Japan's Air Force Tree

[Admiral Piett]

Alright, I will bite since this thread has run its course as far as usefulness if podcat hasn't seen my post on page 5 about naval bombers by now.

Admiral Piett's Amazing, Spectacular, Stupendous Japanese Aircraft Tech Tree!11!1!!!!11!!!!!
Note: I'm not ultra picky about dates, they are just abstractions. I have chosen mainline aircraft in service roughly around that time that are logically positioned on the tree according to the order of technological development in the IJAAS and IJNAS. It has nothing to do with exact introduction date.

Fighter

Spoiler

1933
Land-based: Ki-10
Carrier-based: A4N

1936
Land-based: Ki-27
Carrier-based: A5M

1940
Land-based: Ki-43
Carrier-based: A6M

1944
Land-based: Ki-84
Carrier-based: A7M

Close Air Support

Spoiler

1936
Land-based: Ki-32 or Ki-30
Carrier-based: D1A (The D1A2 is sometimes referred to as the D2A, hence why the next aircraft in service was the D3A.)

1940
Land-based: Ki-51
Carrier-based: D3A

1944
Land-based: Ki-48 (The Ki-66 prototype was rejected because its performance did not exceed that of the Ki-48, which was the best serial production IJAAS light bomber.)
Carrier-based: D4Y

Naval Bomber

Spoiler

1936
Land-based: G3M
Carrier-based: B5N

1940
Land-based: G4M
Carrier-based: B6N

1944
Land-based: P1Y
Carrier-based: B7A

Heavy Fighter

Spoiler

1936
Ki-45 (Ki-38 wasn't a separate aircraft. Just an internal development number for a mock up.)

1940
Ki-96

1944
Ki-102

Tactical Bomber

Spoiler

1933
Ki-1

1936
Ki-21

1940
Ki-49

1944
Ki-67

Strategic Bomber

Spoiler

1936
Ki-20

1940
G5N

1944
G8N

This provides a logical technological progression, aircraft from both the army and navy are well represented, aircraft are in their correct roles and the lines are internally consistent. None of that is present in most of the existing tech tree.

 

[Orlunu]

Completely agreed, other than that I'd swap Ki-1 out for Ki-20.

 

[Admiral Piett]

Completely agreed, other than that I'd swap Ki-1 out for Ki-20.

Hmmm. Yeah, I will agree with you there. I'll change it just for completeness sake.

 

[Elouda]

Also completely agreed. My own gripe might be the B6N as the 1940 torpedo bombers, but thats a minor detail.

Re: your suggestion on page 5, I also agree. Personally, I would make the current 'Naval Bombers' a variant of tactical bombers to cover naval strike capable variants of those (so things like the G4M, PBJ-1, etc.), while letting them keep some of the tactical missions (just be a little worse at them). A new line of torpedo bombers (carrier capable from the start) would either go where the current naval bomber line is, or as a second variant to the CAS aircraft next to the carrier dive bombers.

Thankfully it sounds like modding will be easier than before, so this is probably a Day 0 mod for me.

 

[Admiral Piett]

Yeah, I just consider the dates abstractions, and I have the intention of minimizing the amount of additional artwork required. The 1940 tech artwork in game is clearly a B6N already. I do love me some B4Ys though. I don't usually go in for biplanes, but something about it is visually appealing.

 

[Orlunu]

I do love me some B4Ys though. I don't usually go in for biplanes, but something about it is visually appealing.

Can't compete with the B3N.

 

[Daelyn75]

Ill reiterate what I suggested earlier in the thread, and cover the other branches I didn't at the time too;

Fighter
1933 - Type 91
1936 - Ki-27
1940 - Ki-43
1944 - Ki-84
Fairly straightforward, though obviously a lot of models have to be omitted due to only 3 slots. The -27 and -43 represent some of the most important types for the IJA in the early war, the last one is one of the two best performing IJA aircraft in the late war. The other option for the last slot is the Ki-100, but as that was a follow on to the Ki-61, it feels off to use it when the Ki-61 is not in the tree.

Fighter (Carrier)
1933 - A2N
1936 - A5M
1940 - A6M
1944 - A7M
Simple progression of carrier capable fighters from the IJN.

Close Air Support / Attack Aircraft
1936 - Ki-32
1940 - Ki-51
1944 - Ki-102
The early bit is simply two of the common IJA light bombers, the last one is hard - the late dive-bomb capable Ki-48s are an option, as are some the ground attack versions of fighters like the Ki-102, Ki-93, etc. I opted for the -102 given its loadout, and replaced it with something else in the Heavy Fighter lineup.

Carrier Attack Aircraft
1936 - D1A
1940 - D3A
1944 - D4Y
Logical progression of IJN carrier dive bombers - technically the D4Y could also have been replaced by the dual role B7A, but thought it was better to stick to the same types.

Naval Bomber
1936 - G3M
1940 - G4M
1944 - P1Y
IJN land based, torpedo capable bombers. While these also acted as medium bombers for airfield strikes, etc., they are the best fit here, and the only reasonably land-based choice with proper anti-shipping 'firepower'. For the US, this line could include the attack bombers like the PBJ-1, and for the British, some of the land based torpedo capable bombers like the Beaufort T MkII.

Carrier Torpedo Bomber
1936 - B4Y
1940 - B5N
1944 - B6N or B7A
Again a simple progression down IJN carrier torpedo bombers. The last one can go either way.

Heavy Fighter
1936 - Ki-38
1940 - Ki-45
1944 - Ki-83
Same as originally, minus the switch of the Ki-102 for the high performance Ki-83. The Ki-38 is also kind of a suboptimal choice, but couldn't think of anything to replace it with.

Tactical Bomber
1933 - Ki-1
1936 - Ki-21
1940 - Ki-49
1944 - Ki-67
Straightfoward progression of IJA medium bombers.

Heavy Bomber
1936 - Ki-20
1940 - G5N
1944 - G8N
This one is hard - the Ki-20 is kind of out of place here, and the G5N and G8N only saw prototype production before being abandoned. Nevertheless, these are the closest Japan has to proper heavy bombers.

Jets
No idea on the dates for these, but options include the Kikka (while the design ultimately was intended as an attacker due to the situation in Japan at the time, its origins are as a fighter), the Ki-201 Karyu for early fighters, the J7W2 for a later one, and the R2Y for a light/attack bomber.

Much of what you wrote here is good until you get to the medium/heavy bombers, and then there is the possibility of debate. I spent about 2 hours in the middle of last night trying to figure out their tactical and strategic bombers. Virtually all of the Japanese heavy bombers were just long ranged medium bombers, even though they were listed as heavy. I don't see the heavy there. Light armor, light armament, low bomb-load, but long range - that to me is a tactical bomber.

The old early 30s bombers were a mix of K-1, Ki-1 II, Ki-2 and Ki-2 II. I'm not an expert of course, but other than the fact that they were all used in Manchuria and in North China in the opening years of the Sino-Japanese war, the Ki-2 and the Ki-2 II upgrade were a superior but still obsolescent airplane compared to the Ki-1 which was obsolete in 1937. The Ki-2 even had an alied codename unlike the Ki-1 which was retired before the Ki-2 and was less successful as a bomber compared to the Ki-2.

I would have it as

Tactical Bomber
1933 - Ki-2
1936 - Ki-21
1940 - Ki-49
1944 - Ki-67

For the Strategic bombers, I would completely disagree with the choice of the Ki-20 for the first slot. First of all, it was in service in 1931, and only 6 were built, as opposed to the Ki-21 which was in service from 1936 onwards, and more than 2000 were built. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Ki-20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Ki-21

The other two were much better than the ones I pegged last night. When I saw attack bomber, I thought kamikaze which which wasn't the case. So in my opinion, I would revise it to this:

Strategic Bomber
1936 - Ki-21
1940 - G5N
1944 - G8N

Other than those three aircraft, I cannot argue with anything else you have up.

Edited to reflect new information.

 

[Daelyn75]

Alright, I will bite since this thread has run its course as far as usefulness if podcat hasn't seen my post on page 5 about naval bombers by now.

Admiral Piett's Amazing, Spectacular, Stupendous Japanese Aircraft Tech Tree!11!1!!!!11!!!!!
Note: I'm not ultra picky about dates, they are just abstractions. I have chosen mainline aircraft in service roughly around that time that are logically positioned on the tree according to the order of technological development in the IJAAS and IJNAS. It has nothing to do with exact introduction date.

Fighter

Spoiler

1933
Land-based: Ki-10
Carrier-based: A4N

1936
Land-based: Ki-27
Carrier-based: A5M

1940
Land-based: Ki-43
Carrier-based: A6M

1944
Land-based: Ki-84
Carrier-based: A7M

Close Air Support

Spoiler

1936
Land-based: Ki-32 or Ki-30
Carrier-based: D1A (The D1A2 is sometimes referred to as the D2A, hence why the next aircraft in service was the D3A.)

1940
Land-based: Ki-51
Carrier-based: D3A

1944
Land-based: Ki-48 (The Ki-66 prototype was rejected because its performance did not exceed that of the Ki-48, which was the best serial production IJAAS light bomber.)
Carrier-based: D4Y

Naval Bomber

Spoiler

1936
Land-based: G3M
Carrier-based: B5N

1940
Land-based: G4M
Carrier-based: B6N

1944
Land-based: P1Y
Carrier-based: B7A

Heavy Fighter

Spoiler

1936
Ki-45 (Ki-38 wasn't a separate aircraft. Just an internal development number for a mock up.)

1940
Ki-96

1944
Ki-102

Tactical Bomber

Spoiler

1933
Ki-2

1936
Ki-21

1940
Ki-49

1944
Ki-67

Strategic Bomber

Spoiler

1936
Ki-20

1940
G5N

1944
G8N

This provides a logical technological progression, aircraft from both the army and navy are well represented, aircraft are in their correct roles and the lines are internally consistent. None of that is present in most of the existing tech tree.

You and Elouda, chose the Ki-49 over the Ki-48 which is rather confusing since more than twice the Ki-48s were built than the Ki-49s, and they lasted to the end of the war. Whereas the Ki-49 Donryu was a much less successful aircraft. If you have to choose one for the spot, why would you choose the one that had fewer number built, and it wasn't as good as the other?

 

[Admiral Piett]

You and Elouda, chose the Ki-49 over the Ki-48 which is rather confusing since more than twice the Ki-48s were built than the Ki-49s, and they lasted to the end of the war. Whereas the Ki-49 Donryu was a much less successful aircraft. If you have to choose one for the spot, why would you choose the one that had fewer number built, and it wasn't as good as the other?

The Ki-48 was classified and used by the Japanese as a light/dive bomber, not a medium/tactical bomber. The number of engines can throw people off, but later Ki-48 variants had dive brakes and all. The Ki-49 was the direct replacement for the Ki-21 in the medium/tactical bomber (Japanese "Heavy" designation) role. It says so right in the design specifications. I have the Ki-48 as the "1944" tech CAS aircraft, because the IJAAS has nothing else to fit that position. TECHNICALLY the Ki-102 would since it was actually a ground attack aircraft until later variants, but that gets overly detailed and confusing for a tech tree like this.

 

[Daelyn75]

Also completely agreed. My own gripe might be the B6N as the 1940 torpedo bombers, but thats a minor detail.

Re: your suggestion on page 5, I also agree. Personally, I would make the current 'Naval Bombers' a variant of tactical bombers to cover naval strike capable variants of those (so things like the G4M, PBJ-1, etc.), while letting them keep some of the tactical missions (just be a little worse at them). A new line of torpedo bombers (carrier capable from the start) would either go where the current naval bomber line is, or as a second variant to the CAS aircraft next to the carrier dive bombers.

Thankfully it sounds like modding will be easier than before, so this is probably a Day 0 mod for me.

Another issue that should change within the game is that tactical bombers should be able to naval bomb ships, and naval bombers should be able to ground attack - this is the way it was in previous HOI games, and with HOI IV that has now changed. The G3M was used to hit land targets as well as naval targets, and you will find the same thing with many of the naval and tactical bombers throughout the war.

 

[FarEast]

You should remember that tactical bomber and land based fighter cannot use on the sea in the Pacific Ocean and/or the Atlantic Ocean.
In this time there are no GPS etc. They must return to base by own's navigation. Usually they were no navigation skill on the sea.
That's why Naval bomber need to attack over the sea.
So one of Naval bomber have to get long range on the land base and other one have to get on the carrier, usually single engine plane.

 

[Daelyn75]

The Ki-48 was classified and used by the Japanese as a light/dive bomber, not a medium/tactical bomber. The number of engines can throw people off, but later Ki-48 variants had dive brakes and all. The Ki-49 was the direct replacement for the Ki-21 in the medium/tactical bomber (Japanese "Heavy" designation) role. It says so right in the design specifications.

The Ki-49 is also listed as a heavy bomber, but like I wrote, I don't see the heavy part of the bomber other than perhaps range. The Ki-48 was used as a dive bomber in Burma, but so was the Ju-88 used as a dive bomber in the early part of the war, but that doesn't mean it's a CAS. The Ki-48 carried 800 kg, where as the Ki-49 carried 1000 kg. That is not a huge difference.


The Ki-48 is out of your list, which leaves out a well used aircraft compared to a lesser used and less successful aircraft.

I see you have it listed under CAS, that is fine, but then you have it as the 1944 CAS, when it was put into action in 1939. I know it doesn't quite work right because the 1937 Ki-32 was to be replaced by it only 2 years later.

Alright then, I can take the Ki-48 being in the CAS, and the Ki-49 being in the 1940 tactical slot, but then we have to figure out the CAS mess thats now in place. I didn't even look at the army single engine bombers until now.

 

[Admiral Piett]

The Ki-49 is also listed as a heavy bomber, but like I wrote, I don't see the heavy part of the bomber other than perhaps range. The Ki-48 was used as a dive bomber in Burma, but so was the Ju-88 used as a dive bomber in the early part of the war, but that doesn't mean it's a CAS. The Ki-48 carried 800 kg, where as the Ki-49 carried 1000 kg. That is not a huge difference.


The Ki-48 is out of your list, which leaves out a well used aircraft compared to a lesser used and less successful aircraft.

The Ki-48 is in my list, under CAS in the 1944 slot. It was designed in the late-1930s as a light/dive bomber, but it was the last of the type designed for the IJAAS outside of the Ki-66, which was rejected because it performed about as well as the Ki-48 anyway, and the Ki-45 and Ki-102 ground attack variants. It was CAS by its very design. It says right in the December 1937 design specification that it was a light (CAS) bomber. It had dive brakes and everything. Twin-engines throws people off, but it is right there in black-and-white in the Japanese army specification. I think they knew what their own plane was and was not.

The Japanese "heavy" designation is completely different from the rest of the world. The Ki-21 was a "heavy" bomber, the Ki-49 was a "heavy" bomber, the Ki-67 was a "heavy" bomber, etc. In game, and by the standards of every other air power in the world, they were medium/tactical bombers. The Ki-49 design specification issued in early 1938 openly stated that it was intended to be a replacement for the "Army Type 97 Heavy Bomber (Ki-21)." Hence why I have the Ki-49 replacing the Ki-21 in game.

 

[Daelyn75]

The Ki-48 is in my list, under CAS in the 1944 slot. It was designed in the late-1930s as a light/dive bomber, but it was the last of the type designed for the IJAAS outside of the Ki-66, which was rejected because it performed about as well as the Ki-48 anyway, and the Ki-45 and Ki-102 ground attack variants. It was CAS by its very design. It says right in the December 1937 design specification that it was a light (CAS) bomber. It had dive brakes and everything. Twin-engines throws people off, but it is right there in black-and-white in the Japanese army specification. I think they knew what their own plane was and was not.

The Japanese "heavy" designation is completely different from the rest of the world. The Ki-21 was a "heavy" bomber, the Ki-49 was a "heavy" bomber, the Ki-67 was a "heavy" bomber, etc. In game, and by the standards of every other air power in the world, they were medium/tactical bombers. The Ki-49 design specification issued in early 1938 openly stated that it was intended to be a replacement for the "Army Type 97 Heavy Bomber (Ki-21)." Hence why I have the Ki-49 replacing the Ki-21 in game.

You are also getting information about the airplane from a source that I am not. In both Wikipedia and in my encyclopedia of WW2 aircraft, it only says light bomber, but then when you read certain parts of it, it was at some point used and converted to be used as a dive bomber. I'm pretty sure from the start it wasn't intended to be used as such but a later variant was made for that use. Look at the variant history:

Ki-48
Four prototypes with Ha-25 engines of 708 kW (950 hp), and five pre-production aircraft, with modified tail surfaces.
Ki-48-Ia
Army Type 99 Twin Engine Light Bomber Model 1A; as first series model. Produced from 1940, 557 built.
Ki-48-Ib,
Similar to the Ia, with changes in defensive machine gun mountings.

• Total production of Ki-48 Ia and Ib: 557 aircraft

Ki-48-II
Three prototypes built.
Ki-48-IIa
Fitted with more powerful engines, a longer fuselage, additional armour, and larger bomb load. Produced from April 1942.
Ki-48-IIb
Dive bomber version, with reinforced fuselage and dive brakes.
Ki-48-IIc
Improved defensive weapons. Produced from 1943.

• Total production of Ki-48 IIa, IIb and IIc: 1,408 aircraft

Ki-48-II KAI Kamikaze (Type Tai-Atari)
Conversion with 800 kg (1,760 lb) of explosives and two or three crew for kamikaze missions
Ki-66
Nose turret removed and replaced with solid nose fitted with 2x fixed forward firing 12.7mm machine guns. 8 prototypes built of varying configurations. None selected for mass production due to minimal increase in speed. Dive brakes used on Ki-48 IIb.
Ki-81
Proposed version of the Ki-48. Not built.
Ki-174
Single-seat special attack version. Not built.

Regardless of that, it changes nothing. I wanted the airplane to be represented in the game, and yes, I am well aware that two engine airplanes can be CAS. Just look at the Henschel Hs 129 which had been the aircraft that previous HOI games used to replace the Ju 87 for CAS.

 

[Elouda]

The Ki-48 is in my list, under CAS in the 1944 slot. It was designed in the late-1930s as a light/dive bomber, but it was the last of the type designed for the IJAAS outside of the Ki-66, which was rejected because it performed about as well as the Ki-48 anyway, and the Ki-45 and Ki-102 ground attack variants. It was CAS by its very design. It says right in the December 1937 design specification that it was a light (CAS) bomber. It had dive brakes and everything. Twin-engines throws people off, but it is right there in black-and-white in the Japanese army specification. I think they knew what their own plane was and was not.

The Japanese "heavy" designation is completely different from the rest of the world. The Ki-21 was a "heavy" bomber, the Ki-49 was a "heavy" bomber, the Ki-67 was a "heavy" bomber, etc. In game, and by the standards of every other air power in the world, they were medium/tactical bombers. The Ki-49 design specification issued in early 1938 openly stated that it was intended to be a replacement for the "Army Type 97 Heavy Bomber (Ki-21)." Hence why I have the Ki-49 replacing the Ki-21 in game.

The early models of the Ki-48 did not have drive brakes, they were limited to either medium altitude level bombing or shallow angle glide bombing. The Ki-48-IIb, which was only widely adopted in 1943, was the first with dive brakes.

 

[Admiral Piett]

Snip

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Early versions were pure light bombers, which were essentially the closest the IJAAS got to CAS outside of the Ki-30, Ki-32, Ki-51 and the ground attack Ki-45s and Ki-102s. The later versions (i.e. The Ki-48-IIs that would have been flying around in 1944) were full-blown dive bombers. The current tree has the Ki-66 (a failed Ki-48 development) in the tree as the 1944 CAS already.

The Ki-48 was not a medium/tactical bomber. That role was taken up by the Ki-21 -> Ki-49 -> Ki-67 "heavy" bomber progression, as per Japanese army specifications. I'm fitting these aircraft into the existing tech tree, meaning that the Ki-48 would have to be 1944 CAS or not be included at all, since it would make no sense to have it replace an aircraft (the Ki-21) in a role that it was never designed for or used in. Indeed, the Ki-49 was designed and deployed as the Ki-21's replacement historically.

In basic terms, without getting into insane levels of detail with sub-variants, the generic "Ki-48" label is the best one for the 1944 CAS role in the tech tree. The generic "Ki-49" label is the best for the 1940 medium/tactical bomber role.

 

[Elouda]

Agreed. The fact the Ki-48 has no other place in the tree is more of an artifact that there is no 'light bomber' tree for things like the Ki-48 or the A-20 more than anything else. As things stand now, the 44 CAS slot is the best place for it.

 

[Daelyn75]

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Early versions were pure light bombers, which were essentially the closest the IJAAS got to CAS outside of the Ki-30, Ki-32, Ki-51 and the ground attack Ki-45s and Ki-102s. The later versions (i.e. The Ki-48-IIs that would have been flying around in 1944) were full-blown dive bombers. The current tree has the Ki-66 (a failed Ki-48 development) in the tree as the 1944 CAS already.

The Ki-48 was not a medium/tactical bomber. That role was taken up by the Ki-21 -> Ki-49 -> Ki-67 "heavy" bomber progression, as per Japanese army specifications. I'm fitting these aircraft into the existing tech tree, meaning that the Ki-48 would have to be 1944 CAS or not be included at all, since it would make no sense to have it replace an aircraft (the Ki-21) in a role that it was never designed for or used in. Indeed, the Ki-49 was designed and deployed as the Ki-21's replacement historically.

In basic terms, without getting into insane levels of detail with sub-variants, the generic "Ki-48" label is the best one for the 1944 CAS role in the tech tree. The generic "Ki-49" label is the best for the 1940 medium/tactical bomber role.

You need to read the ends of my posts on page seven. I think you've missed a few, and are going on what I initially wrote. Since you are still arguing something that I wrote about about 4 comments back that concluded it.

 

[Daelyn75]

Agreed. The fact the Ki-48 has no other place in the tree is more of an artifact that there is no 'light bomber' tree for things like the Ki-48 or the A-20 more than anything else. As things stand now, the 44 CAS slot is the best place for it.

It's not exactly pretty, more like a dogs breakfast, but I suppose so.

 

[Admiral Piett]

You need to read the ends of my posts on page seven. I think you've missed a few, and are going on what I initially wrote. Since you are still arguing something that I wrote about about 4 comments back that concluded it.

Hahahaha, derp. You are correct. I was reading this thread while juggling a couple of other things and missed a few sentences.