The Ki48-II-Otsu lacks some issues

First, the Kanji shape on the plane is different from real photo
Ki48-II-Otsu lacks bombing sight, should equipped with dive bombing airbrakes and 500kg bomb, and a bomb sight operator.




I’ve made some bug reports in the issues platform for the missing bombardier/nose gunner, the missing dive brakes, as well as the missing bomb bay doors for when conventional payloads are equipped:

Missing Nose Gunner / Bombardier: // Issues
Missing Dive Brakes: // Issues
Missing Bomb Bay Doors: // Issues

Also, another use made a report for the missing payload options:
Missing 2x250kg and 1x500kg Payloads: // Issues

Support for these issues (such as by clicking “I Have the Same Issue!”) would be appreciated, as I am worried they will go by unnoticed by the staff otherwise…


thanks mate, support right now o7


It looks like the missing payloads issue was forwarded to the developers, so that’s one down.

Now the others need forwarded…


By the way, what book is it that you got those pictures from? Perhaps the bottom picture of your first post, labeled “88”, could be used as a source for my “missing nose gunner / bombardier” report.

If you’re willing, could you provide information about the book (title, author, publisher, year, etc.) as well as a photograph of the book’s cover and a complete scan of the page on which picture “88” occurs?

1 Like

Great effort!

The Ki-48’s dorsal turret requires a 7.92mm Type 1 twin-flexible machine gun. This gun should also be present on the Ki-49, but it seems the developers overlooked it, given its absence in the game for years. From my research, with a firing rate of 2200rpm, this machine gun might contribute to deterring enemy players attempting to shoot down the Ki-48. Please see the source about the 7.92mm Type 1 twin machine gun as I added it to the bug report.

Additionally, a concern I noticed is that the pilot’s rear armor should be set to 16.5mm, not 6.5mm. It appears there is a reversal in the thickness of the armor between the pilot’s seat floor and the backrest. Armor thickness is documented in the TAIC manual by Allied Intelligence as well as this one about armor penetration tests.


I have scanned pages you mentioned.

the book‘s name is [日本陸軍航空部隊戦場写真集] from Dainippon Kaiga


posting additional info


Thank you! I see you also posted an excellent diagram showing the location of the dive brakes. I’ll probably use this one as well.

Can you post a picture of the book’s cover? I also need that for the report.

EDIT: Do you also know who the author of this book is?

In addition, the second two images, including the mentioned image of the diagram including the dive brakes, appear to be from a different book. What is the book that contains these two pages, and can the title, an image of the cover, and publication information also be shared?

1 Like

A report was recently made, and quickly forwarded to the devs, concerning the incorrect armor values. It seems that will be fixed soon.

I also see the source you added in a comment for the missing dive brakes report. Can I use the images you posted and add them to the report’s “additional files for historical issues” section? I will be sure to give you credit for the photographs.


First four pages are from [日本陸軍航空部隊戦場写真集] ASIN ‏ : ‎ B00GKSWCJI by [大日本絵画] 小川光二

second book is [日本陸軍機全集] 航空ファン イラストレイテッド 1993-4 No.69 (編集)[三井一郎] 出版社 ‏ : ‎ 文林堂


Ok, thanks! Just to clarify, the page containing the photograph of the bombsight (third page of the four given in your post from the Dainippon Kaiga book) is page 38, right?

On a separate, unrelated note, I am beginning to worry, as my issue posts are nearing 9 days old, and they haven’t been acknowledged. I may post something extra after the two-week mark if nothing happens with them…

1 Like

Yes :)


My issues have been found by a moderator. The missing dive brakes report was passed, while the other two have been labeled as “info requested”. If you want to help me respond to the moderator’s comments, please do!

Specifically, do you have any more photographs of the Ki-48-II Otsu carrying the Ki-148 missile, or at least any information regarding what became of its defensive armament? Do you also have any information regarding whether a crewperson was seated in the bombardier’s position during testing?

1 Like

According to a book written by a technical officer of the Japanese Army, who was part of the I-Go guided missile development team, even with the installation of missiles, the number of bomber crew members remained unchanged. Therefore, even if the Ki-48 is equipped with Ki-148 missiles, the crew of the Ki-48 should not be reduced.

Due to the large number of crew members, the Japanese Army hesitated to use the I-Go missile in combat. The crew of the Ki-67, equipped with the I-Go missile, consisted of 8 members. In 1945, it was difficult for the bomber to escape from US early warning radars and interceptor patrols. Further, while exposed to intense anti-aircraft fire, continuing level flight over the enemy fleet, and manually guiding the missile to hit a US aircraft carrier, the conclusion was that the bomber would be lost, and all 8 crew members would die. In contrast, in a Kamikaze attack, a single-seat fighter would result in only one person dying. The accuracy of Kamikaze attacks is 30%, while the I-Go missile has a 70% accuracy rate. To hit an enemy aircraft carrier with one bomb, a Kamikaze attack would cost the lives of 3 pilots, whereas the I-Go missile would result in the sacrifice of 6 crew members.

Reference: Kiyoshi Masumoto, Burning Stratosphere: The Story of Japanese Army Aviation , Shuppan Kyōdō-sha, 1961, p.164.

The above explanation was mentioned in the second half of the book posted here.


Thank you! Is the second paragraph your own translation of the content on the attached picture? If so, can I use it in my issue post?


I’ve made edits to my issues, taking into account your source in the post concerning the missing nose gunner/bombardier. Thanks again!

If you read through what I added and recognize any issues that need addressed, let me know, and I will attempt to remedy them.


The moderator responded to my counterarguments under my issue post concerning the missing nose gunner/bombardier:

I am beginning to see what he/she is saying, and I may drop the attempts to fix these remaining issues through historical issue reports. Instead, I have a suggestion in mind that I will post to the forum on how to effectively merge the Ki-148 carrier with a standard Ki-48-II Otsu.

Before I do this, however, I have a question concerning something the moderator said, namely, concerning the missile guidance system installed on the test Ki-48. Do you have any information regarding this, such as what it was called (if it had a designation) and if it was really the reason the nose MG was removed, as he/she claims?


Based Omar Bradley pic

1 Like