P63

[Bronk]

I'd think I'd save my best AC for the final push. So yea they used what they had over in Manchuria.  By final push I mean over the home land where they had a better chance of ditching and recovering ac.
Ohh and A6ms are navy... it was an army ac shot down I believe.

[Krusty]

A6Ms were both navy and army, if I recall.

Manchuria, as mentioned, was a mere 100mi flight over the channel. At a time when almost all Japanese forces had been pulled back for homeland defense, as you say, why again would they be flying a 1939 model of a plane in combat against late war "monster" planes? When 100mi away (a few minutes' flight time) you get the entire stockpile of so many planes ther's nobody to use them.


No, either it's a false claim or it definitely wasn't a Ki-27. Either way the claim is not credible until absolutely proven. That seems to be the contention right now: It can't be shown to ever have happened, right?

[oboe]

Maybe the Ki27 was hack aircraft up on a training/orientation flight or somebody was just up stooging around in it and got caught.   Wasn't it a common practice to use old, obsolete a/c as squadron hacks?   I don't know how you can say that either its a false claim or definitely didn't happen-- why single out this claim and say its false until absolutely proven?   Why not apply the same standard that is applied to other a/c's kill claims (that documented combat action is sufficient)?

True or false claim notwithstanding, I think its unlikely that the P-63 gets in AH any time soon.     Too many other a/c that had a much larger impact on the War still need to get in (IMO, but it might be different if all HTC had to do was slap a 4-blade prop on the 39Q, rework the tail and tweak the FM - but I'm afraid sinc the '63 is a physically larger airplane, it would require a whole new 3D model).

<S>

[Krusty]

Oboe, I don't think they did that so much with the Japanese planes. At least I've not read of them doing anything like that. Why train on a fixed-gear Ki-27 over hostile territory when you can train in a A6M5 or something else?

I'm not specifically saying I don't think there was a kill recorded. I'm saying I don't think the story happened the way it is claimed. And because the CLAIM itself is faulty the entire kill report is suspect until all the confusion is cleared up.

Now if there were actual records supporting it, fine it's a quirk that in 1945 a plane from 1939 was shot down. Call it a time wormhole, whatever. However without actual support, it's not likely.

If it's a simple matter of "Oh, it wasn't a Ki-27, it was a fill-in-the-blank" then it changes nothing in these posts. The kill is still valid. If on the other hand it's a confusion of multiple reports and the kill that was made was actually from 1939? Or perhaps it's like the 2x20mm cowl gun myth on the 109K4, some typo or misprint that is mistranslated several times and not based in reality?

Again, you can't be sure until it's cleared up. That's why I say the burden is to support the claim rather than to debunk it. Otherwise I would take "normal" kills at mostly face value. Spitfire kills a He162, for example. Both planes in the same area at same time, perfectly plausible.

[Ack-Ack]

A6Ms were both navy and army, if I recall.

The Zero was IJNAF, while the Ki-43 was the Army's version of what was essentially the IJAF's version of the Zero.

That's not his point Pig. Ki-27s in 1945? Surely not a likely scenario, is his point.

The Japanese exported the Ki-27 to the puppet Manchukuo government, which used the Nate up until the collapse of the puppet government.  Also, near the end of the war, a number of Ki-27s were converted to kamikazi aircraft.  So, it is very plausible that a Ki-27 could have been encountered in the skies over China during the later years of the war.


ack-ack

[Krusty]

The Zero was IJNAF, while the Ki-43 was the Army's version of what was essentially the IJAF's version of the Zero.

That's true, but maybe I am thinking of how A6Ms operated from fields rather than ships (no carriers left, etc).

The Japanese exported the Ki-27 to the puppet Manchukuo government, which used the Nate up until the collapse of the puppet government.

Do you know when that was? If the collapse was in 1943, for example... not so helpful. If it was in 1945? Much more helpful to support the claim. That could explain it, if the dates match up. But, was Manchukuo even running missions against the VVs at the time in question?

As to kamikaze, I'd say "no" to that because I don't recall any reports of kamikaze attacks in Manchuria or against the Soviets. That was mostly just against US warships. No need for kamikaze bombers over Soviet landmasses. Logically that one is discounted from consideration.

[Ack-Ack]

Do you know when that was? If the collapse was in 1943, for example... not so helpful. If it was in 1945? Much more helpful to support the claim. That could explain it, if the dates match up. But, was Manchukuo even running missions against the VVs at the time in question?

Manchukuo's government was abolished in August of 1945, shortly after the surrender of Imperial Japan.  The primary fighter for the Manchukuo Air Force was the Ki-27, so if the encounter did happen with the Soviet P-63, it was most likely a Ki-27 from the Manchukuo Air Force.  

As to kamikaze, I'd say "no" to that because I don't recall any reports of kamikaze attacks in Manchuria or against the Soviets. That was mostly just against US warships. No need for kamikaze bombers over Soviet landmasses. Logically that one is discounted from consideration.

Towards the end of the war the Manchukuo Air Force resorted to kamikazi tactics with the first successful kamikazi attack that resulted in the loss of a B-29 after it was rammed by a MAF Ki-27 at the end of 1944.  During the last months of the war, the Japanese 2nd Air Army (now in operational command of the MAF) ordered the remaining MAF Ki-27 pilots to begin training for kamikazi attacks against Soviet tanks, though this was never carried out as the war ended before training could be completed and any attacks carried out.

ack-ack

[icepac]

Ok....if we get P63, then we must have ki27.

[oboe]

Manchukuo's government was abolished in August of 1945, shortly after the surrender of Imperial Japan.  The primary fighter for the Manchukuo Air Force was the Ki-27, so if the encounter did happen with the Soviet P-63, it was most likely a Ki-27 from the Manchukuo Air Force.  

Towards the end of the war the Manchukuo Air Force resorted to kamikazi tactics with the first successful kamikazi attack that resulted in the loss of a B-29 after it was rammed by a MAF Ki-27 at the end of 1944.  During the last months of the war, the Japanese 2nd Air Army (now in operational command of the MAF) ordered the remaining MAF Ki-27 pilots to begin training for kamikazi attacks against Soviet tanks, though this was never carried out as the war ended before training could be completed and any attacks carried out.

ack-ack

Impressive, ack-ack.

I wonder how effective a kamikaze attack against of Soviet tank would be?

[Mystery]

Today we'll talk kill record:

"On 15 August Capt Vyacheslav Sirotin and his wingman Jr Lt I F Miroshnichenko, of 17 IAP were patrolling in their new P-63s. Sirotin was a veteran ace who had flown P-39s (amongst other fighter types) against the Germans and had scored 26 victories during more than 300 sorties, for which he received the HSU in 1945. His wingman appears to have been a novice, however. Spotting two specks at low level in the distance, they quickly identified two Japanese fighters - either Ki-43 "Oscars" or Ki-27 "Nates" - which were hoping to attack Soviet transport aircraft. The P-63 pilots instead made short work of the enemy aircraft, Sirotin allowing his wingman to make the kill. Miroshnichenko succeeded in shooting down one of the Japanese fighters, but the other machine escaped at treetop height.
"Soviet Lend-Lease Fighter Aces of World War 2", George Mellinger, 2006 Osprey Publishing Limited

Ok, I quoted myself  but the best reference I've read so far says either KI-43's or KI-27's. Not sure why they couldn't distinguish between the two but perhaps this is one of those "lost in translation" things.

[Mystery]

...True or false claim notwithstanding, I think its unlikely that the P-63 gets in AH any time soon.     Too many other a/c that had a much larger impact on the War still need to get in (IMO, but it might be different if all HTC had to do was slap a 4-blade prop on the 39Q, rework the tail and tweak the FM - but I'm afraid sinc the '63 is a physically larger airplane, it would require a whole new 3D model)...

Painfully, I have to agree that there is a plethora of other a/c that had a greater impact. And yes, the '63 is most definitely not just a "hotter" '39 since as Oboe points out, the tail is different, the powerplant is way different...and the wingspan is different. So the 3D model and FM would be different...but one wonders by how much.

Anyway, the thread is "Wishlist" and it's great to hear there are other fans of the King Cobra than myself. I'm not sure what else would be required to demonstrate a "verified" kill status. Saxman has a point too re minimal impact but I have faith in the judgment of HTC  

Besides I really really want 58 rounds of 37mm in an airframe that can carry some ords and has decent performance. Plus, the King Cobra is just sexy. Hangar Queen? I doubt it. But IMHO only.

[Ack-Ack]

Ok, I quoted myself  but the best reference I've read so far says either KI-43's or KI-27's. Not sure why they couldn't distinguish between the two but perhaps this is one of those "lost in translation" things.

Because there is a resemblance and easy to make the mistake.  Just like how USAAF and USN pilots reported the Ki-61 at first as a C.205 or a Bf 109E.





ack-ack

[icepac]

The p63 arrives in game.

It is found that it is still lacking in comparison to other late war rides.

It gets flown only slightly more than the p39.

P39 get's flown even less.


Seems to me that a lot of planes suggested already have a plane with the very similar performance and role within the current plane set.

Why not bring in some planes that served roles that aren't yet covered?

[Pigslilspaz]

With that logic, we'd have almost no variants unless it was a major difference

[icepac]

The logic is applied because of the existing planeset......not starting from scratch.