P63

[Karnak]

So by your logic the meteor should never be included also?  If we use your logic then if we use your same logic the c-47 we have should not be in game....well as modeled.   Unless you have a pilot shooting down an AC with his sidearm documented.

The Meteor was involved in unambiguous combat operations.  The P-63, not so much.  Both should be very low priority aircraft, but I think the P-63 should be about as far down the list as you can get while still being on it.


That said, which performance information is correct?  The very impressive manufacturer's data or the substantially less impressively USAAF data?

[AAJagerX]

The Meteor was involved in unambiguous combat operations.  The P-63, not so much.  Both should be very low priority aircraft, but I think the P-63 should be about as far down the list as you can get while still being on it.


That said, which performance information is correct?  The very impressive manufacturer's data or the substantially less impressively USAAF data?

Would you not consider escort operations during wartime, over enemy territory "combat sorties"?  I'm sure the P-63 drivers did.

[Saxman]

So by your logic the meteor should never be included also?  If we use your logic then if we use your same logic the c-47 we have should not be in game....well as modeled.   Unless you have a pilot shooting down an AC with his sidearm documented.

It's not whether or not an aircraft shot down another aircraft. It's whether that aircraft saw combat operations. The C-47 didn't shoot down an enemy plane, but has a VERY well-documented record of participation in combat operations at D-Day, Market Garden, etc. The Meteor has a confirmed combat record against V-1 bombs and ground-support operations. The ONLY evidence being repeated about the P-63 seeing combat is the ONE "it has been mentioned" story that the P-63 recorded a kill so THAT'S why a primary source is important. We don't know if every repeat of this is drawing from the same primary source, or if it's a literary version "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who was there." It's not the kill itself that matters--show me a primary source that confirms a P-63 dropping bombs on a Japanese tank, bunker, truck park, ice cream stand, WHATEVER, and great--but it's the ONE thing being used to "conclusively" support the P-63's addition.

Otherwise, the ONLY thing we have to go on is that units equipped with the P-63 were being deployed forward in the last week of the war. That doesn't mean they were actually seeing combat when the war ended.

[Mystery]

.....
That said, which performance information is correct?  The very impressive manufacturer's data or the substantially less impressively USAAF data?

How about this:


Source: America's Hundred Thousand, 1997, Francis Dean, Schiffer Publishing Ltd

[Mystery]

.....show me a primary source that confirms a P-63 dropping bombs on a Japanese tank, bunker, truck park, ice cream stand, WHATEVER, and great--but it's the ONE thing being used to "conclusively" support the P-63's addition....

Saxman, I hear you. Not sure anyone can find much on the ice cream stand (ok just kidding there, a little levity) and unfortunately the best and most complete (so far) US-published reference on the Kuril Island campaign (LTC David M. Glantz, "August Storm: The Soviet 1945 Strategic Offensive in Manchuria) is very short on air and airborne operational detail.

But I'll keep digging.

[Bronk]

It's not whether or not an aircraft shot down another aircraft. It's whether that aircraft saw combat operations. The C-47 didn't shoot down an enemy plane, but has a VERY well-documented record of participation in combat operations at D-Day, Market Garden, etc. The Meteor has a confirmed combat record against V-1 bombs and ground-support operations. The ONLY evidence being repeated about the P-63 seeing combat is the ONE "it has been mentioned" story that the P-63 recorded a kill so THAT'S why a primary source is important. We don't know if every repeat of this is drawing from the same primary source, or if it's a literary version "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who was there." It's not the kill itself that matters--show me a primary source that confirms a P-63 dropping bombs on a Japanese tank, bunker, truck park, ice cream stand, WHATEVER, and great--but it's the ONE thing being used to "conclusively" support the P-63's addition.

Otherwise, the ONLY thing we have to go on is that units equipped with the P-63 were being deployed forward in the last week of the war. That doesn't mean they were actually seeing combat when the war ended.

So the claim that the  P-63 shot down a KI was not during a combat operation? I know they were up for a joy ride.

Which is it combat operation or a confirmed kill? You can't have it both ways ....arse.

Keep spinning... it is amusing... pick a bar because if its a confirmed kill?  You best start lobbying for an armed skytrain.

[Saxman]

So the claim that the  P-63 shot down a KI was not during a combat operation? I know they were up for a joy ride.

Which is it combat operation or a confirmed kill? You can't have it both ways ....arse.

Keep spinning... it is amusing... pick a bar because if its a confirmed kill?  You best start lobbying for an armed skytrain.

How many times are you going to ignore the point of what I'm saying?

1) P-63 supporters are using the same "it has been mentioned" story of a P-63 shooting down a disputed type of Japanese aircraft as definitive evidence the type saw combat.
2) NO OTHER SOURCE EXPLICITLY PLACES THE P-63 IN COMBAT ACTION. This is the ONLY story that directly states the P-63 saw actual combat, everything else only MAY be placing P-63s in-theater. However the F7F and P-51H were ALSO in theater in the last week of the war, but that doesn't mean they actually saw combat (actually, the Tigercat is a good comparison due to a supposed encounter in which it lit an enemy aircraft up on radar before said enemy vamoosed).
3) No one has been able to provide the original PRIMARY SOURCE for this incident.

I'M not the one who originally hinged everything on whether it did or did not shoot down an enemy plane, the guys using that incident to support the P-63's addition did. However that's the ONLY direct evidence given of the type seeing combat. If it can't be conclusively shown that incident ever occurred, then the only thing that can be said is that the P-63 was in or being moved to the theater when the war ended. It can NOT be said that it actually saw combat.

[Bronk]

How many times are you going to ignore the point of what I'm saying?

1) P-63 supporters are using the same "it has been mentioned" story of a P-63 shooting down a disputed type of Japanese aircraft as definitive evidence the type saw combat.
2) NO OTHER SOURCE EXPLICITLY PLACES THE P-63 IN COMBAT ACTION. This is the ONLY story that directly states the P-63 saw actual combat, everything else only MAY be placing P-63s in-theater. However the F7F and P-51H were ALSO in theater in the last week of the war, but that doesn't mean they actually saw combat (actually, the Tigercat is a good comparison due to a supposed encounter in which it lit an enemy aircraft up on radar before said enemy vamoosed).
3) No one has been able to provide the original PRIMARY SOURCE for this incident.

I'M not the one who originally hinged everything on whether it did or did not shoot down an enemy plane, the guys using that incident to support the P-63's addition did. However that's the ONLY direct evidence given of the type seeing combat. If it can't be conclusively shown that incident ever occurred, then the only thing that can be said is that the P-63 was in or being moved to the theater when the war ended. It can NOT be said that it actually saw combat.

If they did or did not shoot it down .... they had to be up either way.... arse.

[Saxman]

If they did or did not shoot it down .... they had to be up either way.... arse.

Assuming they actually WERE up and encountered an enemy plane AT ALL. THAT'S my point. Whether or not the enemy was shot down was immaterial: It has NOT been conclusively shown that this incident EVEN OCCURRED IN THE FIRST PLACE. All we have is a "It has been mentioned..." And it's the ONLY incident in which the P-63 is specifically said to have encountered an enemy aircraft or engaged in combat of ANY type.

[Mystery]

That said, which performance information is correct?  The very impressive manufacturer's data or the substantially less impressively USAAF data?

Back to performance data:


ibid

[Mystery]

That said, which performance information is correct?  The very impressive manufacturer's data or the substantially less impressively USAAF data?

Some more performance data:


ibid

[Mystery]

That said, which performance information is correct?  The very impressive manufacturer's data or the substantially less impressively USAAF data?

More performance data, ad nauseum  


ibid

[Bronk]

HUH fastest climbing...fastest rolling... second best turn..... late war monster... period.


Still should be near last if not last plane added.

[Guppy35]

How many times are you going to ignore the point of what I'm saying?

1) P-63 supporters are using the same "it has been mentioned" story of a P-63 shooting down a disputed type of Japanese aircraft as definitive evidence the type saw combat.
2) NO OTHER SOURCE EXPLICITLY PLACES THE P-63 IN COMBAT ACTION. This is the ONLY story that directly states the P-63 saw actual combat, everything else only MAY be placing P-63s in-theater. However the F7F and P-51H were ALSO in theater in the last week of the war, but that doesn't mean they actually saw combat (actually, the Tigercat is a good comparison due to a supposed encounter in which it lit an enemy aircraft up on radar before said enemy vamoosed).
3) No one has been able to provide the original PRIMARY SOURCE for this incident.

I'M not the one who originally hinged everything on whether it did or did not shoot down an enemy plane, the guys using that incident to support the P-63's addition did. However that's the ONLY direct evidence given of the type seeing combat. If it can't be conclusively shown that incident ever occurred, then the only thing that can be said is that the P-63 was in or being moved to the theater when the war ended. It can NOT be said that it actually saw combat.

What would you accept as a primary source?  The odds of one of us getting into the Soviet Archives is a bit slim.  The order of Battle of those involved in August Storm was done by George Mellinger who has been in the Soviet archives. 

Claims are always going to be suspect.  I was just reading some stuff on Rabaul last night and on November 2, 1943 38s escorted 25s and were intercepted by Zekes.  The Lightnings claimed 40 Zekes.  The Zekes claimed 119 Mitchells and 38s.  In the end, both sides lost 18 planes.  A week ago I was reading some stuff on the AVG.  Just one example of the crazy claims.  3 P40 pilots claimed 5 Japanese planes when no Japanese planes were lost.  Even worse were the Japanese who claimed more planes then were actually in the air claiming 27 kills, when it was just 3 P40s and they all got home.

[Pigslilspaz]

HUH fastest climbing...fastest rolling... second best turn..... late war monster... period.


Still should be near last if not last plane added.

Fastest rolling seems to be the P-40, if you couldn't tell. Now I want to try that out, lol