Only a 7.7 is correct, it was changed to a 13.2 in the B7A2
Ok.
The Japanese installed a 7.7 mm Type 1 machine gun in the B7A1. Only then did they decide that this weapon would be insufficient, so they replaced it with a 13.2 mm machine gun.
3 Likes
+1
Why?
We have the TT B7A2 - and the event version of it.
Both are excellent planes and extremely strong turn fighters.
I see no benefit for this version. The 7.7mm in the back is not enough to lower the BR, the lower ammo count for the 20mm might justify a BR step lower - but then it would be most likely to get rank II - so useless for tasks…
It would make much more sense if you could do some research regarding the foreseen and actual firing angles for the defensive gun in the already existing B7A2s - imho the field of fire implemented in wt is compared to the D4Y3 (which offers a way too large field of fire) way too small.
Besides that - very nice suggestion, good work!
For me, every vehicle is interesting, so I make suggestions about it.
3 Likes
It’s more to fill gaps.
If you look at another tree some of the vehicles in them are underutilized but at least exist. A prime example is both 3.7cm Stuka’s
Japan on the other hand lacks a lot of vehicles, despite it looking like it has a lot in reality it is one of, the poorest nations in the game right now as ground and air lack versatility. It’s often why folks don’t do CAS for Japan and its simply because there aren’t a lot of good options, Sure you have aircraft such as the B5s, B6s, and B7s, which do wonders and if you are skilled and manage to use the D4Y’s however there isn’t necessarily a true ground support aircraft in the game despite being a lot of options and the farther you go down the BR bracket or even looking at just the earlier BR’s there’s little to nothing.
Even though the B7A1 is a “worse” in the lightest of the term. Than its successor the B7A2’s. It would certainly fill a somewhat empty gap at the lower BR. Can’t say the same for other lines in the tree->Staring at you Twin Engines.
2 Likes
Not strong reasoning. He’s asking a genuine question, and a question of the sort always demands a proper response and never “just cause i can”.
1 Like
In each suggestion I include the phrase “a very interesting vehicle for Japan”, so it is included in this suggestion as well
If you want to know the angle of fire of the gunners in the D4Y and B7A, keep the American intelligence data for pilot training
Manual on Japanese aircraft, TAIC No. 1, July 1945. Report No. 9-a(43), USSBS Index Section 6 (文書名:Records of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey ; Entry 46, Security-Classified Intelligence Library. 1932-1947. 65 ft = 米国戦略爆撃調査団文書 ; 各種日本関係情報) (課係名等:Intelligence Branch ; Library and Target Data Division) (シリーズ名:Intelligence, Air: General) - 国立国会図書館デジタルコレクション (ndl.go.jp)
1 Like
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.