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. https://dl.ndl.go.jp/en/pid/4010109/1/4
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?
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.
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…
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?
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.
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?
As for the nose gunner, it seems difficult. What about bombsights? In the game, players rely on the naked eye to observe missiles and target ships, but according to Mitsubishi, accuracy was improved by using optical instruments for observation.
Optical sight for I-go missile
Use Type 94 air reconnaissance optical sight for ranging.
Add a tracking telescope to control the I-go missile.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Aircraft History. p.600. (Provided by @Lineins)
The Type 94 air reconnaissance optical sight was developed by the Japanese Navy for aerial reconnaissance and was able to measure drift angle, ground speed, distance and speed of target ships. The principle was the same as the prism mechanism of the Type 88 bombsight.
Interesting. This sight could definitely be used as a bomb sight, but it could also be implemented to zoom into and track the guided missile, making it easier to aim. I still hope to suggest that the standard Type 88 bomb sight be reinstalled upon equipping conventional bombs, but we’ll see…
Concerning the nose gun, upon closer examination of the Ki-48’s in game model, I found a different structure in the nose:
Whatever it is, It is definitely in the way of the nose gun, and I cannot find it in any photos of standard Ki-48s. Thus, I assumed it was the guidance system, or at least something representing it. Does this look familiar to you?
The remaining issues have been closed. Of the “missing nose gunner/bombardier” report, only the part concerning the missing nose-seated crewperson (who should be there to guide the Ki-148 missile) was passed. The “missing bomb bay doors” report was rejected.
Per the moderator’s recommendation, I have a suggestion I am working on, which I will post to the forum, outlining how these missing features can be implemented without any unhistorical overlap between the Ki-48 for missile testing and a standard Ki-48, allowing both to be accurately represented in game simply by switching loadouts. I will let you know when I get it posted.
In addition, I also have an idea of a suggestion for implementing the Type 94 reconnaissance sight, which could be used to more accurately aim the missile at larger ranges. @tester188, was the Type 94 sight used not only for ranging, but also for tracking the missile, or was a separate telescope used for tracking the missile? Your source seems to suggest the latter, but I’m not sure. If indeed it was a separate telescope, do you have any information on it?
I was researching books and other information about Ki-148. Specific details regarding the telescope used for maneuvering are not known at this time. BTW, I found information that the Ki-148 had a radio altimeter to maintain its altitude at 30 m.
According to Mitsubishi’s information, the I-go A’s radio altimeter for maintaining altitude did not work well and was removed early on, but according to Kawasaki’s information, the I-go B was equipped with a radio altimeter and successfully maintained its altitude. It was able to detect radio wave reflections from the sea surface at an altitude of 20-30 m and maintain an altitude of 30 m. Some Japanese books explain that the I-go missile was equipped with a radio altimeter. https://dl.ndl.go.jp/en/pid/4009745/1/84
This primitive sea skimming ability could make it easier to hit enemy players’ ships in games. When I use the Ki-148, it is difficult to judge the altitude when the missile is far from the Ki-48.
