets is easy, having tail hook. Taking off... requires brakes.

 

2 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

P1Y1

this plane is "B-25 big", very unlikely to shove one under the deck

[wot_2016_gunner]

One thing.

The first Russian Carrier deck landing was performed on November 1st 1989 by the honored test pilot of the Soviet Union Viktor Pugačëv  on the Su-27K (later renamed Su-33). The day later her performed the first Carreir take off (actually he took-off after the MiG-29K). What the documentary below from the 1:36:00 mark.