Do you want the O-I to be in War Thunder?

[skultew1234]

@Winter_Moon7

What Japanese planes that we know about are attackers?

Army planes which were attackers:

Made from the start as attackers: Ki-51, Ki-93

Conversation from fighter - Ki-45 Hei

And Ki-102 Otsu which were made as heavy modernisation of Ki-45

Navy didn’t have planes which can be called classic attackers. Maybe for this role can be called A6M Bakusen (Zero equipped with 250 and 500kg bombs)

[Winter_Moon7]

I guess wether or not its accurate is based on whether it’s and army or navy weapon. The army would have likely added and armument for ground attack

[Winter_Moon7]

Maybe we can have two variants of the aircraft. An army and a navy one, but this is just cope.

Edit:or compromise

[skultew1234]

Really cope which is not really good because it is Navy plane and I don’t understand why we talks about Army R2Y…

[Winter_Moon7]

Im tired 😫😴

[Cloudzy26160]

@skultew1234

I see, excuse my mistake

It’s all good mate.

@skultew1234

There is pretty detailed description of R2Y story

yeah, the entire thing is entirely about the air frame, at least what I can find, but I’m not trying to claim that the R2Y2 is correctly armed in WT, only that it was very real project, the 1st prototype was destroyed before mounting the jet engines or being armed, but it did fly, and that’s a lot more than “complete fiction” that people claim.

@skultew1234

It is very interesting question right but it can’t mean weapon anything about loadout of R2Y

no, and I made that point in agreement with you, what I think of as an attacker today could mean a completely different thing to what the Japanese meant calling a plane an “attacker” in the 1940s.
I don’t think of a plane carrying torpedos as an attacker, but it’s entirely possible that Japan at the time did class a fast torpedo bomber as an attacker.

[skultew1234]

@Cloudzy26160

no, and I made that point in agreement with you, what I think of as an attacker today could mean a completely different thing to what the Japanese meant calling a plane an “attacker” in the 1940s.
I don’t think of a plane carrying torpedos as an attacker, but it’s entirely possible that Japan at the time did class a fast torpedo bomber as an attacker

I wrote what planes were called as “attackers” in Japanese navy (for example Il-2 was called with same Kougekiki)

[Winter_Moon7]

@Cloudzy26160

no, and I made that point in agreement with you, what I think of as an attacker today could mean a completely different thing to what the Japanese meant calling a plane an “attacker” in the 1940s.
I don’t think of a plane carrying torpedos as an attacker, but it’s entirely possible that Japan at the time did class a fast torpedo bomber as an attacker.

Not to keep budding in but, attacker could mean (probably)something different to the navy and different to the army, also attackers could have also evolved into something different as the war whent on

Edit: I’m just stating the obvious neow

[Cloudzy26160]

Oh… sorry… I glazed over that part, it’s 2am and my brain is shutting down. I think my brain jumped back to the previous post that you where answering, and re-asked the question

[Lovecraft2]

Japan is lacking in late-ww2 vehicle options so this would be a welcome addition. The side armor is quite thin, this would probably be 5.7-6.0

[TheKrackenGME]

as soon as I heard 100 ton I got excited. A possible heavyweight counter to the maus???

[KingTigerKiller]

Armour thickness and design along with its proposed guns aren’t on par with the Maus, it’s more like a halfway point between the Tiger 1 and 2 in that regard, and it would be only slightly faster than the Maus, so it’d be more likely to be around the Tiger 1E or IS-2s BR.