Yes, but you need a source where they come from, preferably citing a museum or some kind of national archive
Nobody follows these rules, not even the company Gaijin. Just remembering the same Flakpanzer 341, which had a completely made hull and turret mockup
Well, Flakpanzer 341 was removed from the tree. Though people still have arguments over whether or not its replacement actually existed so bruh I guess.
And before you point out the Ho-Ri Production, Gaijin still (wrongfully) insists it was built in some way so by their metric it follows their rules.
And the F-16AJ was them specifically breaking their rules for an exception.
Don’t get me wrong, I like your proposal from a historical point of view, but these sources are needed more by the company than by me, in the form of direct links to museums or personal archives for the “correct” implementation of technology in the game
As I remember, one of the Hori was made in metal, and the second in the form of collapsible parts. So…
Exceptions will always be exceptions, in essence this does not change anything except a negative attitude towards gaijin, and its whining about how players do not bring money into a free game because of such decisions
This link is to the museum
Eh, everything I’ve seen states the Ho-Ri production never existed, only maybe the prototype, which it seems both of your examples would be.
Well it gave Japan the best F-16 dogfighter which made their top tier somewhat competitive for a time. Therefore making Japan a more attractive tree to grind and increasing the sales of the F-4EJ ADTW.
In general, I did not mean the museum’s website, but rather the museum, where there is possible documentation on this matter. By type: International Christian University - Mitaka, where parts of these engines were found, and so on
now I understand what you mean, but I don’t live in Japan, so I can’t go to the appropriate museum and ask. I can go and see where the Graf Zeppelin stood, but I can’t go to see where the Ki-201 was supposed to be built
Well, that’s why I say that the gaijin needs to be told specifically where to go or where to look for it, they probably have employees from Japan)
DMM could maybe help
The AJ isn’t fake, it just has the wrong paint job. Its a really bad argument for adding a plane that never flew to the game. I really hope they replace the stupid thing with the Thai F-16 though, that way people can stop making this bad argument.
LOL, got proof that its not fake besides the fact that it was a proposed deal
It’s an airframe with the proposed (read: Never made) modifications Japan required to field the F-16, ergo is fake.
Even if they did, the variant that was flown in front of Japanese Officials couldn’t mount AIM-7M due to it not being wired for it
(Also it was only flown by Americans)
Very cool, given the relatively flimsy nature of the vehicle it would be an awesome event reward!
In one of OP’s provided sources, it is said that the Ki-201 at the very least had a plywood cockpit mockup built, which was large enough to fit a person and presumably detailed enough to undergo an examination.
The website says that official data confirms the existence of a mockup.
In another source I don’t think was in the suggestion, it is suggested that the Ki-201 fuselage was “nearly complete” by Japan’s surrender.
This book does not give any mention of a mockup, meanwhile the website provides a primary source (official Nakajima data) to this claim. Both the website and book have a works cited page, but while the former lists multiple Japanese references as well as 1945 reports from both sides, the latter primarily utlizes other authors’ research on the subject.
I don’t like the F-16AJ from a historical standpoint either but as it is based off an existing airframe we can reasonably easily assume its performance. The Ki-102 (just like the R2Y2s) would be entirely based on made up figures and much worse historically IMO. If this is added then I’d expect the P.1101 and EF 126 too (plz gaijin)
There is nothing stopping you from reporting both of these machines. They were both created, so you can report them.
I didn’t have access to the second source you wrote about. Now I will be able to add it to the sources. Thank you very much :D
His info is wrong is the problem. Only one of the 2 submarines sank and it was the one carrying the Me-262 and Me-163.
The engines, key witness accounts, pictures, blueprints and documentation were in the other.