Why doesn’t Japan air forces have and good CAS planes

Go back in time an ask them to built 35+ cas design so that those can be added to WT in the future.
Fr tho with Thai subtree being added I don’t think that would be a problem for long.


Where do you see no good CAS plane → D3A1 for low tier is pretty decent, some others aircraft are also “ok/ok-ish”,…

But mark my word: to crash an aircraft on american troops, you don’t need it to be armed with 100 bombs ^^"

The Japanese used G3M Betty bombers pretty extensively, as well as D3A and B5N for the IJN

Depends are you talking about WW2 era or post war era.

I think this is why they are adding other Asian nations to Japan. Like Thailand. Can help fill these holes


cause its defeated country, the treaty does not allow it to possess offensive weapons, they called self defense force but not army


Yeah I ready for that I’ve been playing Japan for 3-2 years now and nothings really changed.

Japan does have CAS irl, its just not in WT.

F-1 gets self guided bombs and anti-ship missiles, F-2 (not in game) gets laser guided bombs and anti ship missiles, and they have naval attackers like the P-1 with a lot of guided weaponry.

I’ve found :
Normal/Cluster unguided bombs
Rocket pods

But no Guided bombs.

More likely to come this update or the next.

I don’t have everything at hand but there was a big war a while ago over getting the GCS-1 Guided Bombs but there wasn’t anything promising that the seeker was good enough to track anything smaller than a naval vessel.

The JSDF just didn’t invest that heavily into Close Air Support, there’s some band-aid solutions in Helicopters (H-13 with Type 64 missiles anybody? lol) and even Maritime Patrol aircraft capable of fitting Mavericks. But they don’t get something equivalent to the rest of War Thunders top tier until the F-2 with LJDAMs and the rest of the plane is too good for now.

1 Like

Just out of curiosity, what is an “offensive weapon”?

It just seems to me that unguided bombs and rockets are inherently more “offensive” than their guided counterparts, as the guided variations seem to be much better suited for targeting an invading enemy. Picture enemy tanks on Japanese territiory, you’d want to hit the enemy, and only the enemy. Avoiding unnecessary damage to your own territory and civilian casualties seems very important.

So why does this very much vague and up to interpretation article always come up about guided weapons that Japan even has, such as guided bombs and missiles?

Currently that means ICBM’s, WMD’s and aircraft carriers/bomber fleets. Of course it took 70 years of whittling away article 9 to get to that point. Also until the AGM-65 was developed, guided munitions were primarily used to take out high priority installations.

To be fair article 9 specifies only that war as an offensive measure is not allowed. There is nothing about “offensive weapons” in there, but rather “war potential”, which is commonly interpreted as Japan only being allowed the military force necessary for defense.
This itself is very vague and can be interpreted in many ways.

So all article 9 really sets in stone is that Japan must not start or threaten with offensive warfare. Their Self Defense Forces are just that, defense, but they can use all that’s necessary to defend.

What is outlawed however would be nuclear weapons for example, as Japan had signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty in 1967. This is despite the importance of a nuclear deterrent to prevent attacks by nearby superpowers such as China. Because of this the US serves as Japans nuclear deterrent.

So once again I wonder why people see such clear cut definitions about offensive and defensive weapons in a vague article only stating Japan won’t wage offensive war or have an offenisve military force, which they don’t do either of.

And even worse, how people see Maverick missiles and guided bombs as “Illegal” for seemingly no reason.


Kawasaki XP-1 test firing an AGM-65G Maverick

Kawasaki P-1 armed with two AGM-65G Mavericks (it can carry up to 8)

It’s a lot more complicated and nuanced than that. But it boils down to one word, politics. Also the plane your referencing first flew in 07 and went into service in 13.

1 Like

I know that, but these certainly aren’t Japans first guided weapons, the GCS-1 guided bomb being accepted into service in 1991, and the ASM-1 in 1980 for example came long before it.

But I do agree about the politics part. Japanese weapons procurement is very much an internal fight over the meaning and interpretation of this article. However that doesn’t make it a set rule Japan violates, but rather a flexibly interpreted law that is still being followed. This is also expanded on and applied differently as time progresses as is the norm in most if not all countries legal systems.

I am not trying to say it was never used to fight procurement in Japan, but rather that any effect this law has on weaponry is purely up to interpretation, of which many exist.

GCS-1 guidance kit, fitted to existing 500 and 750lb bombs. Will work on tanks as well due to them being at roughly the same temperature as a ship.

It was not designed to target ships (that’s what the ASM-1 is for) but smaller landing craft and boats. The forum topic on this guidance kit has enough information to say that it’s pretty much guaranteed that it can target tanks too.

There not gonna add any other nation for Thailand. Cause they were considered Japan’s only ally. Who played both sides.

Hey, Brtian has gotten India and South Africa. 2 nations who are well known for the dislike of Britain. Japan could get anyone, maybe even south korea

There’s a difference between disliking and historical treatment. That can affect a country economically, and politically for over 35 years. Most will shrug off India and South Africa. Korea both in this context will not. Both Koreas have beef with Japan for the period & as much as Gaijin would like not to play politics this would immediately force them into it.

1 Like