Author Topic: Ki-43 "Oscar" (Read 4068 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #15 on:** December 16, 2007, 03:48:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by stephen
no cannon only 2 303's i vote no ki43

Ki-43-II is armed with the same two 12.7mm guns as the Ki-84 has in the cowl. I've killed quite a few fighters with those.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #16 on:** December 16, 2007, 04:18:50 PM »

With CT being late war ETO, it seems to me that anything which allows the CMs to put up a wider variety of early/mid war special events in the Pacific or Med. theaters would be good additions. So, yeah.

stephen · « **Reply #17 on:** December 17, 2007, 04:17:24 PM »

excuse me, I stand corrected, two .50's, but I must stand by my vote, in a game where firepower is king, it's lacking, though it would be a nice zero killer, but not much use elsewhere.

Krusty · « **Reply #18 on:** December 17, 2007, 04:28:49 PM »

The C202 has only 2x 50cals in the nose. I've landed 12 kills in the 202 with only 1 hotpad in the middle of the sortie. I was taking out tough planes like P51s, N1k2s, spitfires (not so tough, but by no means fragile) and yes, even other C2s!

2 50cals in a central mounting (i.e. the nose cowling) are very powerful weapons. You just have to get in closer than 600 which most folks don't want to bother with.

Very potent weapons. The only problem would be the short ammo clip on the Ki-43! That would present a unique challenge!

stephen · « **Reply #19 on:** December 17, 2007, 05:23:35 PM »

ok, so take off from a base in your 202 and kill a multi engine bomber of any type, if you kill even 2 of them without dying a miserable death,the pilot was either asleep, or inept...its just not a solid main arena ride.

o yeh, your leaving out the secondary armorment of the 202, it ain't got just 2 gunz believe me, the comparison your looking for is a val, or an sbd, both decidedly junk as a fighter, and only able to kill a newb,...wait what am I saying?, bring the ki to aces hi, newbs beware!

Krusty · « **Reply #20 on:** December 17, 2007, 05:25:32 PM »

*sigh*

Yeah.. sure... junk as a fighter...

Whatever

E25280 · « **Reply #21 on:** December 17, 2007, 06:32:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by stephen
i vote no ki43

Who gave you a vote?

stephen · « **Reply #22 on:** December 17, 2007, 06:46:45 PM »

Krusty, thank you for your technical report, I hope that further post's are as full of usefull information as your last one, lol

I hate being nasty, but honestly, is anyone gonna fly a ki43 in anything other than a suicide mission?
its wholy incapable of putting up any kind of resistance to even the most bumbling of pilots flying even the worst american rides, give it up.
The Japanese lost the war because of limits placed upon them by aircraft such as this, and I for one would hate to see time wasted on it when there are other aircraft that should be in ahead of it.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #23 on:** December 17, 2007, 07:02:11 PM »

nevermind

Krusty · « **Reply #24 on:** December 17, 2007, 08:19:46 PM »

I missed what you posted hub, but I sympathize.

Karnak · « **Reply #25 on:** December 18, 2007, 09:53:40 AM »

Other aircraft such as what exactly?

We're almost out of late war monsters.

The fact is that the Ki-43 was a very important combat aircraft in WWII and as such is needed here. Same for the P-39, I-16, C.200 and LaGG-3, all of which can be seen as turkeys to one degree or other.

Sure, you can ask for later war aircraft that were comparitively rare like the Ki-44, J2M3a, Meteor Mk III, P-63, Yak-3 (not rare, but extends a lopsided Soviet planeset) and so on, but why?

Bino · « **Reply #26 on:** December 18, 2007, 06:46:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by stephen
...is anyone gonna fly a ki43 in anything other than a suicide mission?
its wholy incapable of putting up any kind of resistance to even the most bumbling of pilots flying even the worst american rides, give it up.
The Japanese lost the war because of limits placed upon them by aircraft such as this, and I for one would hate to see time wasted on it when there are other aircraft that should be in ahead of it.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. As am I. Personally, I do not care if an interesting, historically significant plane never sees use in the Late War arenas. I am much more interested in the Special Events (big Scenarios, FSO, etc.) than I am in any arena. >shrug< The Ki-43 would definitely be a useful addition to a plane set used for simulating historical battles, which is why I request its inclusion in AH.

<>

BigPlay · « **Reply #27 on:** December 19, 2007, 04:35:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by stephen
Krusty, thank you for your technical report, I hope that further post's are as full of usefull information as your last one, lol

I hate being nasty, but honestly, is anyone gonna fly a ki43 in anything other than a suicide mission?
its wholy incapable of putting up any kind of resistance to even the most bumbling of pilots flying even the worst American rides, give it up.
The Japanese lost the war because of limits placed upon them by aircraft such as this, and I for one would hate to see time wasted on it when there are other aircraft that should be in ahead of it.

Are you kidding, the Ki43 would make a great early war aircraft. As for killing bombers the Zero is pretty worthless, it cant get scratched without turning into a zippo lighter. I think it would make a challenging fighter favoring good shots (which isn't me) but I would fly it in EW and even in MW.

The Japanese late war aircraft were actually superior in performance and maneuverability compared to allied aircraft . The Ki 100 was far ahead of what the US was flying at the time. The main reason the Japanese lost is because of the same problems the Germans had, not enough resources ie. man power and industrial might. America could out produce both Germany and Japan in both of these categories. Both Germany and Japan ran out of experienced fighter pilots and aircraft plants to be able to compete with the Americans. If you know your history Germany at wars end were using boys and old men to fill the ranks of their army. By the late stages of the war Germany and Japan had all but a handful of experienced pilots that survived the war. If not the Ki43 than what another Spit . Tell me the B25c isn't a total hanger queen having no tail gun. WORTHLESS. Their by far the easiest bomber in the game to shot down and have no real advantage in the game except for some dweeb to relive 30 seconds over Tokyo in.

I vote for the Ki unless someone else can come up with something that makes more sense, I know how about the Boomerang. And no know knowledge dweebs it not a Aborigine hunting tool that comes back to you.

Relorian · « **Reply #28 on:** December 19, 2007, 04:56:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by stephen
o yeh, your leaving out the secondary armorment of the 202, it ain't got just 2 gunz believe me, the comparison your looking for is a val, or an sbd, both decidedly junk as a fighter, and only able to kill a newb,...wait what am I saying?, bring the ki to aces hi, newbs beware! [/B]

Boy-o, Ive seen people kill mad ammounts of planes in a VAL. Hell, Look at what WPAlka can do with a B5N.

Its more of a challenge to get kills, yes. Its alot more fun too. Knowing your the undergunned, underpowered underdog makes you fight that much harder when that LA-7 or P51 dweeb comes charging in with his cannons or multi 50 cal gun carrying aircraft.

I've taken down Lancasters and B-24's with the SDB. No one notices that lonely, slow plane with only two guns until your right on top of them blowing off their wings.

zmeg · « **Reply #29 on:** December 19, 2007, 04:57:41 PM »

"The Ki 100 was far ahead of what the US was flying at the time."

We seem to have a little credibilty isue here.