Ok, sell me the Pacific theatre planes.

[ShamrockOneFive]

 

Thanks everyone for answers, especially Hiromachi, Feathered, Lucas and Shamrock.

 

Please, keep these coming.

 

I guess I'm expecting you'll convince me PTO is not end of the world, and stop me venting my frustration off on unrelated IRL people  . In broader sense, I'm hoping you'll convince people not interested in PTO of the same, using terms they are willing to listen to (rather than terms I've listed as not working ). 

 

I want to stick to this goal rather than going off topic, so I don't answer in detail many peoples valid points about things that don't make me want PTO. Two things, though:

 

By "PTO controversy" I mean split between Il-2 players themselves, those who want it, those who can live with it, those put off by it, like in thread discussing Jasons announcement. 

 

By PTO being separate conflict I mean, among other things, war against Japan saw use of separate plane types (except US Army and non-US Allies), mostly separate personnel, and battles fought in pacific had much less impact on war against Germany than, say, D-Day and Eastern Front had on each other. You can research learn of war against Germany without having to know or learning much about war against Japan, other than P-38 and B-17 was used there extensively, too. I should have said "can't relate to participants" raher than "can't identify", to, that's me thinking in Polish.

 

I'm not having problems relating because of Polish provincialism, BTW; I despise that. On contrary, I want to know how muchmerit PTO has left when we strip American provincialism (suspitious of this one, too).

 

 

 

Please continue if you have time, it is getting interesting. You got me reading about Japanese Army air service by now, these guys look really interesting (if overshadowed by navy - talk about interservice rivalry). Especially part that they were modelled on Luftstreitkräfte, service I have no problems relating to . Were they present on Midway, or do we have to wait till Okinawa for them? From what I see Midway was strictly naval affair, fought around islands just big enough to fit an airstrip and without much presence from either army? 

 

 

Cheers!

 

You're right... there is a separateness to the Pacific from the European conflict. I actually ended up learning WWII history from the Pacific side of things first (thanks to the excellent manual that shipped in Aces of the Pacific) and then I learned all about the western European conflict. It wasn't until I was older and IL-2 came out that I became truly aware of the scope and scale of the war. There are plenty of interesting connections but you don't need to strictly know them to understand one conflict or the other.

 

The Japanese Navy and Army had pretty extreme interservice rivalry. The Americans have it for sure but the Japanese in WWII put them to shame. Separate aircraft, logistics, guns, ammunition types, etc. The Japanese Navy had land based bombers and interceptors that were never meant to be operated on a carrier - but they needed those types to defend their naval installations as the Army had other duties.

 

The navies duked it out at Midway. There were few Army aircraft with the kind of range that would be needed for that. The Army aircraft were busy in New Guinea, China, Singapore, and Burma. At Okinawa, as things became more desperate and the conflict worked its way closer to Japan there were more instances of aircraft from the Navy and Army being in the same area. I'm not sure how well coordinated they were... if at all. Again, separate everything for these two services.

 

There is an American angle to the Pacific conflict but if you dig a bit you'll find some other stuff. The battle at Singapore saw Britain trying to defend a major colony against the Japanese and being ousted. Burma and India were very nearly repeats. 

 

As Jason very plainly said during the Q&A last weekend, no matter what decision they take there will be those put out by that decision. The Pacific choice will make a lot of people happy but it will also make a few people unhappy. The fact that we have another East front scenario before that has people unhappy.

 

If there are other questions to try and tackle... some of us can have a go at it.

[Legioneod]

The theater area of the Pacific that we are getting was fought between the United States and Japan so I really don't expect to see any other aircraft besides USA and Japan. If we want to see commonwealth or other aircraft we would need to go to the Burma-India-China theater of the Pacific.

 

There is a good deal of possibility for the area we are getting, the possible aircraft that we can have is pretty large as well.

 

Fighters

P-47

P-38

F4U 

F6F 

F4F 

P-51

 

Bombers/Carrier Bombers

B-24

B-17

B-29

B-25

TBF/TBM Avenger

SBD Dauntless

SB2C Helldiver

 

​These are just a few of the aircraft that can be introduced in the game. (I haven't mentioned Japanese aircraft due to my lack of knowledge on the subject)

There would also be plenty of things to do in the pacific, for instance:

CAS support at Okinawa in a multitude of aircraft.

Fighter sweeps over Okinawa

Sinking the Yamato before it beaches at Oki.

Long range bomb missions to the Japanese mainland (if it's added)

 

The main attraction of the Pacific theater is the Carrier Operations.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The theater area of the Pacific that we are getting was fought between the United States and Japan so I really don't expect to see any other aircraft besides USA and Japan. If we want to see commonwealth or other aircraft we would need to go to the Burma-India-China theater of the Pacific.

 

There is a good deal of possibility for the area we are getting, the possible aircraft that we can have is pretty large as well.

 

Fighters

P-47

P-38

F4U 

F6F 

F4F 

P-51

 

Bombers/Carrier Bombers

B-24

B-17

B-29

B-25

TBF/TBM Avenger

SBD Dauntless

SB2C Helldiver

 

​These are just a few of the aircraft that can be introduced in the game. (I haven't mentioned Japanese aircraft due to my lack of knowledge on the subject)

There would also be plenty of things to do in the pacific, for instance:

CAS support at Okinawa in a multitude of aircraft.

Fighter sweeps over Okinawa

Sinking the Yamato before it beaches at Oki.

Long range bomb missions to the Japanese mainland (if it's added)

 

The main attraction of the Pacific theater is the Carrier Operations.

 

Don't forget the the RAAF operated the Spitfire V at Darwin and Beaufighters and Beauforts off the coast of New Guinea alongside the USAAF.

[Legioneod]

I know, but I just meant that America was the main group in the area of the Pacific that we are getting (Okinawa and Midway)

 

I don't really mind what aircraft they add but I hope to see the B-24 in-game some day. Doing bomb missions is one of the most interesting things to me, but unfortunately there aren't any sims in which I can be a Lib pilot. I'm hoping this theater will change that, seeing as the B-24s played a major role in the Pacific theater due to there advantages over the B-17.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Legioneod

[unreasonable]

I know, but I just meant that America was the main group in the area of the Pacific that we are getting (Okinawa and Midway)

 

 

True, but there was a RN carrier TF involved in the Okinawa operations, Jason has already said, IIRC, that he will consider including it. I doubt that will happen, since I expect the team will have their hands full with portraying the US machines alone, but we shall see.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet

 

In March 1945, while supporting the invasion of Okinawa, the BPF had sole responsibility for operations in the Sakishima Islands. Its role was to suppress Japanese air activity, using gunfire and air attack, at potential kamikaze staging airfields that would otherwise be a threat to US Navy vessels operating at Okinawa. The carriers were subject to heavy and repeated kamikaze attacks, but because of their armoured flight decks, the British aircraft carriers proved highly resistant, and returned to action relatively quickly. The USN liaison officer on Indefatigable commented: "When a kamikaze hits a US carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it's just a case of 'Sweepers, man your brooms.'

 

 

Though Seafires main issue was range, even with external fuel tanks it still had limited capabilities and couldnt operate far from carrier.  

[unreasonable]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet

 

 

Though Seafires main issue was range, even with external fuel tanks it still had limited capabilities and couldnt operate far from carrier.  

 

I know: but for those of us who might enjoy carrier operations up to a point, but who do not enjoy six hour round trips over water, the short range is a huge plus!

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Sure, I'm not complaining Unreasonable. As a matter of fact  I might be able to load my Zero with 35-40% of fuel and it still will be plenty  

[Cybermat47]

The FAA career in 46 was pretty fun. Those 20mms go well against Zekes and IJA ground units

[LLv34_Untamo]

S!

 

My arbitrary number of monetary units:

Personally don't identify with the participants either, but I like carrier ops.

 

What you asked for (the planes):

In PTO I really like the "rock-paper-scissors" thing going on with the Zero vs. Wildcat. First one climbs and turns, but doesn't go fast. The other goes fast, but doesn't turn or climb. Both have distinct advantages and you really have to fly the plane by its rules.

[216th_Jordan]

Zero was fast than Wildcat, so it turns better, climbs better and is faster but f4f4 is more durable.

Edited September 15, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[wtornado]

I can't believe people a«re talking about the Pacific theatre

when it is like two years from being completed.

 

It Amazes me.

 

I have more of a chance of playing Star Citizen in its final stages of

development than to take off of a carrier with this game.

 

And Star Citizen is so far from being completed that I barely

touch the game due to all the bugs and shortcomings.

I find it long just waiting for 2.004 the Pacific did not even cross my mind

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I can't believe people a«re talking about the Pacific theatre when it is like two years from being completed.   It Amazes me.

I dont see anything amazing about that, now that it was announced and that Jason expressed his view and goals he wishes to achieve with Midway/Okinawa there are strong arguments for discussing it.

And its not "two years". Its just two years. I've been waiting since Combat Flight Simulator 2 for something actually good, while Pacific Fighters had its positive sides and flaws for me it wasnt fully satisfying.

 

Besides, I think it just shows that there is an interest in this move to Pacific. 

[unreasonable]

Because fantasy is sometimes more fun than the messy and disappointing compromises of reality?

[sinned]

I really wish or even recommend bos team to take a look at Microprose 1942 Pacific Air War to see what made this sim very successful in both monetary terms and immersion.

 

Best pacific sim ever.

[wtornado]

I dont see anything amazing about that, now that it was announced and that Jason expressed his view and goals he wishes to achieve with Midway/Okinawa there are strong arguments for discussing it.

And its not "two years". Its just two years. I've been waiting since Combat Flight Simulator 2 for something actually good, while Pacific Fighters had its positive sides and flaws for me it wasnt fully satisfying.

 

Besides, I think it just shows that there is an interest in this move to Pacific. 

Wow well at least you do have some hope of getting it.

 

Two years of hope is better than nothing and nothing is written in stone with this game.

 

But I found that the Western theatre and North Africa co-ops filled much faster than

my Pacific theatre co-ops and no one ever wanted to fly the Japanese planes

because you would light up faster than a BIC lighter flying Japanese after just a few hits.

 

I liked flying the Zero and the KI-61 and we we not many.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

my Pacific theatre co-ops and no one ever wanted to fly the Japanese planes because you would light up faster than a BIC lighter flying Japanese after just a few hits.

Which is what I've said, Pacific Fighters lacked a lot of details and performance of some Japanese aircraft was delicately questionable. It always made me wonder how those big companies are unable to reach proper documentation for various aircraft, yet people like me (amateur researchers, free-lancers) can at the same time work with institutions like museums and archives. 

Anyway, if Japanese will be somewhat an underdog I wont complain, I like the challenge. Though I dont see that with Midway for instance where Zero was clearly superior to either Wildcat or Buffalo. 

 

 

 

Two years of hope is better than nothing and nothing is written in stone with this game.

Ekhem, tell that to folks on Eagle dynamics forums who wait for Spitfire/P-47/P-40 F to get added to DCS for more than 3 years ...   

[Ace_Pilto]

Buy planes or Warthunder gulag for you comrade.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Please no, have mercy. I only escaped that Gulag 2 years ago. I'll do anything, just dont make me get back there. 

[Trooper117]

lol.... it's no sin to go back there you know... I pop in occasionally when I just want some quick action fun flying.

You don't have to think to hard, and it looks great too

[J2_Trupobaw]

Buy planes or Warthunder gulag for you comrade.

Or Star Citizen .

 

The more I read about conflicts before Japanese Army and Navy the less it looks like interservice rivalry, and the more like re-branded clan politics, now in modern uniforms. It seems Navy and Army were founded by separate and rival ex-samurai clans, from caste with long tradition of meddling into politics to further interests of their clan while paying lip service to the Emperor (whose station was so high that actually running the country was below him). The Japanese constitution made soldiers responsible to Emperor rather than politicians (which was copied from constitution of Germany, where Emperor was very active in running the country, and soldiers considered meddling in politics or even having political views as beneath their calling - two checks on military Japanese culture didn't have). So they didn't need goverment permission to start shooting in China  . How far fetched is assuming that  Army and Navy continued to pursue their own agendas as if they were feudal clans, with no checks on their power, and even when they purged themselves of clan dominance to become "national" institutions, they still saw each other as rivals for resources and political influence at home, because that's how clans always conducted themselves? And much of the war was made to unsaddle other service? Jumping to conclusions now.

 

It also seems that even in war they were pursuing their own agenda and seeing others as rivals more than sister service . Army got Japan into China (as attempt to start war in Soviets and get to Siberian resources, which ended in diseaster). War in China and Soviet debacle discredited the Army, brought international sanctions that limited Japanese resources even further, and brought to power Navy whose solutuin to sanctions and resources shortages was to start "their own" war, with US and Europeans, to get to Indonesia... because they had no power to end sanctions  by pulling Army out of China, or because they were trying to outdo their Army rivals? Almost like war started by Army was not Navys' problem and vice versa. What a trainwreck.

 

For something different: Why so many planes on this theater are powered by radial engines. Japanese, I know, were initially limited by lack of powerful in-line engines. But US produced some good in-line fighters for Army, yet Navy run all their fighters on same radial design. Standardisation and unified maintenance, or something more? 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Trupobaw

[Danziger]

I can't believe people a«re talking about the Pacific theatre

when it is like two years from being completed.

 

It Amazes me.

 

I have more of a chance of playing Star Citizen in its final stages of

development than to take off of a carrier with this game.

 

And Star Citizen is so far from being completed that I barely

touch the game due to all the bugs and shortcomings.

 

I find it long just waiting for 2.004 the Pacific did not even cross my mind

Idk about anyone else but my attention span is a lot greater than when I was a kid. Discussing and planning the future is all part of growing up. I know when I was a kid two years seemed like eternity but now it's nothing.

[Legioneod]

For something different: Why so many planes on this theater are powered by radial engines. Japanese, I know, were initially limited by lack of powerful in-line engines. But US produced some good in-line fighters for Army, yet Navy run all their fighters on same radial design. Standardisation and unified maintenance, or something more? 

 

Not sure why they were designed this way, it very well could have been for ease of maintenance/Logistics. Radials are just as good as inline engines and are quite a bit more durable as well. Personally I would take a radial over an inline anyday.

 

Another reason could be the space saved by having a radial instead of an inline, a carrier only has so much space and an inline can add a bit of length to the aircraft.

 

I think navy regulation mandated air cooled engines, the inlines were bigger, more vulnerable and harder to maintain.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Legioneod

[migmadmarine]

Yep, believe the choice of radials was motivated by their space savings, and that they could be used across all their aircraft. With the limited space on a carrier, it's better to only have to carry the parts and spares for one type of engine rather than two or more.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Radial engines are considered more robust to both damage and daily usage. R-2800 or Sakae are almost legendary for that :

Nothing too good can be said of the Tainan's mainstay weapon, the reisen. In 1942 it represented cutting-edge technology and, unusually, was adaptable for either carrier or land based operations. It's Nakajima Sakae 12 engine with single-stage supercharger propelled by a solid three-bladed constant-speed propeller proved so reliable that we cannot find one example of the Tainan losing a reisen to non-combat engine failure. 

 

Eagles of the Southern Sky - The Tainan Air Group in WWII Volume One: New Guinea by Luca Ruffato and Michael J. Claringbould, page 281.

In RAAF evaluation of A6M3 it was stated that engine had rather tendency to overcool !

 

Other thing is that inline engines require cooling system, which has two flaws:

- its heavy

- even minor damage can lead to fatal coolant leakage 

 

First problem results in aircraft weight increase, and most of those carrier-borne machines simply had to satisfy a requirement of a long range. The more mass is spent on other system, the less is left for possible fuel space. Overall radial engine was easier to maintain and operate during flight as well as more resistant to damage. 

 

Though there were inline engine machines that operated from carriers, like famous D4Y Judy. 

[PatrickAWlson]

Yep, believe the choice of radials was motivated by their space savings, and that they could be used across all their aircraft. With the limited space on a carrier, it's better to only have to carry the parts and spares for one type of engine rather than two or more.

 

Radials were also tougher and less likely to die over time after taking damage.  When you are flying over long expanses of ocean with no place to bail, actually getting home is important.

[Gambit21]

But I found that the Western theatre and North Africa co-ops filled much faster than

my Pacific theatre co-ops and no one ever wanted to fly the Japanese planes

because you would light up faster than a BIC lighter flying Japanese after just a few hits.

 

I can't believe people a«re talking about the Pacific theatre

when it is like two years from being completed.

 

It Amazes me.

 

Bah! Then you flew with pansies.

I had no trouble filing Pacific CoOps, and the Zeke was my favorite plane in the sim - I probably had a 12 -1 kill ratio in that thing.

It doesn't take damage well, but the trick is hitting it.

 

I killed lots of Hellcats and Corsairs (Wildcats go without saying) because so many pilots think that they'll be the one

to have success turning with you. (other's shouldn't, but I'm good enough!) So get them to fight your fight (which was usually easy) and you own them.

I remember only a few times in all my CoOps where a guy actually refused to turn with me and kept BnZ'ing me instead.

 

Regarding talking about the Pacific - we're amazed that you're amazed, but the discussion itself is really not that amazing.

 

Plenty of us are just tolerating the Eastern Front, for lack of anything else while waiting for other things, the Pacific being of note in that category.

You can find at least one post by me on the RoF forum where I pondered flying the Zeke in that engine, and that was long before this

current IL2 was a twinkle in anyone's eye. So yeah - we're going to talk about it.

The Eastern Front is fine, but not at the permanent exclusion of anything else, and it doesn't motivate me to join to start a squad, it doesn't motivate me to make sure I set time to fly aside each week with my busy schedule, or make campaigns, or paint skins. It kind of sits there as a curiosity to be messed with here and there, but there's no motivation

to dive into it. The Pacific does all that stuff for me.

 

I look forward to flying with you. 

We'll teach the overconfident Hellcat and Corsair drivers some respect when Okinawa get's and they think they're finally safe.

[Ace_Pilto]

If there's any chance of an N1K1 or Ki-84 you'll find the match ups to be very exciting over Okinawa, the old A6M5c might struggle a little though.

 

I always had a soft spot for the Ki-43 Hayabusa, it's dipped in creosote for extra flammability before take-off but a very nice little aircraft.

[Gambit21]

Will still be exciting with the Zeke too for reasons mentioned above.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I always had a soft spot for the Ki-43 Hayabusa, it's dipped in creosote for extra flammability before take-off but a very nice little aircraft.

This one I could not understand actually in Pacific Fighters. Oscar unlike Zero received fuel tank protection by the end of 1942 (with last Ki-43 Model Is produced) and Model II received even better (ticker and more complex) rubber layers around fuel tank. It wasnt as good as American fuel tanks, but certainly much better than nothing like a Zero. Hayabusa also had pilot protection, initially one up to two armored plates and by the end of 1943 there were three plates affording a very good protection for a pilot.  

[Ace_Pilto]

Perhaps you can help me with something Hiromanchi, I've always wondered what the following designations meant for Japanese aircraft.

 

Kai

 

Hei

 

Otsu

 

Maybe there are, others, I can't remember.

[Pharoah]

ah yes F4Fs/F6Fs/F4Us vs Zekes. I remember the days of Pacific Fighters. Good ole boom 'n zoom...works every time...unless you're at a height disadvantage.....then you swim.

[Gambit21]

Good fun

[TheElf]

Trubopaw,

  

    For me the Pacific represents a separate war.  Sure at the strategic level the fact that the Western Allies had to fight in both Europe and the Pacific affected how long the war in Europe lasted, but from and operational and tactical standpoint the War in the Pacific is a TOTALLY different war from the war in Europe or the Eastern Front.  

 

    I'm an American, and as such growing up as a kid I learned what Americans were taught, just like Russians, Brits, French, and Poles.  What I have loved about IL-2 1946 and now IL-2 Sturmovik is how it opened my eyes to all the other theaters of WWII that I once took for granted or claimed, much like you do, that "that doesn't interest me".  I don't know where you are on your Flight-Sim-WWII journey, but as an American I have been buying HUNDREDS of dollars of books on Russian and German planes, tanks, and Eastern Front Battles since I personally began to have my eyes opened to the unique nature of each Front depcited in 1946 and now Sturmovik.  

 

     As much as I have campaigned here to expand the Franchise to ANY new front, a special place resides in my heart for the Pacific.  It's time for many of us faithful customers to finally get there.  I understand that not everyone will be enthusiastic about the Pacific "pivot" but that is natural and understandable.  Personally I would like to see ALL fronts eventually covered, because from my time in 1946 I discovered so many interesting and fun parts of the Air war from Finland, to Malta, to Greece, to China...The Phony war, Battle of Britain, Spain and the Condor Legion.  While I am really happy about the pivot, what makes me the most happy is that hopefully a new theater will draw MORE customers to this franchise.  This is a fundamental difference in Titles like this one.  IT REALLY NEEDS EVERYONE'S support, or else it ends.  The customer base has to grow beyond those that love the Eastern Front.

 

    There really is no Theater that I wouldn't want to participate in despite the fact that I am "just an American".  In fact the LAST thing I want to see is the 8th Air Force over Germany, because I feel there are so many other places to see first that have been overlooked in this community and the Air War over Germany has been done, done again, and done thrice...

 

    What is REALLY special about the Pacific War is how diverse the action can be.  Some folks here have made an issue of "long expanses of Open ocean = boring"  That is a crock of Shit.   Anyone who professes this or supports an argument against a Pacific Module is either uneducated, ignorant, or unwilling to learn about the OTHER war.  Just like those who argue the Eastern Front is boring.  None of them are boring.  The reality is that ALL Carrier battles occur in support of a land based strategy.  Did they happen over water?  Yes, but the strategy of Carrier Warfare is always in support of a land campaign.  Coral Sea was in Defense of Port Moresby, Midway ido Midway, Santa Cruz ido Guadalcanal, Battle of Empress Augusta Bay Cutting off Rabaul and establishing a beachhead in the Bougainville Campaign.

 

    Each of these Carrier battles evolve into prolonged land-based air campaigns that support the island hopping strategy which is so fundamental to the Pacific combatants.  The basic formula is:

 

   Build up of forces in preparation for a major naval action/invasion => fight INTENSE Carrier Battle => Winner builds new Airfield to support prolonged land-based grinding air War   ==>  Rinse and repeat. 

 

    The diversity of the Theater extends to the Combatants, their aircraft, design philosophies, and their tactics.  British, Dutch, Kiwi, Aussie, Japanese Army, Japanese Navy.  I list the two services of Japan because they REALLY were THAT different from each other and the areas they fought in were at first separate, then out of desperation they began to cooperate and not all that well. 

 

    The War in the Pacific also changed rapidly, particularly on the Allied side as at first they hung on by a thread against a powerful and better prepared IJ aggressor.  Those Early battles of '42 were really very tenuous and the F4F, P-39, and P-40 holding the line against IJN aces from the War in China were brutal.  Early '43 saw a strengthening of Allied positions in the Solomons and a shift from Defense over Cactus to the Offensive, but the IJN and newly arriving IJAAF units were still sharp and deadly despite horrific losses and little relief from the front.  New Allied types began to appear but didn't begin to win the war right away, they merely evened the odds through '43.  The Air War over New Guinea and the Solomons wore down the IJ forces and Fortress Rabaul was eventually marginalized and bypassed, but that whole period leading up to the final severing of Rabaul was a 2 year slug fest that included major Carrier battles, long protracted campaigns from two major Island chains, and the introduction of planes like the F4U-1, P-38F, B-25, P-47C/D, F6F-3, FM-2, TBF Avenger, Spitfire MkV, on the allies.  The japanese also threw everything they had a the South Pacific (which includes the Solomons, and New Guinea).  A6M2, A6M3, A6M5, Ki-43, Ki-45, G4M, Ki-61, numerous floatplanes including the Floatplane Zero (uggh...)

 

    If you are interested in opening your horizons on the Air War in WWII I recommend a couple of books, many already mentioned

 

1.  Shatter Sword, Parshall and Tully. Dispels much of the "Miracle" of Midway, though it still kinda was miraculous, you get to see why things went so well for the US.

 

2.  Carrier Strike, Eric Hammel.  Covers the Battle of Santa Cruz ido Guadalcanal which occurs after Midway, but does so in a a very engaging way.  An incredibly personable read with lots of well described aerial engagements.

 

3.  Fire in the Sky.  Eric Bergrud.  A good broad brush treatment of the Air War in the SoPac, but with anecdotal input from actual aviators.  Does a very good job painting a picture of the war with just enough insight into the Environment, the men, and Machines.

 

4.  Samurai.  Saburo Sakai.  Original memoir on one of the most prolific and storied IJN aces of the war, and the survived, which is a major feat for any Japanese WWII aviator. A seminal read from the Japanese perspective.

 

5. Clash of Carriers. Barret Tillman.  More advanced in the Pacific timeline Tillman, a 1st rate aviation author tells the stopry of the Marianas Turkey shoot.  An incredible look at the MASSIVE fleets that the allies eventually employed to take the war to Japan afloat.

 

6.  The Jolly Rogers.  Tom Blackburn.  A look at the Air War in the Solomons as the F4U-1 makes its early appearance under the Author's command.  A really unique look at a Navy Fighter Squadron deployed ashore to participate in the grind of the Solomons.  Lots of action

 

7.  The Black Sheep.  Bruce Gamble.  A fantastically well researched treatment of one of the most INfamous USMC fighter squadrons.  The original book by Boyington himself was rife with inaccuracies and poorly remembered facts, not to mention his own ego.

 

8.  Carrier Warfare in the Pacific:  An Oral History Collection.  A collection of stories from the entire War that covers just about every angle of the war from the US perspective.

 

9.  Bloody Shambles. Christopher Shores.  Vol I is the early drift to war and the Fall of Singapore.  Vol II is Defense of Sumatra and the Fall of Burma.  Not quite War in the south pacific, but a highly detailed look at how Japan Steam rolled EVERYONE from '41 to '42

 

10.  Fortress Rabaul.  Bruce Gamble.  The story of Rabaul from its early days of seeming invincibility to its eventual fall.  Gamble makes the subject VERY readable.

a

11.  The First Team VOL I & II.  John Lundstrom.  The DEFINITIVE series on the early war Navy and Marine fighter pilots from Pearl Harbor to, Midway in VOL I, and Cactus and Santa Cruz in VOL II.  HIGHLY detailed and researched.

[Gambit21]

Well done Elf - well done.

[TheElf]

Perhaps you can help me with something Hiromanchi, I've always wondered what the following designations meant for Japanese aircraft.

 

Kai

 

Hei

 

Otsu

 

Maybe there are, others, I can't remember.

 

Kai is short for Kaizo which was an improved or upgraded type.  Similar in use to the "Bis" designation in russian parlance. eg. MiG-15 and MiG-15 Bis 

 

Hei, Otsu, and Ko are designations similar to the Western use of A, B, C except they are phonetic pronunciations of the Kanji the Japanese used to designate iterations of a single type of fighter.

 

Ki-61 Ko

Ki-61 Otsu

Ki-61 Hei

 

In that order.

Edited September 15, 2016 by TheElf

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Ko (Kou) - first (A)

Otsu - second (B)

Hei - third ©

Tei - fourth (D)

 

They arent literal translations but thats common meaning when referring to (with second class modifications) variants. For example there is Ki-61-I Ko which was the first mass produced variant of Ki-61-I, second variant featured improved armament (instead of two 12.7 mm and two 7.7 mm, there were four 12.7 mm now) and is commonly referred to as Otsu. Third variant featured minor changes in form of removal of retractable tail-wheel and two of wing mounted 12.7 mms were removed and replaced by two 20 mm MG 151 cannons, variant is called Hei. After it came Tei mode which featured more extensive changes but still in some way not great.

When there was a major change to the airframe done like engine was replaced by new model or something than aircraft would become Model 2, aka Ki-61-II where Ha-40 engine was replaced by Ha-140 engine and airframe saw major changes. 

Kai is shortening of "Kaizo" which means simply improved, its rarely used though.

Now keep in mind that above system is for Army and is more commonly used in literature than actual aircraft documentation, you wouldnt find it on airframes either I believe. Actual manuals referred to Army aircraft by the date of the adoption (Ki-43 was Type 1 single seat fighter adopted in 1941, Ki-44 was a Type 2 single seat fighter adopted in 1942, Ki-45 was a Type 2 two-seat fighter, Ki-61 was a Type 3 single seat fighter adopted in 1943, Ki-84 was a Type 4 fighter adopted in 1944, Ki-100 was a Type 5 single seat fighter adopted in 1945). For bombers it would be the same.

 

Navy had its own system where every number and letter had its purpose, for example mentioned A6M5c means following:

First letter - A - stands for type/purpose of aircraft, in Navy nomenclature A was a carrier-borne single seat fighter

First number - 6 - stands for a machine of the same type of A, where Zero was a 6th type of carrier borne fighter (coming after Mitsubishi A5M and Nakajima A4N)

Second letter - M - stands for manufacturer, in this case Mitsubishi

Second number - 5 - stands for variant of the machine, before 5 there was 2 (A6M2 model 21) and 3 (either model 32 or 22). Those changed usually with airframe/engine modifications.

Small letter - c  - stands for subvariant, where only smaller changes were made like related to armament. 

 

 

On the other topic, I've found another Futabasha video, this one presents some parts of Battle of Coral Sea I believe:

 

[Ace_Pilto]

Clear as mud but I think I get the gist, thanks.

[Bearfoot]

Trubopaw,

  

    For me the Pacific represents a separate war.  Sure at the strategic level the fact that the Western Allies had to fight in both Europe and the Pacific affected how long the war in Europe lasted, but from and operational and tactical standpoint the War in the Pacific is a TOTALLY different war from the war in Europe or the Eastern Front.  

 

    I'm an American, and as such growing up as a kid I learned what Americans were taught, just like Russians, Brits, French, and Poles.  What I have loved about IL-2 1946 and now IL-2 Sturmovik is how it opened my eyes to all the other theaters of WWII that I once took for granted or claimed, much like you do, that "that doesn't interest me".  I don't know where you are on your Flight-Sim-WWII journey, but as an American I have been buying HUNDREDS of dollars of books on Russian and German planes, tanks, and Eastern Front Battles since I personally began to have my eyes opened to the unique nature of each Front depcited in 1946 and now Sturmovik.  

 

     As much as I have campaigned here to expand the Franchise to ANY new front, a special place resides in my heart for the Pacific.  It's time for many of us faithful customers to finally get there.  I understand that not everyone will be enthusiastic about the Pacific "pivot" but that is natural and understandable.  Personally I would like to see ALL fronts eventually covered, because from my time in 1946 I discovered so many interesting and fun parts of the Air war from Finland, to Malta, to Greece, to China...The Phony war, Battle of Britain, Spain and the Condor Legion.  While I am really happy about the pivot, what makes me the most happy is that hopefully a new theater will draw MORE customers to this franchise.  This is a fundamental difference in Titles like this one.  IT REALLY NEEDS EVERYONE'S support, or else it ends.  The customer base has to grow beyond those that love the Eastern Front.

 

    There really is no Theater that I wouldn't want to participate in despite the fact that I am "just an American".  In fact the LAST thing I want to see is the 8th Air Force over Germany, because I feel there are so many other places to see first that have been overlooked in this community and the Air War over Germany has been done, done again, and done thrice...

 

    What is REALLY special about the Pacific War is how diverse the action can be.  Some folks here have made an issue of "long expanses of Open ocean = boring"  That is a crock of Shit.   Anyone who professes this or supports an argument against a Pacific Module is either uneducated, ignorant, or unwilling to learn about the OTHER war.  Just like those who argue the Eastern Front is boring.  None of them are boring.  The reality is that ALL Carrier battles occur in support of a land based strategy.  Did they happen over water?  Yes, but the strategy of Carrier Warfare is always in support of a land campaign.  Coral Sea was in Defense of Port Moresby, Midway ido Midway, Santa Cruz ido Guadalcanal, Battle of Empress Augusta Bay Cutting off Rabaul and establishing a beachhead in the Bougainville Campaign.

 

    Each of these Carrier battles evolve into prolonged land-based air campaigns that support the island hopping strategy which is so fundamental to the Pacific combatants.  The basic formula is:

 

   Build up of forces in preparation for a major naval action/invasion => fight INTENSE Carrier Battle => Winner builds new Airfield to support prolonged land-based grinding air War   ==>  Rinse and repeat. 

 

    The diversity of the Theater extends to the Combatants, their aircraft, design philosophies, and their tactics.  British, Dutch, Kiwi, Aussie, Japanese Army, Japanese Navy.  I list the two services of Japan because they REALLY were THAT different from each other and the areas they fought in were at first separate, then out of desperation they began to cooperate and not all that well. 

 

    The War in the Pacific also changed rapidly, particularly on the Allied side as at first they hung on by a thread against a powerful and better prepared IJ aggressor.  Those Early battles of '42 were really very tenuous and the F4F, P-39, and P-40 holding the line against IJN aces from the War in China were brutal.  Early '43 saw a strengthening of Allied positions in the Solomons and a shift from Defense over Cactus to the Offensive, but the IJN and newly arriving IJAAF units were still sharp and deadly despite horrific losses and little relief from the front.  New Allied types began to appear but didn't begin to win the war right away, they merely evened the odds through '43.  The Air War over New Guinea and the Solomons wore down the IJ forces and Fortress Rabaul was eventually marginalized and bypassed, but that whole period leading up to the final severing of Rabaul was a 2 year slug fest that included major Carrier battles, long protracted campaigns from two major Island chains, and the introduction of planes like the F4U-1, P-38F, B-25, P-47C/D, F6F-3, FM-2, TBF Avenger, Spitfire MkV, on the allies.  The japanese also threw everything they had a the South Pacific (which includes the Solomons, and New Guinea).  A6M2, A6M3, A6M5, Ki-43, Ki-45, G4M, Ki-61, numerous floatplanes including the Floatplane Zero (uggh...)

 

    If you are interested in opening your horizons on the Air War in WWII I recommend a couple of books, many already mentioned

 

1.  Shatter Sword, Parshall and Tully. Dispels much of the "Miracle" of Midway, though it still kinda was miraculous, you get to see why things went so well for the US.

 

2.  Carrier Strike, Eric Hammel.  Covers the Battle of Santa Cruz ido Guadalcanal which occurs after Midway, but does so in a a very engaging way.  An incredibly personable read with lots of well described aerial engagements.

 

3.  Fire in the Sky.  Eric Bergrud.  A good broad brush treatment of the Air War in the SoPac, but with anecdotal input from actual aviators.  Does a very good job painting a picture of the war with just enough insight into the Environment, the men, and Machines.

 

4.  Samurai.  Saburo Sakai.  Original memoir on one of the most prolific and storied IJN aces of the war, and the survived, which is a major feat for any Japanese WWII aviator. A seminal read from the Japanese perspective.

 

5. Clash of Carriers. Barret Tillman.  More advanced in the Pacific timeline Tillman, a 1st rate aviation author tells the stopry of the Marianas Turkey shoot.  An incredible look at the MASSIVE fleets that the allies eventually employed to take the war to Japan afloat.

 

6.  The Jolly Rogers.  Tom Blackburn.  A look at the Air War in the Solomons as the F4U-1 makes its early appearance under the Author's command.  A really unique look at a Navy Fighter Squadron deployed ashore to participate in the grind of the Solomons.  Lots of action

 

7.  The Black Sheep.  Bruce Gamble.  A fantastically well researched treatment of one of the most INfamous USMC fighter squadrons.  The original book by Boyington himself was rife with inaccuracies and poorly remembered facts, not to mention his own ego.

 

8.  Carrier Warfare in the Pacific:  An Oral History Collection.  A collection of stories from the entire War that covers just about every angle of the war from the US perspective.

 

9.  Bloody Shambles. Christopher Shores.  Vol I is the early drift to war and the Fall of Singapore.  Vol II is Defense of Sumatra and the Fall of Burma.  Not quite War in the south pacific, but a highly detailed look at how Japan Steam rolled EVERYONE from '41 to '42

 

10.  Fortress Rabaul.  Bruce Gamble.  The story of Rabaul from its early days of seeming invincibility to its eventual fall.  Gamble makes the subject VERY readable.

a

11.  The First Team VOL I & II.  John Lundstrom.  The DEFINITIVE series on the early war Navy and Marine fighter pilots from Pearl Harbor to, Midway in VOL I, and Cactus and Santa Cruz in VOL II.  HIGHLY detailed and researched.

 

Wonderful! Thank you!

[Gambit21]

Reading Clash of Carriers right now
Fire in the Sky is first rate as I said before, as is Guadalcanal by Richard B. Frank

Edited December 4, 2016 by Gambit21