That’s still not a strong counter argument. Yes, it’s interesting but that has nothing to do with why it should be added. What I wrote was a good counter-argument, not a perfect one but still the crucial info was.
In War Thunder you already have planes that are no different, for example the Ki-49-IIb. And the B7A1 has, apart from different defensive armament, also a different engine (you probably haven’t noticed), so it is a better addition than the late Ki-49-II.
3 Likes
Version differences collected from various sources. There’s not really a huge amount that WT would take in to account…
A1 -
NK9B Homare 11, 1800hp take off, 1440hp at 1800m, 1560hp at 6400m
Retractable tail wheel
Rear firing 7.92mm Type 1 MG
A2 -
NK9C Homare 12, 1800hp take off, 1670hp at 2400m, 1560hp at 6550m
Fixed tail wheel
Rear firing 13mmm Type 2 MG
In addition the wing structure and cowling/exhaust were redesigned between the versions to increase structural strength, reduce weight (by?) and drag and improve engine cooling. The result of the changes gave the A2 a small boost in performance at low-medium altitudes. And there is of course the difference in defensive armament (and possibly more 20mm ammo in the A2).
So decent amount of changes Irl but is this enough to justify bringing forward it’s inclusion in the game? If it received a lower BR of 3.3 I suspect the P1Y1 would become obsolete, and if retained at 3.7 it wouldn’t be anything more than an research step to eat your rp/sl before moving on to the definitive A2.
Imo it would be better served as a premium at 3.7 than a tree vehicle with the slightly worse performance balancing out the extra earnings. As a tree vehicle I would rather leave it for the future when the major BR decompression happens and new gaps open up (well we can dream!).
Of course the B7A1 could come with its attractive but eye watering Orange scheme with black cowling…worth it just for that,?,
4 Likes
Thx for the link!
imo this would be a good premium plane, considering that we already have the P1Y and D4Y series preceding it.
+1
I see a B7A, and I must give it my +1… now to go find a model of it and build it.
The Ki–49 is a medium to long-range bomber and the B7A1 is a Navy’s Naval Bomber Aircraft.
They are completely different and serve completely different roles. One is capable of dive bombing the other is not.
So once again, why should the B7A1 come to the game? what qualities does it bring to the table that the B5s, B6s, or B7A2 don’t already contribute to?
This means nothing you killjoy, they could be space rockets, but both late Ki-49 are still same aircraft gameplay wise.
Gameplay no, you cannot dive bomb with a Ki-49 and expect the same results as if you dive bombed with a B7A2. It would be like trying to bomb a tank while being blind and the engine of the plane was on fire.
So I ask once again for folks, what role would the B7A1 serve at the lower Br that the other aircraft don’t serve?
Someone bothered putting a proper response Here’s another heart for answering the question.
There is no particular reason to add B7A1. People want to add the millionth T-72, T-80, Leopard 2 or Abrams model, and I want to complete all B7A planes. Tell me what is the difference between D4Y1 and D4Y2 or B6N1 and B6N2? If I remember correctly, they differ in engines and what is in the game. That’s why I would like a B7A1 that could even be a premium plane.
7 Likes
Leon already gave a good reason why it should be added. You’re on the other hand repeating yourself. Which could have stated that the P1Y1 cannot do the same role as the B7A as effectively. Which is, light fighter support and naval bombing. At the BR of 3.3. Which would be a fine place to put it.
While I respect you and the contribution of suggestions for the Japanese Tech Tree, you seriously need to put a reasoning why it should be added and what roles it fulfills and where.
I would want the addision of this aircraft before any other modern boring dart shooter or flying guided misssile launcher. big +1
2 Likes
Whatever you call it, written suggestions are one thing (the simpler one), the other thing is the creators of War Thunder who may have deep disagreement with what I wrote. A suggestion does not require you to provide an exact reason why you are proposing something, it is enough that the vehicle was created and that you have evidence of it. And one more thing, the B7A1 would be much more turning than the B7A2, so that’s enough reason for adding it
It doesn’t require doesn’t mean jack. Putting a reason just helps convince them why it should be added. Yes, it’s not needed but it helps.
You don’t go show someone why this tank is cool. Compared to the other options that have been submitted. You are trying to “Sell them” it.
What makes this better than let’s say the P1Y1 which is the current competitor to the B7A1. If it was added to the BR of 3.3
Say, Grze, just a quick question. I heard there’s been some recent research into the B7As that found there may have been an error made when documentation on the project was translated in 1945, and thus, the current designation system may be based on incorrect information. Some documentation was found several years ago that casts some doubt on what the main production and prototype variants were. Did you find anything to that effect when you were making this suggestion? From what I gathered, the new theory about the B7A and its variants is as follows:
Spoiler
B7A1- The mainline production variant of the Ryusei. The prototype had a Nakajima Homare Type 11 engine. However, the early production model had the engine replaced by the Homare Type 12 and then the Homare Type 21 engine in the late production models.
B7A2- A single prototype constructed with a Nakajima Homare Type 23 Engine
B7A3- A Proposed version with the Mitsubishi Ha 43 Engine
So, if this theory is correct, we have the late model B7A1 in the Tech Tree already and the B7A2 as the BP version. We would just be missing the Early Production/Prototype B7A1
1 Like
I do see benefit. Lower br. Would be perfect 3.3
:D
Is the swivel machine gun mounted a Type 1 machine gun (MG15)?
It should be 7.92mm, not 7.7mm.
It is possible that a Type 1 machine gun was manufactured that could use 7.7mm ammunition, but it would complicate the game setting, so it is better to use 7.92mm.
2 Likes
As with the Type 98 machine gun, two versions of the Type 1 carbine were created. One is powered by German 7.98mm ammunition and Japanese 7.7mm ammunition
We are aware of the possibility that 7.92mm and 7.7mm were produced. However, information on guns with 7.7mm specifications is scarce, even in Japanese sources.
So which one was mounted on the B7A1, do you have any sources?
The TAIC Manual does indeed say “7.7mm”, but it doesn’t seem to say it was a Type 1 machine gun.