Author Topic: P-63 KingCobra......again  (Read 33571 times)

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #375 on: August 30, 2013, 07:13:37 PM »
Besides, that I'm still right about Meg's reasoning, no matter how little you like it.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline morfiend

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10396
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #376 on: August 30, 2013, 07:50:00 PM »
Besides, that I'm still right about Meg's reasoning, no matter how little you like it.


  Living in my dream world I could care less what your reasoning is.... :rolleyes:


  The fact is there has never been a statement by HTC on any "requirements" but you go ahead and tell me whats what.   I don't even have to pretend that you do a fine job all on your own.



    :salute

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #377 on: August 30, 2013, 09:15:09 PM »
No I don't think so ....you were trying to make a point again and it failed to leave the top of your head ...again.  :D

Oh, I get it. You're having issues with my use of the word 'jeep.' That meant that sources
are a might scant on it shooting at a flying adversary (and had nothing to do with comparing
it's ability to any other aircraft at all). Sometimes you're really too literal to afford any sense
of humor whatsoever, aren'tcha?  :D

You sure chased that imaginary hound for miles.  :rofl

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #378 on: August 30, 2013, 09:20:23 PM »
Oh, I get it. You're having issues with my use of the word 'jeep.' That meant that sources
are a might scant on it shooting at a flying adversary (and had nothing to do with comparing
it's ability to any other aircraft at all). Sometimes you're really too literal to afford any sense
of humor whatsoever, aren'tcha?  :D

You sure chased that imaginary hound for miles.  :rofl


 Really I'm having an Issue of the non-use of the word Vote, dribbling off your lips, coming from U  :rofl .....gonna help me?


GO USA,
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #379 on: August 30, 2013, 09:23:50 PM »
Ok, I guess if we're pretending there aren't de facto requirements, keep living in your dream world.

I don't think HTC will ever add anything that didn't see service, get kills, and fly at squadron strength until they run out of stuff to add. Then they'll probably drop the squadron strength requirement before the kill requirement.

P-63 was in service and got kills.
JG 52

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #380 on: August 30, 2013, 09:34:18 PM »

 Really I'm having an Issue of the non-use of the word Vote, dribbling off your lips, coming from U  :rofl .....gonna help me?


GO USA,

Huh. You wanna take another shot at this post? I can tell you're making a
personal accusation and a request of me at the same time but that's about it.

Are you going on about that vote you want everyone in the MA to make over
which of us in this thread has a better plane list? Mine's posted. You had a short
one, earlier in this thread. Is that your final version? Are you wanting me to vote
for some reason? Do you need me to get people in the MA to come to the forum?
Is your account inactive?

C'mon .... ease off the crazy. Maybe you have to back away from this to take a
stab at normal after a decent night's sleep or medication or something. After that
I'll be glad to help you with anything you can request in a comprehensible fashion.

 :aok

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #381 on: August 30, 2013, 10:12:10 PM »
P-63 was in service and got kills.

Which aircraft did it shoot down?




  Living in my dream world I could care less what your reasoning is.... :rolleyes:


  The fact is there has never been a statement by HTC on any "requirements" but you go ahead and tell me whats what.   I don't even have to pretend that you do a fine job all on your own.



    :salute

I'll hunt up that quote. I'm fairly certain you've seen it before, but if you're too senile to remember....
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #382 on: August 30, 2013, 10:16:17 PM »
Which aircraft did it shoot down?

Ki.43 and Ki-27 confirmed two kills (that is what I can find from Autumn storm only, I haven't read into the Battle of berlin however only because I have the evidence to prove it served in combat). However you do realize it does not need Kills if it was confirmed it flew in combat right? Look at the Meteor - what planes did it shoot down? None. Was it in the last vote? Yep. The Criteria has been A) it served in combat B) not a prototype.

So far every aircraft we have A) served in combat, and B) wasn't a prototype.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 10:19:05 PM by Butcher »
JG 52

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #383 on: August 30, 2013, 10:18:44 PM »
Members of HTC staff have added comments over the decade this game has been in development. They have said no prototypes or 1-off, they have said combat, and they have said had to have been in use at the unit level (i.e. a full unit homogenous).

I dug up all the quotes once upon a time, but this was MANY years back and have since lost them. They have stuck with this pattern the entire time, though.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #384 on: August 31, 2013, 12:23:53 AM »
Ki.43 and Ki-27 confirmed two kills (that is what I can find from Autumn storm only, I haven't read into the Battle of berlin however only because I have the evidence to prove it served in combat). However you do realize it does not need Kills if it was confirmed it flew in combat right? Look at the Meteor - what planes did it shoot down? None. Was it in the last vote? Yep. The Criteria has been A) it served in combat B) not a prototype.

So far every aircraft we have A) served in combat, and B) wasn't a prototype.

Not that I don't believe you, but sources? I have virtually no info on the far-east campaigns.

And I tend to oppose the Meteor being added as well, just FYI. I personally feel kills should be a requirement until we run out of stuff that was even reasonably significant to add.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #385 on: August 31, 2013, 01:44:36 AM »
Not that I don't believe you, but sources? I have virtually no info on the far-east campaigns.

And I tend to oppose the Meteor being added as well, just FYI. I personally feel kills should be a requirement until we run out of stuff that was even reasonably significant to add.

There are a few books on august storm, Soviet lend and lease aces for example is just one of the books I have on it. I understand about your opinion on kills, however its been explained enough times the criteria to be added into aces high, even if the kills cannot be confirmed (which they can't since neither japan or russia keeps records) the aircraft still served in combat as its been proven to be on the front lines and in combat units as well as flown ground attack missions.



JG 52

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #386 on: August 31, 2013, 03:29:22 AM »
Not that I don't believe you, but sources? I have virtually no info on the far-east campaigns.

And I tend to oppose the Meteor being added as well, just FYI. I personally feel kills should be a requirement until we run out of stuff that was even reasonably significant to add.

Another possible (online) reference:

~~~~~

By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East for an eventual attack on Japan.[citation needed] However, there are many unconfirmed reports from both the Soviet and German side that P-63s did indeed see service against the Luftwaffe. Most notably, one of Pokryshkin's pilots reports in his memoirs published in the 1990s that the entire 4th GvIAP was secretly converted to P-63s in 1944, while officially still flying P-39s. One account states they were in action at Königsberg, in Poland and in the final assault on Berlin. There are German reports of P-63s shot down by both fighters and flak. Nevertheless, all Soviet records show nothing but P-39s used against Germany.

In general, official Soviet histories played down the role of Lend-Lease supplied aircraft in favor of local designs, but it is known that the P-63 was a successful fighter aircraft in Soviet service. A common Western misconception is that the Bell fighters were used as ground attack aircraft.

    "One of the enduring myths regarding the P-39/P-63 in Soviet use is that because of its armament, in particular the 37mm nose cannon, it excelled as a ground-attack aircraft, even a 'tank buster'. In translating and preparing this manuscript for publication, I have had the opportunity to peruse several Russian-language sources. Mentions of the employment of this aircraft in the ground-attack role are so rare in these sources as to be exceptional ... The 'tank buster' myth has its roots in the misunderstanding of the general wartime role of the Red Air Force and in the imprecise translation of specific Russian-Language terms that describe this role. The specific Russian-Language term most often used to describe the mission and role of the Airacobra-equipped Red Air Force fighter units, in this manuscript and other Russian-language sources , is prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk [coverage of ground forces]... Frequent misunderstanding in this country as to the combat role of the P-39 in Soviet use is based in part on imprecise translation of the term prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk to 'ground support'. The latter term as it is understood by many Western military historians and readers, suggests the attacking of ground targets in support of ground troops, also called 'close air support'. Did a Soviet Airacobra pilot ever strafe a German tank? Undoubtedly. But this was never a primary mission or strong suit for this aircraft."

    —Soviet Army Colonel Dmitriy Loza

The Soviets developed successful group aerial fighting tactics for the Bell fighters and scored a surprising number of aerial victories over a variety of German aircraft. Low ceilings, short missions, good radios, a sealed and warm cockpit and ruggedness contributed to their effectiveness. To pilots who had once flown the tricky Polikarpov I-16, the aerodynamic quirks of the mid-engined aircraft were unimportant. In the Far East, P-63 and P-39 aircraft were used in the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo and northern Korea.

In the Pacific theatre, the Kingcobras flew escort, close air support and ground attack missions. The Soviet P-63s achieved their first air victory on 15 August 1945, when Lejtenant I. F. Miroshnichenko from 17th IAP/190 IAD, shot down a Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa Army fighter off the coast of North Korea.

^Gordon, Yefim. Soviet Air Power in World War 2. Hinckley, Lancashire, UK: Midland, Ian Allan Publishing, 2008. p. 452. ISBN 978-1-85780-304-4. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-63_Kingcobra)

~~~~~
Personally, if they shot a plane or two (out of the air) as well as Japanese trucks I'm still not moved to see the P-63 modeled in the next 20 or so aircraft to be selected. But then, we'll see how I feel after the next 10.  :D

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #387 on: August 31, 2013, 09:17:16 AM »
If we just wanted to get all of this out of the way, what would HTC need to add?

Commonly requested units that saw little to no combat or service:
Do335
F7F
F8F
He162
Meteor Mk III
P-51H
P-63
Spitfire F.21
Yak-3P
YP-80


Commonly requested rare or, at least on paper, super MA units:

A-26
B7A2
G.55
H8K2
He177A-5
IS-2
M26
Mosquito Mk XVIII
P.108
P-61
SB2C


If all that were added would that end this drama or would it just change to pushing for the F-86 and MiG-15?
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #388 on: August 31, 2013, 09:34:52 AM »
If we just wanted to get all of this out of the way, what would HTC need to add?

Commonly requested units that saw little to no combat or service:
Do335
F7F
F8F
He162
Meteor Mk III
P-51H
P-63
Spitfire F.21
Yak-3P
YP-80


Commonly requested rare or, at least on paper, super MA units:

A-26
B7A2
G.55
H8K2
He177A-5
IS-2
M26
Mosquito Mk XVIII
P.108
P-61
SB2C


If all that were added would that end this drama or would it just change to pushing for the F-86 and MiG-15?


Mmmmmm .... Korean theater. (You know.)  :D

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: P-63 KingCobra......again
« Reply #389 on: August 31, 2013, 09:44:33 AM »
If we just wanted to get all of this out of the way, what would HTC need to add?

Commonly requested units that saw little to no combat or service:
Do335
F7F
F8F
He162
Meteor Mk III
P-51H
P-63
Spitfire F.21
Yak-3P
YP-80


Commonly requested rare or, at least on paper, super MA units:

A-26
B7A2
G.55
H8K2
He177A-5
IS-2
M26
Mosquito Mk XVIII
P.108
P-61
SB2C


If all that were added would that end this drama or would it just change to pushing for the F-86 and MiG-15?

I wouldn't call the SB2C a "super MA unit."

And it certainly isn't rare, seeing as how it completely replaced the SBD on the carrier decks after Phillippine Sea.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.