HBG Japan Supplement Set

[Tall Paul]

Everyone,

I thought it might assist everyone if we just filled in the blanks for our choices of Japanese units, starting with the Aircraft.  I can’t remember all of FMG’s and HBG’s stated choices but I’m sure someone will point them out.  Also, I’ve included a few “categories” of units that might not be made.  I’ll add my choices including their American opponents later.

AIRCRAFT

ARMY FIGHTER-EARLY              ARMY FIGHTER-MID             ARMY FIGHTER-LATE

NAVY FIGHTER-EARLY              NAVY FIGHTER-MID              NAVY FIGHTER-LATE

FIGHTER/BOMBER

TACTICAL TORPEDO BOMBER

TACTICAL DIVE BOMBER

LIGHT BOMBER                        MEDIUM BOMBER                 HEAVY BOMBER

VERY LONG RANGE HEAVY BOMBER

TRANSPORT

SEAPLANE          SEAPLANE-LONG RANGE

“Tall Paul”

[CWO Marc]

@Tall:

I thought it might assist everyone if we just filled in the blanks for our choices of Japanese units, starting with the Aircraft.

LIGHT BOMBER                        MEDIUM BOMBER                 HEAVY BOMBER
                                   VERY LONG RANGE HEAVY BOMBER

Since all heavy bombers are long-range aircraft, and since the term “heavy bomber” usually gets applied to planes such as the Lancaster and the B-17 Flying Fortress, I assume that “very long range heavy bomber” refers to heavy bombers with ranges significantly greater than the Lanc or the B-17.  The American B-29 Superfortress certainly fits that description, but the Japanese had no corresponding aircraft.  In fact, I don’t think there was any other bomber in the world which had the B-29’s range.  It was in a class by itself.

[Tall Paul]

Well,

Here are my suggestions for Japanese aircraft that would be the equivilents of the American aircraft TYPES that have already been made, planned or spoken about.  It’s somewhat all-inclusive and meant to be used as a reference.

@Tall:

JAPANESE AIRCRAFT
   
ARMY FIGHTER-EARLY              ARMY FIGHTER-MID             ARMY FIGHTER-LATE
 Ki-27 Type 97 “Nate”              Ki-43 Type 1 “Oscar”    Ki-61 Type 3 “Tony”

NAVY FIGHTER-EARLY              NAVY FIGHTER-MID              NAVY FIGHTER-LATE
A5M Type 96 “Claude”            A6M Type 0 “Zeke”                    *

FIGHTER/BOMBER
                                             N1K2-J “George”

TACTICAL TORPEDO BOMBER
                                        B5N Type 97 “Kate”

TACTICAL DIVE BOMBER
                                         D3A Type 99 “Val”

EARLY LIGHT BOMBER                  MEDIUM BOMBER                 HEAVY BOMBER
 G3M Type 96 “Nell”                G4M Type 1 “Betty”         G5N “Liz”

VERY LONG RANGE HEAVY BOMBER
                                                     Ki-91

TRANSPORT
                                          Type LO “Thelma”

SEAPLANE-EARLY                     SEAPLANE-LATE       SEAPLANE-LONG RANGE
  F1M2 Type 0 “Pete”                 A6M2N Type 2 “Rufe”   H8K Type 2 “Emily”

Notes:

The “Zeke”, “Kate”, and “Val” are obviously necessary.  These units are in the OOB set-up already,…although I hope that HBG & FMG might make us some much improved versions of these?

The “Nate” would counter the P-40 “Warhawk” TYPE in HBGs US Supplement set.

The “Oscar” would counter the P-38 “Lightning” TYPE as a mid-war Fighter.

The “Tony”, was an inline engine fighter for the JAAF and as such was quite unique.  One of the attributes the “Coach” desires.

The “Claude” would counter the F-4F “Wildcat” TYPE that is the OOB Navy fighter in the Guadalcanal and earlier Pacific version of A&A.

The “George” would counter the F-4U “Corsair” TYPE in HBGs US Marine set.

The “Nell” is proposed because of their widespread use.  Naval units of these sank the “Prince of Wales” and “Repulse” at the war’s start.  They were also somewhat unique looking.  I hope that this historically important a/c might eventually be produced.  It always reminded me of a flying Lizard.

The “Liz” would be an interesting choice as a 4-engined Japanese Heavy Bomber to counter the B-17(OOB) and B-24 TYPES from FMG.  It’s being twin-tailed would continue this feature of the “Nell” type.

The Ki-91 would counter the B-29 “SuperFortress” TYPE that HBG has proposed in it’s US Naval Set(s).

The “Thelma” Transport would give us a “big bang for the buck” through being used as an Allied Transport, too.

The “Thelma” also looks surprisingly simular to the Lockheed PV-1 Ventura Patrol/Bomber that was used by many Allied Nations.  Thereby increasing our “Fun” and HBGs sales.

The US C-47 that FMG will produce can also be used as a Japanese L2D Type 0 “Tabby” Transport.  Again, more FUN, and increased sales which benifits us ALL.

The “Emily” Seaplane would counter the PBY TYPE that HBG has proposed in it’s US Naval set(s).

I added the “Pete” and “Rufe” TYPES simply to be thorough.  A US “Coronado” and “Kingfisher” TYPES would complete the US equivilents.

OK, which of these aircraft has FMG already planned?  Obviously we can eliminate any previously planned a/c from our “wanted/needed” list.

“Tall Paul”

[Tall Paul]

CWO Marc,

Yes Chief, you’re correct in that most heavy bombers were long range aircraft.  And the B-29 “SuperFortress” was described as “VLR”, standing for Very Long Range, and thus it’s descriptive seperation.  However people care to describe them, the B-29’s were definately in a seperate class.

I also understand that Japan didn’t field (m)any 4-engine Bombers.  But the “Coach” is simply trying to allow us, the players, the option of having them included in our games.  By the same token, I believe he is also going to produce some German JU-488 Bombers in his “WW2 German Late War” set.

While having Japanese 4-engine Bombers might be historically incorrect, I feel most players would welcome the option to decide for themselves if they wanted them or not.

I’m thankful to the “Coach” for his insight to provide the appropriate units for each country making the game not only even across the board, but more FUN.

“Tall Paul”

[Lunarwolf]

@Tall:

Well,

Here are my suggestions for Japanese aircraft that would be the equivilents of the American aircraft TYPES that have already been made, planned or spoken about.  It’s somewhat all-inclusive and meant to be used as a reference.

@Tall:

JAPANESE AIRCRAFT
   
ARMY FIGHTER-EARLY              ARMY FIGHTER-MID             ARMY FIGHTER-LATE
 Ki-27 Type 97 “Nate”              Ki-43 Type 1 “Oscar”    Ki-61 Type 3 “Tony”

NAVY FIGHTER-EARLY              NAVY FIGHTER-MID              NAVY FIGHTER-LATE
A5M Type 96 “Claude”            A6M Type 0 “Zeke”                    *

FIGHTER/BOMBER
                                             N1K2-J “George”

TACTICAL TORPEDO BOMBER
                                        B5N Type 97 “Kate”

TACTICAL DIVE BOMBER
                                         D3A Type 99 “Val”

EARLY LIGHT BOMBER                  MEDIUM BOMBER                 HEAVY BOMBER
 G3M Type 96 “Nell”                G4M Type 1 “Betty”         G5N “Liz”

VERY LONG RANGE HEAVY BOMBER
                                                     Ki-91

TRANSPORT
                                          Type LO “Thelma”

SEAPLANE-EARLY                     SEAPLANE-LATE       SEAPLANE-LONG RANGE
  F1M2 Type 0 “Pete”                 A6M2N Type 2 “Rufe”   H8K Type 2 “Emily”

Notes:

The “Zeke”, “Kate”, and “Val” are obviously necessary.  These units are in the OOB set-up already,…although I hope that HBG & FMG might make us some much improved versions of these?

The “Nate” would counter the P-40 “Warhawk” TYPE in HBGs US Supplement set.

The “Oscar” would counter the P-38 “Lightning” TYPE as a mid-war Fighter.

The “Tony”, was an inline engine fighter for the JAAF and as such was quite unique.  One of the attributes the “Coach” desires.

The “Claude” would counter the F-4F “Wildcat” TYPE that is the OOB Navy fighter in the Guadalcanal and earlier Pacific version of A&A.

The “George” would counter the F-4U “Corsair” TYPE in HBGs US Marine set.

The “Nell” is proposed because of their widespread use.  Naval units of these sank the “Prince of Wales” and “Repulse” at the war’s start.  They were also somewhat unique looking.  I hope that this historically important a/c might eventually be produced.  It always reminded me of a flying Lizard.

The “Liz” would be an interesting choice as a 4-engined Japanese Heavy Bomber to counter the B-17(OOB) and B-24 TYPES from FMG.  It’s being twin-tailed would continue this feature from the “Nell” and “Betty” types.

The Ki-91 would counter the B-29 “SuperFortress” TYPE that HBG has proposed in it’s US Naval Set(s).

The “Thelma” Transport would give us a “big bang for the buck” through being used as an Allied Transport, too.

The “Thelma” also looks surprisingly simular to the Lockheed PV-1 Ventura Patrol/Bomber that was used by many Allied Nations.  Thereby increasing our “Fun” and HBGs sales.

The US C-47 that FMG will produce can also be used as a Japanese L2D Type 0 “Tabby” Transport.  Again, more FUN, and increased sales which benifits us ALL.

The “Emily” Seaplane would counter the PBY TYPE that HBG has proposed in it’s US Naval set(s).

I added the “Pete” and “Rufe” TYPES simply to be thorough.  A US “Coronado” and “Kingfisher” TYPES would complete the US equivilents.

OK, which of these aircraft has FMG already planned?  Obviously we can eliminate any previously planned a/c from our “wanted/needed” list.

“Tall Paul”

the tony would be great for a second Japanese fighter. could represent either late war fighter or an Army fighter

[knp7765]

I can understand the wanting for “early war” fighters and “late war” fighters, but do we really want a distinction between an “army” fighter and a “navy” fighter?  I mean, in general, navy fighters would basically be carrier based and army fighters would be land based and not capable of landing on carriers due to pilot training and equipment variations. 
A lot of times I will fly out planes from a land base for an attack then have them land on carriers, or visa-versa.  If some planes are considered army planes, technically that would mean they couldn’t land on a carrier. 
Is this a rule some of you are considering?  If so, this could severly hamper some air operations, especially for Japan and USA in the Pacific.  Imagine having 5 or 6 fighters available for a sea battle but due to range limits they could only land on a carrier.  However, they are “army” fighters so they can’t land on a carrier because they aren’t designed for it.  So they are basically useless for this battle.  Although, it might be interesting making players be more careful about which fighters they put where.  Perhaps “navy” fighters would cost 1 IPC extra to represent the extra equipment and training involved in carrier landings?  Or you simply have to choose between one or the other and deal with the restrictions.  It might be noted that a navy fighter could still operate from land bases making it a little more versatile.

[virtualpender]

How about a Pillbox or some other unit to represent a half-infantry equivalent for Japanese island garrisons?

[Tall Paul]

KNP,

I’m NOT proposing a RULE distinction between Army land-based and Navy carrier-based Fighters.  I’m looking at these aircraft in G-40 terms.  As far as the standard game rules are concerned, a Fighter is a Fighter.

Japanese aircraft were described as “Army” or “Navy” types in their official designations and this is what I meant.  As a DESCRIPTION only.  I’m looking at my copy of “Japanese Aircraft Code Names and Designations” by Robert Mikesh and Army or Navy is definately part of the descriptions.

–-----------------------------------------------

Tigerman and I might include the land or sea based RULE as one of the many “OPTIONS” in our Solomons Campaign game for the player choose if he wants to use it or not.

-------------------------------------------------

I think you hit the “nail on the head” when you said “WANT”.  I certainly WANT to have both “Zeke” and “Tony” Fighters for my Japanese player.  And it certainly looks SOOOO much better to have a F-6F “Hellcat” on my Enterprise CV than a P-38 “Lightning”!  My point,…looks only.  Let’s everone have FUN!

“Tall Paul”

[Lunarwolf]

knp i never though about it that way, maybe the land based fighter could be on ipc cheaper and the naval fighter can stay at its normal price.

and i actually meant the Frank would be great for a late war fighter since they produced a lot and it was supposed to be one of the japanese greatest fighters. but my second choice would be the Oscar, since so many were produced and it was a the second most produced fighter for the japanese

[HBG]

@Lunarwolf:

knp i never though about it that way, maybe the land based fighter could be on ipc cheaper and the naval fighter can stay at its normal price.

and i actually meant the Frank would be great for a late war fighter since they produced a lot and it was supposed to be one of the japanese greatest fighters. but my second choice would be the Oscar, since so many were produced and it was a the second most produced fighter for the japanese

Before we go off on many types of fighters, we need to cover all the basics first.

[Tall Paul]

“Coach”,

Although I forgot to say so,…the aircraft that I thought to be the “necessary basics” I put in Bold Face type.  And my chart was meant as a reference guide.

BTW, which Japanese a/c has FMG planned on producing?

“Tall Paul”

[HBG]

@Tall:

“Coach”,

Although I forgot to say so,…the aircraft that I thought to be the “necessary basics” I put in Bold Face type.  And my chart was meant as a reference guide.

BTW, which Japanese a/c has FMG planned on producing?

“Tall Paul”

I haven’t the slightest idea what FMG is preparing for sculpts.

[Tall Paul]

“Coach”

OK, thanks just the same.

“Tall Paul”

[militaryman077]

@coachofmany:

@Tall:

“Coach”,

Although I forgot to say so,…the aircraft that I thought to be the “necessary basics” I put in Bold Face type.  And my chart was meant as a reference guide.

BTW, which Japanese a/c has FMG planned on producing?

“Tall Paul”

I haven’t the slightest idea what FMG is preparing for sculpts.

So until we actually know what sculpts or units FMG is going to finalize for its Japanese units this is all speculation because we dont want to end up duplicating what FMg may produce in a set, not to mention getting the color of the units wrong.

[HBG]

No,
I am moving forward with the sets and will do the OOB and my Global 1939 colors until I know for sure the colors for FMG. I will supplement the sets and if there are duplications, there will not be that many.

[knp7765]

As for colors, I’m pretty sure FMG Japanese will be the OOB color too.  Jeremy said their combat units will match their combat dice and the Japanese combat dice are nearly identical to the OOB combat units color.

Hey Coach, what is the color for your Japanese in your Global 1939?  Is it different from OOB?

[militaryman077]

Sounds good, Coach.  Any set made by you would be most welcome.

[Tall Paul]

Militaryman077,

I couldn’t agree more that ANY set that the “Coach” makes is worth having!
And I, like most players, intend to buy everything he makes.  Thanks again, Doug.

“Tall Paul”

[militaryman077]

Ditto!!!

[DFWSupertrooper]

@coachofmany:

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/Nippon/Japanese.htm

G5N
G8N
Ki91

Nice choices!!