Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Bino on May 10, 2011, 10:12:02 AM
-
For use in various special events, please add the Ki-43.
At over 5900 produced, it was the most numerous of all the planes used by the IJA, and served on every front, right to the end of the war.
The Tillamook Air Museum (http://www.tillamookair.com) has what is likely the world's only remaining airworthy example:
(http://www.tillamookair.com/assets/images/Ki-14jpg.jpg)
-
:noid PBY-5A :noid
Edit: I'm sorry let me reiterate so people don't think me ignorant.
1) Ki-43 only has 2 12.7mm machine gun with 250 rpg. Bearly enough to kill someone unless a very good shot.
2) Even PBY has more guns and payload
3) Ki-43 would be even bigger hanger queen then PBY would ever be.
-
Ki-43 was the primary Japanese Army fighter throughout the war. Lets just say, by leaving it out, it's like leaving the P40 out of the USAAF line up.
-
+1, would be great for the current scenario!
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
...
3) Ki-43 would be even bigger hanger queen then PBY would ever be.
You seem to be thinking only of the Late War arenas. My post actually began with the words, "For use in various special events..."
And even so, back in WarBirds, the Ki-43 proved quite popular in the MA. That might happen again, here in AH.
:salute
-
+1 and kets get some more japanese italain and russian planes.
-
+1 for the Oscar, -1 for the Catalina. Even tho there are much more needed rides than this lil plane.
Btw, this one looks like the ki-84. Is there any relationship between the two models?
-
A number of Japanese planes replaced others that looked similar.
They were totally different designs, but shared some superficial looks.
-
KI.43, 44, 84 all made by Nakajima, I believe. And so are Subaru vehicles. At least Nakjima was Subaru's distant parent company.
-
+1 for the KI-43. :aok
-
I would like to say I'm sorry to Krusty. I did not mean disrespect to any plane or person. I just was voicing my opinion. I was not trying to put down anyone or the aircraft's importance in WWII
<S> I'm Respectfully sorry
Edit: I would also like to say I'm sorry to Karnak as well I'm sorry if I expressed my views to forcefully
Edit: And to Ack-Ack Im sorry as well I didn't want to offend anyone.
-
:noid PBY-5A :noid
Edit: I'm sorry let me reiterate so people don't think me ignorant.
1) Ki-43 only has 2 12.7mm machine gun with 250 rpg. Bearly enough to kill someone unless a very good shot.
2) Even PBY has more guns and payload
3) Ki-43 would be even bigger hanger queen then PBY would ever be.
You are very wrong. You're comparing a free kill to the best turning fighter of WWII. Sure, two 12.7mm guns isn't much, but I assure you that you can kill with them. As I posted elsewhere, I have in a single sortie, killed a Hurricane IIc and C-47 with the same two 12.7mm guns on the Ki-84 after my 20mm had run dry. It would have been far easier to have killed that Hurri in a Ki-43 than it was in the Ki-84. In the 84 it took quite a few BnZ attacks to inflict fatal damage, whereas if I had been in a 43 I simply could have saddled up on the Hurri and killed it as there is nothing it could have done to escape me. I even would have gotten the C-47 that nearly escaped my 84 faster had I been in the 43, despite the 84's much higher top speed as I wouldn't have spent nearly as much time killing the Hurri.
Don't get me wrong, the Ki-84 is a vastly superior fighter to the Ki-43, but in that specific place, once my 20mm were dry and given my opponent's aircraft, the Ki-43 would have been superior.
Even in the LWA the Ki-43-II would see far more use than the PBY would after the PBY's "Its new and shiny" period had worn off. The PBY has no role in this game that isn't accomplished in a vastly superior way by other aircraft that already exist. Landing and taking off of water is not enough to make it useful given its massive shortcomings in all other areas.
_____________________________ ______________
Yes, the Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-44 and Ki-84 are all Nakajima products and yes, Subaru is one of Nakajima's decedent companies.
-
See Rule #4
-
+1 for the Oscar, -1 for the Catalina. Even tho there are much more needed rides than this lil plane.
Btw, this one looks like the ki-84. Is there any relationship between the two models?
Yes, the Ki-84 came from the same manufacturer as the Ki-43. If I remember right, some of the same engineers were involved in the design of the two planes.
When I visited Tillamook and saw their Hayabusa up close, I realized that the rear fuselage is incredibly narrow in the plan view, which really makes this plane far, far prettier in person than she is in photos. :aok
-
Yes, the Ki-84 came from the same manufacturer as the Ki-43. If I remember right, some of the same engineers were involved in the design of the two planes.
When I visited Tillamook and saw their Hayabusa up close, I realized that the rear fuselage is incredibly narrow in the plan view, which really makes this plane far, far prettier in person than she is in photos. :aok
Hell, I was just about to give this a +1 for being the prettiest Japanese plane, and I've only seen it in photos. :aok
-
:noid PBY-5A :noid
Edit: I'm sorry let me reiterate so people don't think me ignorant.
1) Ki-43 only has 2 12.7mm machine gun with 250 rpg. Bearly enough to kill someone unless a very good shot.
2) Even PBY has more guns and payload
3) Ki-43 would be even bigger hanger queen then PBY would ever be.
When BAR321 does his requests for the M-18 (dammit, now he's gonna poke his head in here), he doesn't just slam down whatever the thread is about and derail the topic. What you are doing isn't "cute" and is quite obnoxious.
That being said, I am all for the Ki-43 (And Short Stirling :noid)
-
Big +1 for the Ki-43! :aok
-
I'll take one.
-
Miss the Oscar from my AW days. There it was quite a capable plane. I doubt it'd be a total hangar queen here--heck it IS a fighter is it not? I saw several zeros in LW just last night. The PBY otoh--I can't get my head wrapped around that thing seeing the light of day. Can't come up with a reason for having it other than we don't have it. :headscratch:
-
Miss the Oscar from my AW days. There it was quite a capable plane. I doubt it'd be a total hangar queen here--heck it IS a fighter is it not? I saw several zeros in LW just last night. The PBY otoh--I can't get my head wrapped around that thing seeing the light of day. Can't come up with a reason for having it other than we don't have it. :headscratch:
I see Zekes, Niki's, and 84's flying around all the time. There definitely isn't a shortage of pilots who like flying Jap iron, add the Oscar to the mix!
-
+1 Ki-43s ~the 1c or later model w 2x 12.7mm. 7.7mm armed versions would be silly.
Sounds like Mr. PBY won't be causing more trouble :rofl
-
big ol' plus 1
-
+1 Ki-43s ~the 1c or later model w 2x 12.7mm. 7.7mm armed versions would be silly.
Sounds like Mr. PBY won't be causing more trouble :rofl
Of the Ki-43-I models, there was no a, b, c. Those are apparently false assumptions and Americanized naming conventions for models that never existed.
They went into combat with 1 of each gun. At least for the Ki-43-I. The -II may have been different.
The 2x7mm were removed from the front lines, units used them as trainers and such. The 12.7mm were pulled and a spare 7mm was put in place. Not a combat loadout. The 2x 12.7mm loadout is only ever to have been seen on a single mission flown by specially modified planes (planes that had even the unit markings removed, so they were technically unafilliated -- who knows why, maybe the Japanese thought they were being secretive).
The 12.7mm were unreliable and more often than not a round would blow up on the way out of the barrel. Leaving the pilot with nothing to finish the kill. Hence the reliable oft-used and pilot-loved 7mm MG. The rate of fire was higher, the reliability better, and they could always be assured of getting a kill if anything went wrong with the "heavy" gun.
For a Ki-43-I variant, the only loadout option should be 1 of each caliber. For the -II and -III? That's another story.
-
+1 for the KI-43.
-
I would love to see the Oscar. It would get good use in the Special Events. I would fly the heck out of it in the MA's, would be a total blast. Nothing keeps SA higher than not being able to take a single hit.
I personally think the Ki-43II would be the best one to model, best mix for the MA/Special Events.
Love the Betty, still flipping about the A6M3, the new Zeke's look great. Its been a good stretch for the Japanese fans. HTC will get us the Oscar one day, its only a matter of time.
Big +1 for the Oscar :aok
P.S. besides HTC is busy moving and working on the J2M3a/5 Ki-44 and Ki-45 :cheers:
-
Your classification claim and your insistence that the mixed 7/12mm load out is the sole and most prevalent is directly contradicted by:
A Research Study by Richard L. Dunn (c) 2002, 2004: Nakajima Type 1 Model 1 Army Fighter (Ki 43-I) Armament -- A Reassessment (part 1) http://www.warbirdforum.com/rdunn43.htm
as well as the less reliable Wikipedia article on the Ki-43 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-43
What non-Americanized English source are you using which completely negates this comprehensive research? :headscratch:
Abstract
Popular works on World War Two history, such as Dr. Rene J. Francillon's tome Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, generally state that the Japanese Nakajima Type 1 Model 1 fighter (Ki 43-I), Hayabusa, was produced successively in three versions ko, otsu, and hei (Ki 43-IA, -IB, and -IC) armed, respectively with 2x7.7 mm machine guns; 1x7.7.mm machine gun and 1x12.7mm machine cannon; and 2x12.7 mm machine cannon. It is generally reported that the version with two 12.7 mm machine cannon (Ki 43-IC) was the major production version.
This paper presents evidence that while the twin 7.7mm version and twin 12.7mm version were introduced prior to the mixed armament version, the latter was introduced very early in the production run (prior to the outbreak of the Pacific War), was undoubtedly the major version of this aircraft to see action, and examples of operational aircraft with the alternative armaments are both relatively rare and may well have been retrofits. However, due to the ready inter-changeability of the two weapons types and absent direct evidence, the exact number of production types and retrofits could not be determined.
-
i would love to see this plane added in game, it seriously needs to be. as does the Ki-44 and Ki-45
tho i am still pushing for my updated Wildcat :noid
-
+1 for scenarios - you'd have a tough time getting me to give up my Ki-84 for a Ki-43 in the MA tho.
-
Your classification claim and your insistence that the mixed 7/12mm load out is the sole and most prevalent is directly contradicted by:
A Research Study by Richard L. Dunn (c) 2002, 2004: Nakajima Type 1 Model 1 Army Fighter (Ki 43-I) Armament -- A Reassessment (part 1) http://www.warbirdforum.com/rdunn43.htm
as well as the less reliable Wikipedia article on the Ki-43 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Ki-43
...
That excellent paper you cite by R. L. Dunn concludes with this:
"Based on the evidence marshaled in this study (which admittedly does not take into account all units equipped with this aircraft much less present direct evidence as to each aircraft) the main operational version of the Ki 43-I was equipped with one 7.7mm machine gun and one 12.7mm machine cannon. This version was in operation in Indo-China and Malaya early in the War; in Burma in late 1942; and, in the Southeast Area from late 1942 to mid-1943. A captured aircraft in China confirms the version with two 12.7mm machine cannon but reinforces the impression that this configuration was limited to a small number of early production aircraft. While versions with two 7.7mm machine guns existed, they were likely retrofitted aircraft relegated to non-combat roles."
So, while some examples of the Ki-43 appear to have used either the twin-7.7mm or the twin-12.7mm set up, the mixed 7.7mm/12.7mm seems to have been the most common armament used in service.
I was startled to read that the early 12.7mm "machine cannon" sometimes had ammo explode in the barrel, and that one Fighter Regiment actually lost aircraft because of engine damage caused by this! :O
-
I made a post a while back about this topic and also was referring to Dunn here as well. Although, I was going more off of this:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm
I'm not sure why you brought this article up seadog, as it only helps what I've said. :headscratch:
EDIT: Just to nail the coffin shut:
The “received” version of the history of Ki 43-I as discussed in the Introduction is almost certainly wrong. If the Ki 43-I was originally placed in production with two 7.7mm machine guns, these early aircraft either did not go into action or were modified with one 12.7mm machine cannon prior to doing so. In early combat operations the 59th and 64th FR almost certainly operated aircraft with the mixed armament to the exclusion of the other versions. Not only does Dr. Izawa’s article state that this was the armament of the 64th FR Ki 43’s but ammunition expenditure data for the 59th FR confirms it for that unit. Three Japanese Monographs in addition to the one providing ammunition expenditure data provide general support for the mixed armament being used in early operations.
Crash intelligence regarding aircraft of the 50th and 64th FR indicates this armament was still in use by these units in Burma in October 1942.
The 1st and 11th FR took the Ki 43-I to the Southeast Area in late 1942 and early 1943. The evidence indicates that their aircraft (which represented a significant portion of the Ki 43-I fleet) were fitted with the mixed armament.
Limited examples of other versions of the Ki 43-I were found. However, even if these aircraft were produced with two 7.7mm or two 12.7mm guns and not modified in the field, their serial numbers are out of sequence with the commonly accepted history of this aircraft. The production sequence: A(2x7.7) –B(1x7.7 and 1x12.7) – C(2x12.7) clearly did not occur.
Based on the evidence marshaled in this study (which admittedly does not take into account all units equipped with this aircraft much less present direct evidence as to each aircraft) the main operational version of the Ki 43-I was equipped with one 7.7mm machine gun and one 12.7mm machine cannon. This version was in operation in Indo-China and Malaya early in the War; in Burma in October 1942; and, in the Southeast Area from late 1942 to mid-1943. A captured aircraft in China confirms the version with two 12.7mm machine cannon. While versions with two 7.7mm machine guns existed, they were likely retro-fitted aircraft relegated to non-combat roles.
-
And again, remember this is only the Ki-43-I model. Production stopped in Feb 1943 and moved to the Ki-43-II. The -I kept serving in 1943 as it was replaced. The -II began service in that summer.
Differences from the I to the II:
-I apparently had no reflector sight
-II added a reflector sight
-I had a 2-blade prop with only 2 pitches (not fixed, not constant speed)
-II had a standard constant speed 3-blade prop.
-I had no protection and pilots complained about the effect of superficial damage
-II added basic pilot armor, some fuel tank protection, etc
-I performance was much lower
-II had a more powerful engine, ejector stubs for more thrust, shorter wings for more speed down low.
(It will be interesting to see if HTC can model a 2-pitch screw like that. Maybe add part of the engine-over-rev from the WW1 arena onto the Ki-43-I, where you overrev and damage the engine?)
There are more, but from a top-down I think those would be the main characteristics that separate them.
There is an interesting comment from the warbirdforum.com on Joe Baugher's Ki-43 page. It says:
...when the 64th Sentai was reequipped with Ki-43-II models in April 1942, both nose guns were large-caliber. However, the rate of fire was so slow that many or most pilots had one gun taken out and replaced with a faster-firing 7.7mm. These were the models that fought the AVG on 28 April 1942 near Lashio, Burma.
So while the 12.7mm may have been more common on the -II (I can't say for sure) it appears the same problems were still in place that drove the -I to use the mixed armaments.
(Link: http://www.warbirdforum.com/hayabus2.htm down towards the comments area)
EDIT: Also regarding the -III (just as a side note) these did not begin production until December 1944. The war was nearly over. They were used in homeland defense often in the suicide role. They had more powerful engines but most of them still had the same 12.7mm armament. Some are reported to have had 20mm installed, but how many and where and when, is unclear. There's a bit of a debate from what I gather as to whether that's a prototype or a field test rather than a production run.
-
Your classification claim and your insistence that the mixed 7/12mm load out is the sole and most prevalent is directly contradicted by:
... the mixed armament version ... was introduced very early in the production run (prior to the outbreak of the Pacific War) [and] was undoubtedly the major version of this aircraft to see action
that doesnt contradict what Krusty wrote, it backs it up.
if you're going to wade in like that, perhaps you should get your facts straight first. losing the attitude would also make it more likely that people will listen to you too ... :rolleyes:
edit: btw how much HE was in those .50s and were all rounds loaded exploding? as cannon rounds go, they're not very big ...
-
No, not very much. you find the same thing in the Italian 12.7mm and in the German MG131. The content was explosive, but overall not nearly as much as on a 20mm. It's also likely they had mixed beltings (as both the IT and GE guns did) where not all rounds are HE, but only 1 or 2 out of every 5 or so were.
In Aces High we have averaged round damage, so I imagine it would be exactly the same damage as the nose guns on the Ki84 and the wing guns on the Ki61, but maybe with a much slower rate of fire. Some sources suggest the 900rpm dropped to 400rpm when synchronized. Hence why pilots wanted that 7mm.
-
I flew the 84 a bit for the first time last tour and noticed the .50s seemed to be pretty hard hitting, I assumed it was because they were cowl-mounted so no convergence issues. learn something every day :aok
-
They're respectable, to be sure. I'm not sure the gun is the exact same (I haven't checked) but round for round, I expect the damage to be that same level. Weaker than a .50cal US gun. ROF should be a lot lower.
-
This version please:
Ki-43-IIIb (Mark 3b) - Variant armed with 20 mm cannons.
>> Total production amounted to 5,919 aircraft.
>> In spite of its drawbacks, the Ki-43 shot down more Allied aircraft than any other Japanese fighter and almost all the JAAF'S aces achieved most of their kills in it.
Good enough for me. +1
-
This version please:
Ki-43-IIIb (Mark 3b) - Variant armed with 20 mm cannons.
Only two prototypes were built.
-
+1 for the Ki-43. :aok (Toss in the He-111 H-11 while we're at it. :D)
-
yes on ki43m and volron knows what he is talking about.
-
The reason for barrel explosions could also have been caused by the usage of "raw" explosive in HE ammunition. While Germans used e.g. clay to stabilize their explosives the Japanese were not too concerned by this and used them "raw" for most effect. It could also be caused by defective fusing in ammo since there were reports that HS 404 had this problem too that some rounds exploded right after leaving the barrel and some even in the barrel.
-C+
-
I like this wish to much to see it fall to the second page so quickly.
The Ki-43II would be a great challenge for the LWA and would draw the same kinds of pilots as other planes of its class. I cant wait for the first FSO that I get to fly a Oscar :aok
-
As far as filling holes in the planeset, the Ki-43-I remained in frontline service well through 1943. The Ki-43-II was a late war bird.
To really fill holes (like, say the Rangoon scenario running now) we would need the -I more than the -II. I can't imagine why we'd get one without the other, but just in case I thought I'd mention which is more important :)
-
Ki-43-II would be a mid-war aircraft as it entered service in Dec. of 1942. Don't know where you're getting late war for it.
-
I was just thinking that if we got the II with all of the gun packs, then the CM's could just limit the Gun pack of the II to the I's most common loadout for the early war setups. Best of both worlds.
-
:noid PBY-5A :noid
Edit: I'm sorry let me reiterate so people don't think me ignorant. we still do think your ingnorant
1) Ki-43 only has 2 12.7mm machine gun with 250 rpg. Bearly enough to kill someone unless a very good shot.i can get a kill in the SBD5 anyday
2) Even PBY has more guns and payload but is big fat week airframe
3) Ki-43 would be even bigger hanger queen then PBY would ever be. the G4M1 is a hanger qreen who cares i fly them from time to time plus the PBY sucks
PBY sucks because:
1) has no role
2) even if it has more guns its not a fighter so it can not turn
3) PBY is not even near has good has the KI43 in defending itself
4) KI43 is needed in the SEA arena the PBY is not
-
PBY sucks because:
1) has no role
2) even if it has more guns its not a fighter so it can not turn
3) PBY is not even near has good has the KI43 in defending itself
4) KI43 is needed in the SEA arena the PBY is not
You mean it can't maneuver like a fighter because the PBY could most certainly turn. It wouldn't have been a very good design decision to make plane that couldn't turn.
The PBY was a patrol craft with 4 defensive gun positions and was capable of defending itself. Of course, not being a fighter it was hampered as it could not use maneuvering to help defend itself but it's guns still downed many a Japanese fighters.
ack-ack
-
Olds Id like to know why u say the g4m is a hanger queen, the g4m is a goo bomber I use it all the time, great climb speed descent bomb load.
PBY- as with ack ack said can defend itself an has a good torpedo load out of 4 I think. It has defensive guns to ward off some planes.
-
PBY- as with ack ack said can defend itself an has a good torpedo load out of 4 I think. It has defensive guns to ward off some planes.
with a top speed of 190mph at 15k wouldn't matter how many defensive guns it had...even a stuka could catch it and bnz it til it went down.
-
with a top speed of 190mph at 15k wouldn't matter how many defensive guns it had...even a stuka could catch it and bnz it til it went down.
How about dive and drop the bomb it carried?
-
Karnak: It wasn't instant. They trickled in. The Ki-43-I was the most common variant well through 1943. Ki-43-II didn't become noticed until later '43, and '44. From what I've read at least.
I was just thinking that if we got the II with all of the gun packs, then the CM's could just limit the Gun pack of the II to the I's most common loadout for the early war setups. Best of both worlds.
What guns options? They'd have 1x 7m and 1x12.7mm, or 2x 12.7mm. That's the only options the Ki-43-II would have.
-
+1 for Ki-43
with a top speed of 190mph at 15k wouldn't matter how many defensive guns it had...even a stuka could catch it and bnz it til it went down.
:rofl, the sad this is that it's true.
-
I like the idea of the 43 as a pure maneuver fighter. Killing would require saddling up and executing marksmanlike kill shots. I wouldn't want to take on bombers with it but would feel pretty good about using it versus fighters. For an even more extreme example of this type of EW Japanese TnB a/c, we should also get the Ki-27. Consider the hilarity of fighting Ki-27 versus P-40B.
Now, about that Ki-44 Tojo or the J4M...
-
For an even more extreme example of this type of EW Japanese TnB a/c, we should also get the Ki-27. Consider the hilarity of fighting Ki-27 versus P-40B.
For all intensive purposes, the D3A makes a good substitute for the ki-27.
-
For all intensive purposes, the D3A makes a good substitute for the ki-27.
Intents and purposes...
*sigh*
-
Now, now, don't be too harsh about that one. It's a common mistake. I learned it wrong as well, because it's one of those things you pick up verbally rather than in written format. The incorrect words are learned and used until they seem right without knowing the real words.
-
Let's say I've seen far worse - people using "mute" for "moot" or "animate" for "adamant"... Still, intensive purposes BUGS ilo intents and purposes and he was right to kill it in the crib - and without acrimony.
-
moot/mute bugs me in the same way :lol
I've seen the worse, too, where folks read a word and then don't know how to say it. It's happened to me (when I was a kid) but some adults I've known couldn't pronounce words like epitome when they read it. "Ep-ihh-tome" (i.e. tome, a volume of litrature)... They had no clue what it was til I corrected them, then the light went on over their heads.
'Course the words I screwed up were mostly aviation related. I read in the books what horizon was (as in, artificial) but when I said it I got it wrong, lol. My excuse was I was probably all of 8 years old. To my defense, I was sitting in a Huey cockpit at an airshow and the pilot was asking me if I knew any of the instruments. I could point out all the major ones, at least. :D
-
For all intensive purposes, the D3A makes a good substitute for the ki-27.
D3A1 is about 40-50mph slower than the Ki-27. If we had a D3A2 we'd be much better off in that regard.
-
moot/mute bugs me in the same way :lol
I've seen the worse, too, where folks read a word and then don't know how to say it. It's happened to me (when I was a kid) but some adults I've known couldn't pronounce words like epitome when they read it. "Ep-ihh-tome" (i.e. tome, a volume of litrature)... They had no clue what it was til I corrected them, then the light went on over their heads.
'Course the words I screwed up were mostly aviation related. I read in the books what horizon was (as in, artificial) but when I said it I got it wrong, lol. My excuse was I was probably all of 8 years old. To my defense, I was sitting in a Huey cockpit at an airshow and the pilot was asking me if I knew any of the instruments. I could point out all the major ones, at least. :D
the absolute worst one is woman vs women...i can't even fathom the number of english speaking americans that do not know the difference, it's too many to contemplate without getting a migraine.
-
D3A1 is about 40-50mph slower than the Ki-27. If we had a D3A2 we'd be much better off in that regard.
Thank you. I was about to question both the wingloading and speed but didn't have time to go check data. I'd still like to see former for an unladen D3A1.
-
moot/mute bugs me in the same way :lol
I've seen the worse, too, where folks read a word and then don't know how to say it. It's happened to me (when I was a kid) but some adults I've known couldn't pronounce words like epitome when they read it. "Ep-ihh-tome" (i.e. tome, a volume of litrature)... They had no clue what it was til I corrected them, then the light went on over their heads.
'Course the words I screwed up were mostly aviation related. I read in the books what horizon was (as in, artificial) but when I said it I got it wrong, lol. My excuse was I was probably all of 8 years old. To my defense, I was sitting in a Huey cockpit at an airshow and the pilot was asking me if I knew any of the instruments. I could point out all the major ones, at least. :D
For all in tents of porpoises, it's pretty much the sane. Maror or less. ;)
-
I'd still like to see former for an unladen D3A1.
Right after reading that, I thought "African? Or European?"
-
I thought "You mean to tell me Vals is migratory??"
-
I thought "You mean to tell me Vals is migratory??"
African Vals are non-migratory so they couldn't carry a coconut anyway.
-
African Vals are non-migratory so they couldn't carry a coconut anyway.
Narrator: Meanwhile, not more than two swallow's flights away, Arthur and Bedivere had discovered something. Oh, that's an unladen swallow's flight away, obviously. There were more than two laden swallow's flights away, four really, if they had the coconut on a line between them. I mean, if the birds were walking, and dragging the coconut...
Army: Get on with it!
Narrator: And now on to scene 24. A smashing scene with some lovely acting, in which Arthur discovers a vital clue, and in which there aren't any swallows, though I think you can hear a starling...
(http://i2.listal.com/image/1857824/936full-monty-python-and-the-holy-grail-screenshot.jpg)
-
Skuzzy: Meanwhile, not more than two Val's flights away, Pyro and Waffle had discovered something. Oh, that's an unladen Val's flight away, obviously. There were more than two laden Val's flights away, four really, if they had the coconut on a line between them. I mean, if the birds were walking, and dragging the coconut...
Hitech: Giet on weth idt!
Skuzzy: And now on to scene 24. A smashing scene with some lovely acting, in which Arthur discovers a vital clue, and in which there aren't any Vals, though I think you can hear a Zeke...
Fixed
It takes effort to spell like Hitech...
-
They're respectable, to be sure. I'm not sure the gun is the exact same (I haven't checked) but round for round, I expect the damage to be that same level. Weaker than a .50cal US gun. ROF should be a lot lower.
The damage of the .50 caliber machine guns in AH have close enough damage values to hardly make an argument for which one is more powerful. Like Krusty started to shed light on, the rate of fire and ballistics are going to play a larger role when comparing .50 caliber wepons. More often, if the .50 calibers are cowl mounted they have a reduced rate of fire compared to the wing mounted platforms.
The Ki-61 "Tony" has the 20mm cannons in the cowling and the .50 caliber MG's in the wing. I have not checked the rate of fire but the Jap's might have been on to something. The RoF with the 20mm is going to be slower regardless so why not put them in the cowling and let the MG's have full use of half of their typcial benefit: RoF???
-
Just as a side note I was checking ROF last night.
For the Ki61:
500 12.7mm: 17 s = ~ 882 rpm
240 20mm: 9 s = ~ 800 rpm
For the Ki84 (because its guns are in the nose, sync'd)
700 rds 12.7mm firing time: 22 s = ~ 954 rpm
300 rds 20mm firing time: 11 s = ~ 818 rpm
For the C2, because that's what I think of when I think of slow lumbering sync'd 12.7mm guns
12.7mm firing time: 35 s = ~ 634 rpm
7mm firing time: 38 s = ~ 789 rpm
For comparison I think unsync'd .50cal go 800 rpm.
EDIT: The US .50cal is 1.23x more powerful than the Breda SAFAT according to this:
http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/guns/guns.htm
-
Oscar :aok
Before 2012...... :noid
-
The KI43 shot down more allied aircraft than any other type.
It also downed many b29s.
That said, what is up with the modeling of the japanese 12.7 vs the allies 50 caliber?
Does the 12.7 disappear beyond d600 while the 50 caliber from a waist gunner in a bomber hits hard enough to kill a fighter flying beside it at d1500?
Don't say lag...I flew beside him at that distance for a very long time letting it happen because I wanted to remove lag from the equation.
-
There are too many threads that cover that already. Probably should hijack this one to discuss it again.
-
OK....using the search word "muzzle" seems to return those topics under search but not much more.
Back on topic.....thie ki43 is pretty important.
-
Back to the Ki-43 :aok
-
For use in various special events, please add the Ki-43.
At over 5900 produced, it was the most numerous of all the planes used by the IJA, and served on every front, right to the end of the war.
The Tillamook Air Museum (http://www.tillamookair.com) has what is likely the world's only remaining airworthy example:
(http://www.tillamookair.com/assets/images/Ki-14jpg.jpg)
How strong was the airframe?...
From just looking at it, it looks like you could snap the tail right off it if you came in for a rough landing.
-
How strong was the airframe?...
From just looking at it, it looks like you could snap the tail right off it if you came in for a rough landing.
I can show you footage of an F6F snapping its tail off on landing.
The Ki-43 was not structurally strong, known to break up in the air from .50 fire. G force wise it will be fine as it is a light aircraft, but it would be the most fragile aircraft in the game when it comes to taking fire. The exception here is that the Ki-43-II had pilot armor and rudimentary self sealing tanks and the Ki-43-III had real self sealing tanks.
-
How strong was the airframe?...
From just looking at it, it looks like you could snap the tail right off it if you came in for a rough landing.
Funny, I see that in the gear strut sizing. It's got some of the spindliest looking gear I've ever seen - and that means either a light airframe or a design condition that assumes the pilot is setting it down gently. In the case of the Japanese, I'd expect the former.
-
I once saw an interview with a Japanese wartime pilot of the Ki-43 who wasn't very complimentary about the aircraft at all but explained it was what they had to work with so they got on with it.
I'm currently trying to find the video again...
-
The exception here is that the Ki-43-II had pilot armor and rudimentary self sealing tanks and the Ki-43-III had real self sealing tanks.
It would be nice if we got the I and the III. Would fill it out nicely. :cheers:
-
It would be nice if we got the I and the III. Would fill it out nicely. :cheers:
I, II and III are all needed.
-
Where, exactly, and during what time frame, would the Ki-43-III play a role in a potential scenario or FSO?
I think I know the answer already from previous discussions. It wasn't even built until December of 1944, and its main claim to fame is some limited fighting over Burma(?) and homeland defense where better planes had already replaced it.
-
Where, exactly, and during what time frame, would the Ki-43-III play a role in a potential scenario or FSO?
I think I know the answer already from previous discussions. It wasn't even built until December of 1944, and its main claim to fame is some limited fighting over Burma(?) and homeland defense where better planes had already replaced it.
You were shown that you were wrong on that, stop lying. It was in combat before Dec. 1944.
-
No, 10 limited preproduction models were tested in combat before that. Actual production lines of the aircraft did NOT begin until December. YOU were proven wrong on that.
-
You were shown that you were wrong on that, stop lying. It was in combat before Dec. 1944.
No, 10 limited preproduction models were tested in combat before that. Actual production lines of the aircraft did NOT begin until December. YOU were proven wrong on that.
The 48th Hiko Sentai received their Ki-43 IIIs in August of 1944.
The 64th Sentai received their Ki-43 IIIs in September of 1944.
The 54th Hiko Sentai received their Ki-43 IIIs in October of 1944.
The 33rd Hiko Sentai received their Ki-43 IIIs in November of 1944.
The first deliveries of the Ki-43 III to these units were not pre-production test models but actual production models straight from the factories.
ack-ack
-
Where, exactly, and during what time frame, would the Ki-43-III play a role in a potential scenario or FSO?
For example battle of the Philippines where allied forces retook the islands. Ki-43-IIIs saw significant use during the fighting.
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/ki-43-iii.jpg)
-
No, 10 limited preproduction models were tested in combat before that. Actual production lines of the aircraft did NOT begin until December. YOU were proven wrong on that.
Given you have provided no supporting evidence beyond "Krusty said so" I can't accept your statement. Come back with evidence and try again. While you're at it, look at the evidence supplied elsewhere.
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/ki-43-iii_2.jpg)
-
Another gem from Krusty's Imaginarium (http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/facepalm.gif)
-
The only shortcoming I can find w/r Messrs. Ack, Maker, and Karnak's citations was a failure to provide source information. Otherwise, I find the balance of evidence pretty compelling. Had they provided source, arguments counter might attempt to impeach said source(s) - but it looks like an uphill battle. Thus, I'd say there's a pretty good case for inclusion of the III.
As for Shida, well, I'll file "imaginarium" right next to "insaniquarium" in my big book of rhetorical devices, but only with a grim chuckle.
-
Yes I apologise. But how else can you deal with Krusty? He is like the Energizer Bunny of unsupported claims and he doesn't understand or respect academic method or listen to anyone else. Ever :rolleyes:
-
The only shortcoming I can find w/r Messrs. Ack, Maker, and Karnak's citations was a failure to provide source information.
I mentioned the source in earlier thread. Previous experience has shown that posting sources for Krusty is utterly useless but I'll post this for others to see:
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Ki-43-%E2%80%98Oscar%E2%80%99-Aces-of-World-War-2_9781846034084 (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Ki-43-%E2%80%98Oscar%E2%80%99-Aces-of-World-War-2_9781846034084)
(http://www.ospreypublishing.com/images/books/covers/9781846034084.JPG)
About the author:
Hiroshi Ichimura is the son of a JAAF wartime pilot. He has worked as the editor of various modeling magazines in Japan since 1981, and is presently editor-in-chief of Scale Aviation. His publishing house, Dai Nippon Kaiga, has also been releasing Japanese-language Osprey series titles in Japan since 2000 ? indeed, he has translated five of them. The author/co-author of four JAAF-related titles, this is his first book for Osprey.
...a mere amateur compared to Krusty, off course.
EDIT/From an earlier thread: In Japanese publication called Aero Detail #29 Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar" HAYABUSA the Ki-43-III prodution is said to have been 1727 aircraft from July '44 till end of the war (serials 7001-8727)./EDIT
-
Well, it had some flair, Shida, and I'm not the arbiter anyway.
Otherwise, Maker, so noted.
-
The only shortcoming I can find w/r Messrs. Ack, Maker, and Karnak's citations was a failure to provide source information. Otherwise, I find the balance of evidence pretty compelling. Had they provided source, arguments counter might attempt to impeach said source(s) - but it looks like an uphill battle. Thus, I'd say there's a pretty good case for inclusion of the III.
As for Shida, well, I'll file "imaginarium" right next to "insaniquarium" in my big book of rhetorical devices, but only with a grim chuckle.
Japanese Naval Air Force Fighter Units and Their Aces, 1932-1945 (http://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Naval-Force-Fighter-1932-1945/dp/1906502846/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311296473&sr=8-1)
Fiance bought me that book a couple of years ago but finally got around to reading it while I've been convalescing at home over the summer, it's an updated version of the book of the same name that was printed in 1989.
There is this site from someone that has posted the same information from the 1989 printing of the book.
Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units
1931 - 1945 (http://members.fortunecity.com/gurney/IJAAF/IJAAF.html)
ack-ack
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/ki-43-iii.jpg)
If that Ki-43 III was from the 20th, most likely the drop tank was for the ferry flight from one of their three bases in Taiwan and not from escaping the Philippines like the caption suggests.
ack-ack
-
Ack, Maker, and Karnak's citations was a failure to provide source information. Otherwise, I find the balance of evidence pretty
Forgot to include this in my reply. J-Aircraft (http://www.j-aircraft.com/) is an excellent online resource for Japanese aircraft. Nothing to do with this thread but people may find some pretty interesting stuff about Japanese aircraft.
ack-ack
-
Wading through the verbal bullplop a few members can only contribute....
I think that some of those units are receiving preproduction airframes. They may not have been called preproduction, but the Japanese had a history of field-testing planes to prove them ready (or not). On the other hand we also have multiple renowned authors quoting the start-date for actual serial production of the Ki-43-III. Green, Francillion, others.
Nakajima stopped producing the Ki-43-II in favor of the Ki-84. It was up to one factory (Tachikawa) to continue Ki-43 production. After this they began producing the Ki-43-III. We know that Nakajima decided against the Ki-43-III in favor of the Ki-84, so the time they stop producing Ki-43-IIs and start producing Ki-84s is also an indication of when the Ki-43 began rolling off production lines.
Citing:
Bergerud (2000)
Francillon (1979)
Molesworth (2008)
This page: http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/K/i/Ki-43_Oscar.htm
Breaks down the production dates. The lines get blurred because Tachikawa produced Ki-43-IIs along with the Ki-43-III development, and I don't see many sources breaking down the specific numbers. However, we know that Nakajima stopped production of the Ki-43-II in 10/1944. Therefore the production of the -III would fall on Tachikawa after this date. Nakajima is suggested to have made some of the early 1944 prototypes but no production models.
Joe Baugher can be quoted as saying:
"The Ki-43-IIIa was the last Hayabusa variant. Ten prototypes were built starting in May of 1944. It was similar in airframe and armament to the Ki-43 KAI, but was powered by a Najajima Ha-115-II Sakae air-cooled radial rated at 1230 hp at 9185 feet. This engine employed individual exhaust stacks to provide a certain amount of exhaust thrust augmentation. Production began in December of 1944, most of the aircraft being built by Tachikawa Hikoki K.K.."
(as noted previously in other threads:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/hayabus2.htm )
On this j-aircraft production breakdown for the Ki-43 we find similar dates:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/main/newkits/ki43desc.htm
"10 Ki-43-III prototypes (May 1944 - Aug 1945)
Tachikawa Hikoki K.K. at Tachikawa
2629 Ki-43-II & Ki-43-IIIa production aircraft (May 1943-Aug 1945)
2 Ki-43-IIIb prototypes(spring 1945)
Tachikawa Dai-Ichi Rikugun Kokusho at Tachikawa"
Those are the production numbers for Ki-43-IIIs, and note again it lumps Ki-43-II dates along with this, because Tachikawa was producing thousands of Ki-43-IIs throughout the war before switching to the Ki-43-III variant.
Referencing several books including Francillion, this is a fairly good write-up of the Ki-43:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=28823&sid=501b41c3e46de622c0471990c6383c39
Although it doesn't specify dates, all the rest of the details supporting Tachikawa are there, reinforcing the rest of this post. See "Pt. 9" of the discussion.
Now as for total production numbers, one or two online places list 1000 Ki-43-III frames out of the total 2600 from Tachikawa, such as:
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_nakajima_ki-43.html
But it's vague on some of the details and sources cited.
A number of early prototypes were built before December. In fact, earlier in the year as early as May. Do not confuse these with production types. They were used in combat units to field-test the aircraft. This is not unique to the Ki-43-III, and you will also find other units did the same with different airframes (Ki-44 prototypes were flying and fighting over Rangoon, for example -- but again not to be confused with production models).
Commentary on a preproduction Ki-43-III in use with 64th over Burma, so we know the 64th was in the habit of receiving early airframes for combat testing:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=6015
(Just the easiest reference I can find on google right now.)
We know they also fielded early model (prototype) Ki-44s as well at one point.
So as you can see the early 1944 dates are counting the prototypes. The development phase. This continued through half the year. It may be unclear if 10 were made in May 1944, and then more prototypes as the year progressed, or if it means 10 up until full production. You can also see that series production (serial production) did not begin until the end of the year.
The airplane was built in only one plant. All sources on this plant state the same date for production of this airplane at this plant. Therefore any airplanes before this time (before the production date) must be something other than production craft. They must be preproduction models, whether you want to call them "prototype" or not.
So what is more likely? That all the sources (all sharing the same details) stating when the ONLY factory that made this plane began its production are wrong? Or that the units you're talking about received preproduction models, which we have already seen they did regularly, to test in combat?
For example you might say "Here's an entry from a book showing a Ki-43" -- I'm not denouncing the book as wrong per se. I'm saying that's not a production-run airframe.
So far the only photos I've ever seen of a Ki-43-III fall into 3 categories: 1) circa 1945, sometimes kamikazes 2) airfield wrecks or post-war captures impossible to date (can't say they were there before 10/1944), 3) one instance of a prototype with unusual camo over Burma. I'd be interested to see a Ki-43-III production model from 1944. 1000 were made, right? Surely with the overabundance of Japanese photos on every plane type they had, personal photos, anything like that... Surely there are photos of 64th Sentai's runway with a dozen airframes lined up ready for action? 48th Sentai? 33rd?
P.S. I'm not really all that against them as an inclusion into AH. What I'm arguing is the details about the history of the plane. As a tangent I think they serve little purpose and fill a very small hole in the planeset because of that. So far the history doesn't support claims of widespread use in 1944. The use was limited. We have cited production start dates. We have units known to fly preproduction models in combat. We have established practices of the IJA. From that you can paint a picture.
-
Given you have provided no supporting evidence beyond "Krusty said so" I can't accept your statement. Come back with evidence and try again. While you're at it, look at the evidence supplied elsewhere.
I have provided much more than "krusty said so" and you have seen it before. In several threads now.
WMaker: Before you slipped back to your personal vendetta to insult me, you had a productive post. I'll grant you the Philippines used -IIIs (assuming you are right -- AckAck seems to bring a different light on that photo), and that this was a hotbed of combat, however with all the airframes in use with the Philippines the potential planeset can be filled with many other aircraft of similar or better performance. From AH's standpoint a single region with minimal use of 1 airframe makes it "very" needed? At the same time in history the Ki-44 was out in numbers, the late-model zeros were numerous, we had Ki-84s (the real replacement to the Ki-43-II) and N1Ks and other such airframes. It adds something, yes. I still say it adds very little to an already colorful setup.
AckAck: You seem more knowledgable than "some others" here on this topic. What's your take (be objective, be honest) on the importance of the Ki-43-III and its role in the bigger picture, vis-a-vis its importance to the AH planeset?
-
This is a good response, K. I think the real question, as you've indicated, surrounds the Tachikawa production.I can find no data on the mix between IIs and IIIs there over the period cited. It is also clear that there were 12 "prototypes" of the III made outside Tachikawa.
Anyway, if anyone can crack the Tachikawa nut, I think we've got this one solved. If there was no menaingful III prodution there prior to 12/44, Krusty's argument holds water. If, otoh, there was significant III production there, it does not. I don't think a logic argument will be sufficient here, either, since the lead time required to tool for the jump form II-III is a matter of speculation.
I wonder if those production records survive?
As for your other arg w/r significance in the Phillipines campaign, I find it more compelling if also more subjective. Here again, though, the numbers of III's in the field at the time are material.
Otherwise, that's how we should argue. Patricians used to say the Plebians were unsuited to debate because they let their emotions enter the fray. This last page, despite a little rhetorical needling, the debate has been elevated to the standards of farting through silk -which is to say it beats copping a reesentment and jumping to conclusions about a bunch of guys scattered across the globe, many of whom we've never met.
-
Yup, first respectable post I've seen from Krusty. Citing references and substantiating his claims. That's all we ask :aok
-
Keep in mind that by Krusty's criteria the Bf109K-4 wouldn't be a good addition or needed either....nor the Spitfire Mk XIV or Spitfire Mk XVI or P-47N or P-47M or La-7 or Fw190D-9 or C.205 or F4U-1C or F4U-4 or N1K2-J or Ki-67 or Ar234 or Me163 or Tiger II....
-
Agreed, but his research and presentation method is at least credible for once (I do not comment on its accuracy because I know very little about this aircraft).
It's never been clear to me that HiTech / HTC's criteria for selecting planes for inclusion is meant to reflect a proportionate amount of production aircraft anyway. It seems to mostly be an assumption on the part of some of the forum members about that issue. I'd far rather include the types and variants that add diversity and bring something fun to the party any day of the week. If you're going to all the trouble of making the 3d model in the first place, and the external differences are not so significant, then why not add all three of them. Three planes for the price of one and a half.
-
Ki-43. What a sexy beast.
-
Keep in mind that by Krusty's criteria the Bf109K-4 wouldn't be a good addition or needed either....nor the Spitfire Mk XIV or Spitfire Mk XVI or P-47N or P-47M or La-7 or Fw190D-9 or C.205 or F4U-1C or F4U-4 or N1K2-J or Ki-67 or Ar234 or Me163 or Tiger II....
Exactly.
We are talking about a variant of an aircraft that was the backbone of the IJAAF. Despite of Krusty's crying, it deserves to be depicted with similar variety as the fighters of the USAAF for example.
-
i think they even had the kamikaze variant as well...
-
No kamikaze needed. Just the fighter and figher bomber variants would be great. :rock
-
No kamikaze needed. Just the fighter and figher bomber variants would be great. :rock
any new plane would be really good... :salute
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-941.jpg)
:pray
-
:pray
-
HTC could we please have our Ki-43 soon please?
Thanks. :)
-
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, etc., etc., etc,
-
:cheers: and here's to hoping that when we do get it, we get all the versions for it...or at least the I and the II
We are greedy but greatfull :eek:
-
:pray
-
+1 for the Oscar
-
+1 for the Oscar as well. This is a much needed addition to the AH planeset. Would go great with scenarios, snapshots, AvA setups, and for general gameplay.
-
KI43 FTW!!!!!!!! :rock
-
Shut the front door. I'll take one.
-
AckAck: You seem more knowledgable than "some others" here on this topic. What's your take (be objective, be honest) on the importance of the Ki-43-III and its role in the bigger picture, vis-a-vis its importance to the AH planeset?
Sorry for the lateness of this reply.
I believe that the Ki-43 is one of those planes that has been over looked for quite some time for it's inclusion in AH. Frankly, I don't know why, maybe because HiTech and gang have been happy with having the Zeke substitute for the Ki-43. Whatever the reasons why it's not in the game, it should be. It was a very important aircraft for the Japanese, more so than the Zeke. It was the primary fighter for the IJAF after replacing the Ki-27 and I believe had a better record than the Zeke.
Now, with the Ki-43 III in particular...does this plane have a place in AH? Yes, it does. Why? Because it represents the evolution of the main fighter type for the IJAF. Just like we have the P-38G, J and L, P-51B, P-51D and a myriad of other examples in game, there is no real reason why the Ki-43 III should be any different.
I know there is some argument about the production numbers but there is ample evidence that the Ki-43 III did serve in squadron numbers prior to December 1944. I posted in an earlier post just a few of the squadrons that were being equipped with the Ki-43 III in the late summmer/fall of 1944. These squadrons didn't receive the prototypes for testing, these were production Ki-43 IIIs out of the Tachikawa plant and 1st Army Air Arsenal and there were at least 5-6 more sentais and I think probably around 3-4 chutais that recieved the Ki-43 III. These were also crack IJAF squadrons based on the Chinese mainland, Formosa and the Philippines and later on the home islands. It wasn't until later that the kamikazi units get the Ki-43.
I can't find the thread anymore over at J-Planes but there was a thread that talked about the production of the Ki-43 and listed 1,000 Ki-43 IIIs built at Tachikawa and 49 built at 1st Army Air Arsenal. Problem is that a lot of records were destroyed by the Japanese so we may really never get an accurate production number or an accurate number of Ki-43 IIIs that reached IJAF units. One thing for certain though is that more than just prototypes did make their ways to IJAF units.
ack-ack
-
Ack, recall that that was the nub of the question. The Tachikawa plant produced a known aggregate number of II's and III's - some 2900. Problem was, we had no reliable data on how many of each. Now, if you have reliable evidence that says that Tachikawa Type III's were making it, in production-variant squad-strength volumes to Sentais, then I think all arguments against Type III inclusion are moot.
This is just the cherry on top of your otherwise persuasive argument from precedent - i.e. we have other late-war variants that didn't see that much action (e.g., F4U-4 - only present for the last 4 months of the war).
-
These are the IJAF sentais and chutais that received the Ki-43 III. I've highlighted the ones that received the Ki-43 III after December 1944, notice how many got their Ki-43 IIIs prior to December 1944.
13th Hiko Sentai
Ki-43 III Oct-44 Spring 45
20th Hiko Sentai
Ki-43 III Feb-45 Aug-45
23rd Hiko Sentai
Ki-43 III Nov-44 Aug-45
24th Hiko Sentai
Ki-43 III spring 45 Aug-45
10th Dokuritsu Hiko Chutai - became 25th Hiko Sentai Oct-42
Ki-43 III Nov-44 Mar-45
26th Hiko Sentai
Ki-43 III Jan-45 Aug-45
30th Hiko Sentai
Ki-43 III sum 44 May-45
33rd Hiko Sentai
Ki-43 III Nov-44 Aug-45
48th Hiko Sentai
Ki-43 III Aug-44 Aug-45
54th Hiko Sentai (24th Independent Flying Chutai)
Ki-43 III Oct-44 Aug-45
64th Sentai (2nd Hiko Daitai; 9th Dokuritsu Hiko Chutai)
Ki-43 III Sep-44 Aug-45
204th Hiko Sentai
Ki-43 III Dec-44 Aug-45
1st Field Reserved Group, Fighter Unit (71st Dokuritsu Hiko Chutai)
Ki-43 III Jan-45 Aug-45 71st I F Chutai
Out of 13 sentais and chutais, only 4 received the Ki-43 III after December 1944 and clearly shows that IJAF units did start to receive the Ki-43 III as early as the summer of 1944.
ack-ack
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-953.jpg)
:pray
-
These are the IJAF sentais and chutais that received the Ki-43 III. I've highlighted the ones that received the Ki-43 III after December 1944, notice how many got their Ki-43 IIIs prior to December 1944.
...
Out of 13 sentais and chutais, only 4 received the Ki-43 III after December 1944 and clearly shows that IJAF units did start to receive the Ki-43 III as early as the summer of 1944.
Out of curiosity and to stave off any attempt to impeach what appears to be compelling material that says Tachikawa produced the III in significant quantity well prior to Dec '44, what was your source on this data?
-
Out of curiosity and to stave off any attempt to impeach what appears to be compelling material that says Tachikawa produced the III in significant quantity well prior to Dec '44, what was your source on this data?
from a previous post in this thread.
Japanese Naval Air Force Fighter Units and Their Aces, 1932-1945 (http://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Naval-Force-Fighter-1932-1945/dp/1906502846/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311296473&sr=8-1)
Fiance bought me that book a couple of years ago but finally got around to reading it while I've been convalescing at home over the summer, it's an updated version of the book of the same name that was printed in 1989.
There is this site from someone that has posted the same information from the 1989 printing of the book.
Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units
1931 - 1945 (http://members.fortunecity.com/gurney/IJAAF/IJAAF.html)
ack-ack
-
My bad for asking for the repost. Unfotunately, your source is a website. On the upside, the site cites source as: Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units And Their Aces 1931-1945, Ikuhiko Hata, Yasuho Izawa and Christopher Shores.
This book is available here: http://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Naval-Force-Fighter-1932-1945/dp/1906502846 and appears to be something like Esquemelings seminal bit on Buccaneers - something akin to a sole source. Shores is a late add; a British historian.
I think this is as close to a putaway as we're going to get on this one. The III appears to be a legitimate late-war entity, at least as much so as the F4u-4, for example.
-
There seems to be a bit of a double standard there. People will argue that all sorts of variants are needed, but it seems the legitimacy of the need for variants depends on nationality. If it is German, then by all means the Bf109E-7 is a crucial addition as it allows the Bf109E-4 performance with a drop tank or a bomb, but a Japanese fighter that adds 30mph over its predecessor, nah, that isn't needed at all as it isn't significant enough. US, German and British stuff is treated differently than Russian, Italian and Japanese stuff.
Now, this is only in reference to the players, HTC is limited by the data availability and for them, I am sure, it is easier to get the data needed for American, German and British aircraft.
-
My bad for asking for the repost. Unfotunately, your source is a website. On the upside, the site cites source as: Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units And Their Aces 1931-1945, Ikuhiko Hata, Yasuho Izawa and Christopher Shores.
No, my actual source is the book, which I have the recent updated reprinting. The stuff I copied and pasted in this thread came from the website which is the same exact information from the book as its information is from the original 1989 printing. Unfortunately, both versions don't have the numbers of Ki-43 IIIs that were sent to these squadrons prior to December 1944.
ack-ack
-
There seems to be a bit of a double standard there. People will argue that all sorts of variants are needed, but it seems the legitimacy of the need for variants depends on nationality. If it is German, then by all means the Bf109E-7 is a crucial addition as it allows the Bf109E-4 performance with a drop tank or a bomb, but a Japanese fighter that adds 30mph over its predecessor, nah, that isn't needed at all as it isn't significant enough. US, German and British stuff is treated differently than Russian, Italian and Japanese stuff.
Now, this is only in reference to the players, HTC is limited by the data availability and for them, I am sure, it is easier to get the data needed for American, German and British aircraft.
Of course it's harder to get the Japanese stuff because, even in cases in which data is available, translation is hard to come by. I'd argue collaterally, though that one good argument in favor of variant addition is workload. The example you cite of e-7 is an excellent one since it looks to be a consumable mass addition and thus a cheap date. I've never heard any f/b from the "coaders" on this one but I suspect mass and power changes are two of the easier ones, a wing change not so much since it can screw the entire lift distribution.
I note again that my wife could probably be called upon to do translation work though she's never really contracted to do it outside her role with Tokai Rika. I don't say this as a crass "revenue enhancement" attempt but rather as an offer of resource to HTC, should it help things along. All I'd need to convince her is something to make it worth her while -and her command of both languages is really excellent.
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-932.jpg)
:pray
-
PJ_Godzilla,
When HTC added the Ki-84 they had contact(s) in Japan that assisted them in accessing and translating Japanese source material.
I was really referring to the attitude of "Why do we need the Ki-43-III when the Ki-43-I or -II can just be subbed for it?" while slight differences between the Bf109E-4 and Bf109E-7, as an example, are seen by sometimes the same people as a "must have, needed to fill a gap, addition."
-
PJ_Godzilla,
while slight differences between the Bf109E-4 and Bf109E-7, as an example, are seen by sometimes the same people as a "must have, needed to fill a gap, addition."
Well, perhaps, as you state, there is a double standard that leads to a different level of tolerance for deviation. I suspect it ties to familiarity. Most here have doubtless read quite a bit about BoB right down to the travails of the guys at Biggin Hill. Even to me, the extended battles in, e.g. the Phillippines are full of murk. The only Japanese account I've read was Sakae's - and even that was a good deal more sketchy in the late war timeframe. I'm trying to recall if I 've read even one account from a Japanese fighter pilot regarding his stick time in the Ki-44 or Ki-43.
In any case, I suspect this ignorance is part of the reason people have a relaxed accuracy tolerance regarding the PTO.
Actually, your post has kind of inspired me to do a little searching this lunchtime and see if I can find any decent accounts,. Ack-Ack has already provided a survey source.
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-941.jpg)
:pray
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-904.jpg)
:pray
-
You missed a thread, HighTone:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,318480.0.html
-
LOL...copy that. I saw it, some very cool pics. I was just trying to keep my request consolidated to one thread.
But right on, +1 for the Ki-43's
-
Some early-model Oscar performance numbers here:
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/AirInfoSummaries/Summary12.html
-
I was really referring to the attitude of "Why do we need the Ki-43-III when the Ki-43-I or -II can just be subbed for it?" while slight differences between the Bf109E-4 and Bf109E-7, as an example, are seen by sometimes the same people as a "must have, needed to fill a gap, addition."
I think its because that when people think of the japanese airforce, they think of the zero, the kate, and the val. Most don't go "Japanese airforce....... oh yeah, they flew the Ki-43, the one with 2 12.7mm mg's!". When they HAVE heard of the hayabusa, they have this image of a fighter tickling a wildcat with its 7.7's only to be turned into a flamming wreck when another wildcat shoots at it.
It also has to do with use. People want what they themselves will use. I for one don't fly the A6M3 except on rare occations and I can say I very apathetic to its addition. On the other hand, I would be thrilled to get a 109E-7, or an F-6 dispite their admitedly modest improvments over the previous version, mostly because I would actually USE them.
-
I think its because that when people think of the japanese airforce, they think of the zero, the kate, and the val. Most don't go "Japanese airforce....... oh yeah, they flew the Ki-43, the one with 2 12.7mm mg's!". When they HAVE heard of the hayabusa, they have this image of a fighter tickling a wildcat with its 7.7's only to be turned into a flamming wreck when another wildcat shoots at it.
It also has to do with use. People want what they themselves will use. I for one don't fly the A6M3 except on rare occations and I can say I very apathetic to its addition. On the other hand, I would be thrilled to get a 109E-7, or an F-6 dispite their admitedly modest improvments over the previous version, mostly because I would actually USE them.
I use the A6M3 and will use the Ki-43 enough to make up for your lack of intrest in it.
+1 to the Ki-43 :rock
-
See? HighTone proves my point :aok.
-
ive been to tillamook air museum..didnt see that plane. all i saw was the sr71 in a pile under the spruce goose. LOL :airplane:
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/KI43-5.jpg)
:pray
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/KI43-5.jpg)
:pray
(http://rubmint.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/9b2c4_funny-pictures-cats-deny-request.jpg)
-
We should only include aircraft in AH that most FPS gamerz are familiar with. Thats why we have the Zero. :rolleyes:
-
It will fill lots of slots in the Special events and will be a blast to fly. Ki-43 will fly in Aces High :rock
-
I use the A6M3 and will use the Ki-43 enough to make up for your lack of intrest in it.
+1 to the Ki-43 :rock
Me too!
I fly all of the Japanese fighters currently in game, except the N1k (just don't like it)... I frequently use the A6M3 from carriers. I would use the Ki43 from capped fields when it becomes available.
-
We should only include aircraft in AH that most FPS gamerz are familiar with. Thats why we have the Zero. :rolleyes:
Yes, only the kewlest uber planes appropriate for "Air Quake" need apply.
-
Frank, george and zeke are here. Why not add oscar to this sausage fest? Oh sorry, didn't see you over in the corner there peggy, and might I say your sister Betty is looking so hot, she's on fire!
-
+1 for ki-43II.would be great to see this plane
-
Was the Ki-43 generally stronger than the Zero?
Did it have self sealing fuel tanks etc.?
-
Nope, not in the slightest.
-
Was the Ki-43 generally stronger than the Zero?
Did it have self sealing fuel tanks etc.?
Structurally, it was weaker. It did have rudimentary self sealing tanks though. Pilot armor was added with the -II. It was significantly more maneuverable than the A6M though.
Nope, not in the slightest.
Not really honest.
-
Alright, true.
But he did say generally. If the wings will rip off easier, but it has rudimenery self-sealing tanks, and (depending on the model) pilot armor, then I wouldn't say its any tougher than the A6M in general. Stronger in some areas, weaker in others, but not tougher overall.
-
Thanks for the responses on that.
I'd sure like to hop in a ki-43. I tend to not fly late war uber rides. I can see myself spending time in this bird each month.
Can't wait! :)
-
I think its because that when people think of the japanese airforce, they think of the zero, the kate, and the val.
I think of those three planes when I think of the Japanese Navy. When I think of the Japanese Army Air Force the Ki-43 is one of the first aircraft I think of.
The Hayabusa gets my +1. :aok
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-89.jpg)
:pray
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-91.jpg)
:pray
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/oscar-007-px800.jpg)
Soon?....maybe?....hopefully?.. :pray
-
-1, its japanese, its slow, and its underarmed. I won't fly it so an Me410 would be better (for me).
-
-1, its japanese, its slow, and its underarmed. I won't fly it so an Me410 would be better (for me).
Its not significantly slower than the Me410, and a fight between an Me410 and Ki-43-III would likely end badly for the Me410.
-
(http://www.colesaircraft.com/sitebuilder/images/J-Ki43-1-757x511.jpg)
Just happened to be browsing when I found this..enjoy :aok
-
Its not significantly slower than the Me410, and a fight between an Me410 and Ki-43-III would likely end badly for the Me410.
IDK. Me410 is heavy, packs more E into the same speed. Zoom flip around, and a few .45 ACP rounds from your sidearm later the Ki-43 is burning. If the 410 is dumb enough to manuver with it, yes hes screwed. But look at zekes, they're not all that dangerous if you don't fight their game.
-
IDK. Me410 is heavy, packs more E into the same speed. Zoom flip around, and a few .45 ACP rounds from your sidearm later the Ki-43 is burning. If the 410 is dumb enough to manuver with it, yes hes screwed. But look at zekes, they're not all that dangerous if you don't fight their game.
Zekes are plenty dangerous. Please don't make the assumption that aircraft without 2000+ HP and cannons are not dangerous. Most pilots profess that "just don't fight the Zeke's fight and your fine", but after a few high speed passes with no results most pilots get frustrated and slow down...or they run...either way the Zeke has won.
The Ki-43 is going to be a very fun and historical mount to fly in AH.
-
-1, its japanese, its slow, and its underarmed. I won't fly it so an Me410 would be better (for me).
How many times does it have to be said? We need this plane not for the LW, but for AvA, EW and especially the special events, which are a big part of this game.
In these venues, it's not going to be facing the F4U1C, Spit 16 and P-51D, but rather, opponents like the Hurricane MkI and P-40B and it will be very competitive.
Don't you think we ought to be able to properly run a scenario based on the legendary exploits of the AVG Flying Tigers, one of the most celebrated American fighter units of the war?
After this extremely overdue addition, I personally would like to see the A5M, Ki27, and a proper representation of the USMC and British Brewster Buffalo.
-
I'm curious where this data exists that quantifies the perceived weakness of the ki43.
The plane shot down more allied planes than the Zero and many many heavy buffs.
-
I think I saw a video of an interview with a Ki-43 pilot who stated the aircraft was weak structurally. I believe he said they knew it when they evaluated the type but there wasn't an alternative. I have tried three times to find the video now without success. I'm sure it was on YouTube.
-
Is this the vid you were looking for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eBmnpCO18&feature=related
Whether the plane was structurally weak or not, it will fill a very big gap in AH, and will be very competitive in the scenarios in which it will be used.
-
Its in the "should have been added long time ago" category.
Still, im afraid, it would be a hangar queen since almost any mid or late war opponent can simply dive away before its weak guns can do any serious damage.
-
Its in the "should have been added long time ago" category.
Still, im afraid, it would be a hangar queen since almost any mid or late war opponent can simply dive away before its weak guns can do any serious damage.
It will not be a hangar queen in the SEA and AvA.
I know the MA gets the lion share of development, but the special events are a huge part of this game and worthy of some time and effort.
-
I would use it in the MA now and then just for fun. Sometimes it is fun to fly an extremely maneuverable, but fragile, fighter. It is a different kind of challenge.
If I can shoot down a P-47N with a D3A1, the Ki-43 will be quite lethal enough.
-
Is this the vid you were looking for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eBmnpCO18&feature=related
Whether the plane was structurally weak or not, it will fill a very big gap in AH, and will be very competitive in the scenarios in which it will be used.
Yes that's the one. Thank you. I don't know whether there is another interview to balance out the opinion, or if that was the general opinion shared by all, but it does seem fairly scathing :eek:
If Aces High is to present a realistic spectrum of WWII aircraft it does seem conspicuous in its absence.
I agree with Karnak that it would be a different set of challenges flying it in the MA, if my Spitfire Mark I experiences are anything to go by :bhead
-
He seemed to think the -II was a large improvement over the -I, just outdated by the time it entered service. Doesn't sound like he got to fly the -III.
His opinion of the -I was scathing though.
-
He also mentioned cannons, although the translation might have played a part.
-
He also mentioned cannons, although the translation might have played a part.
He meant the 12.7mm guns. He called the guns on the P-51 12.7mm cannons as well. It makes sense if you are looking at it from a "explosive round = cannon" perspective and as Japanese 12.7mm rounds were HE, he may have assumed the American 12.7mm rounds were as well.
What is interesting about that is that his comments do contradict the article that Krusty linked in two ways. One, his Ki-43-I seems to have had two 7.7mm guns and two, he liked the 12.7mm guns on the Ki-43-II.
-
I would use it in the MA now and then just for fun. Sometimes it is fun to fly an extremely maneuverable, but fragile, fighter. It is a different kind of challenge.
If I can shoot down a P-47N with a D3A1, the Ki-43 will be quite lethal enough.
I'd love to know who the red-faced pilot of that Jug might have been.
-
I'd love to know who the red-faced pilot of that Jug might have been.
It was a long time ago and his name was not one I recognized. He was not very good. I was flying the D3A1 as a fighter at about 2000ft trying to bait a real fighter to come play. This P-47N dives on me, I easily avoid the pass, and after he goes past me rolls onto his side and pulls tight like he wants to get back to me before somebody else snaps up the free kill. I go in pursuit, cutting his corner and soon wind up on his 6 in firing range. I plink away at him as he converts the 2000ft of altitude into E to, fruitlessly, try to turn tight enough to pull around on me. Once on the deck his turn loosens a bit without the dive energy and we go around, maybe, 720 degrees with me plinking away at him. I haven't done any visible damage, but it is becoming clear to him that with the trees only 50ft below and this D3A1 not being shaken at all that this tactic will only have one outcome, so he levels off and tries to get separation. Initially he isn't able to pull away, but he does start to make up ground. The whole time I have a constant stream of 7.7mm bullets hitting his now straight and level Jug. When he has reached about 250-300 yards his elevators came off and his plane dove into the ground.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDt6jOOIkpU&feature=related
I want to do this in Aces High!
-
nice film mitsu of a beautiful bird!
+1
-
Come to think of it, I think I also got a jug with a D3A.
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-92.jpg)
:pray
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDt6jOOIkpU&feature=related
I want to do this in Aces High!
That things whips around so fast! :O
-
Here's to wishing its in the next update :cheers:
-
Hetzer, M36, Archer, and the Jagdpanther :ahand.
-
Check vote on LWA!!!
you get a chance! :D
-
Lots made, but its a pos.
its got 2 BB guns, and thats it. . . who do you think will every really use that outside of scenarios - and - as a dedicated axis pilot - I just don't want to fly that.
-
Lots made, but its a pos.
its got 2 BB guns, and thats it. . . who do you think will every really use that outside of scenarios - and - as a dedicated axis pilot - I just don't want to fly that.
it'll prob see use in EW, where most planes that are flown are the hurr/zero/spit. Those planes are easy to take out with BB's.
-
'Take out' Tyrannis? :rofl
-
Lots made, but its a pos.
its got 2 BB guns, and thats it. . . who do you think will every really use that outside of scenarios - and - as a dedicated axis pilot - I just don't want to fly that.
12.7mm guns are BB guns now? Are you guys going to be calling 20mm cannon BB guns next?
Anybody who wants to play with the Ki-43-II or -III's firepower right now can take a Ki-84 and just use the machine guns, keeping in mind that the Ki-84 is less maneuverable than the Ki-43. In combat I have killed a Hurricane Mk IIc with the Ki-84's two machine guns, and it would have been much easier had I been in a Ki-43 as I could have skipped all the BnZing and just parked on his tail.
-
As a thought... try flying the SBD as a fighter... It has 2x .50cal in the nose, out turns almost any fighter, but is noticably slower than most.
It would be a bit of a warmup for any Ki-43 addition we might get.
-
it'll prob see use in EW, where most planes that are flown are the hurr/zero/spit. Those planes are easy to take out with BB's.
Except the German rides will still kick its ass. The EW variants weren't what you would call fast. And a pair 7.7's are just a feather duster to heavy fighters like the 110.
-
Lots made, but its a pos.
its got 2 BB guns, and thats it. . . who do you think will every really use that outside of scenarios - and - as a dedicated axis pilot - I just don't want to fly that.
It shot down more allied planes than any other japanese type.
-
Except the German rides will still kick its ass. The EW variants weren't what you would call fast. And a pair 7.7's are just a feather duster to heavy fighters like the 110.
Why do you guys keep pushing the two 7.7mm gun crap? That was only present on some Ki-43-Is. Ki-43-IIs and Ki-43-IIIs all had two 12.7mm guns.
As to the German rides kicking its ass, you'd have to be damn good in the Bf109E-4 to make an easy kill of a Ki-43-I that wasn't AFK. A Ki-43-II or -III, while not being early war admittedly, would trounce a Bf109E-4.
The fact is, the German stuff is 100% irrelevant to the Japanese stuff. What matters to the Japanese stuff is the American and Commonwealth stuff.
-
I push the 7.7mm crap gun issue because a pair of 7.7mm's ARE crap guns, regardless of time frame as long as its WWII-era. Spit and Hurricane I are really only usable because they have 8 of them.
In scenarios, yes, German and Italian planes are irrelevent. But we (Tyrannis and I, at least) were just talking about the MA's, and in the MA's, all planes and vehicles are relevent to eachother, regardless of nationality.
So do you want to make this an Events-specific thread (which means you can't use any arguments supporting the Ki-43 that are based in MA use), or do you wish to include the MA's, your choice?
-
Are you aware that the Ki-43 was not armed with two 7.7mm guns?
-
Ki-43-Ia: 2x 7.7mm Type 97 Machine guns.
Not all of them were, I admit that. But the one that would be available in the arena I was talking about had 7.7mm's.
-
Ki-43-Ia: 2x 7.7mm Type 97 Machine guns.
Not all of them were, I admit that. But the one that would be available in the arena I was talking about had 7.7mm's.
The majority of Ki-43-Is were armed with one 12.7mm gun and one 7.7mm gun. It is likely that a Ki-43-I in AH would have the options to take two 7.7mm guns, one 12.7mm gun and one 7.7mm gun and perhaps the option to take two 12.7mm guns.
Have you shot anything down in AH with the D3A1? It does take awhile.
-
No, but I've shot down multiple aircraft with the stuka in a single sortie :banana:.
Granted the P-51 was being a handsomehunk, and the spit was being overly timid, I was still facing a well-flown Typhoon, and in a vastly inferior plane. Mostly came down to pilot skill.
The Ib would be a moderate threat, but still not of much concern if the Ki-43's diving characterisitcs are ANYTHING like the A6M's.
And is the Ki-43-1c an EW aircraft? If not, then its having 2 12.7mm's is irrelevent, as the MW role would be better filled by a Ki-43-II.
-
All Ki-43-Is were early war. The debate was if any two 12.7mm armed Ki-43-Is actually saw combat. The Ki-43-II is a mid-war aircraft, yes.
I believe the Ki-43 in a dive is a mixed bag. I don't think it gets stiff like the A6M, but I do think it is significantly more prone to structural failures than the A6M. It was much too lightly built.
-
So dive is probably about equaly poor, but for different reasons. It all adds up to one more kill-mark painted on my 109.
And if its possible the -Ic never saw combat, the 2 12.7mm version shouldn't be mentioned untill you find evidence that it saw combat. Simple as that.
-
Several IJA experts say the main armament was mixed, always. It was changed at a basic staging/depot level even if constructed in the factory with both 7mms or both 12mms. Thus a Ki-43-I in Aces High should have that loadout.
For the -I, that is. For the -II it is quite possible flaws with the 12.7mm were worked out and it carried 2 of them together... That I can't say either way.
-
So dive is probably about equaly poor, but for different reasons. It all adds up to one more kill-mark painted on my 109.
And if its possible the -Ic never saw combat, the 2 12.7mm version shouldn't be mentioned untill you find evidence that it saw combat. Simple as that.
the plane is not what you should be thinking about, the pilot is who you fight, to think that they will be an "easy kill" is not good.
tell ya what ill take a 84 you take ANY ride you think will make it an "easy kill" for you, and we will fight.....we will call it an experiment...is it the plane or the stick......what ya say? up for the challenge?
-
It's not just the plane. It's not just the pilot. It's equal parts both and they both will dictate the end results. (IMO the Ki-84 is one of the best fighters in the game, so against most planes it's going to have a definite advantage).
While I don't necessarily agree with Tank's assessment of "another kill mark" I wanted to add my 2c on the above comment.
-
I voted for it. Don't tell Dan :bolt:
-
It's not just the plane. It's not just the pilot. It's equal parts both and they both will dictate the end results. (IMO the Ki-84 is one of the best fighters in the game, so against most planes it's going to have a definite advantage).
While I don't necessarily agree with Tank's assessment of "another kill mark" I wanted to add my 2c on the above comment.
I don't think its equal parts at all....more like 70-30 pilot/plane. I only said ki84 because that's my ride of choice and I don't care what plane he takes, he will die.
hell ok lets drop the 84...ill take a hurri-2C.....he can take ANY plane....Hurri is far from one of the best planes....the end results will be the same, if you think because that plane or any plane is "easy" then your thinking is misplaced, the plane can do NOTHING with out the pilot....it is the Pilot you fight, I do think you need a working knowledge of all the planes abilities, but many sticks can push a plane well beyond its abilities.
when I was flying the Hurri exclusively you know how many times I heard " A hurri cant do that" many many times....
a P40 in the hands of an expert P40 stick, will give any one a fight no matter what plane they are in if the situation is equal to start.
same goes for EVERY plane in the hanger.
-
he will die.
I would agree there, and only there. We've had many discussions on these forums, and to say it's mostly pilot is (IMO) more arrogance -- not meaning you, meaning the notion of it. You put a great pilot in a poor plane and the pilot cannot make it turn any tighter, nor fly any faster, nor dive any better before the wings rip off. He cannot make the flaps pop out any quicker no make the bullets punch harder or fly straighter. My own description I like to use is the plane multiplies a pilot's skill... Low pilot skill can be multiplied by an "easy" or "forgiving" plane, but good pilot skill can be reduced by a "hard" or "bad" plane. This is only of course when comparing 2 differing sets of pilot/plane
On the Tank issue I agree, this is all just academic.
-
I can't imagine a top notch pilot flying a D3A1 and surviving against an La-7 or a Spit-16. Even if it was flown by a noob, I think a noob is smart enough to know when to point their nose the other way, then come back until he lands a lucky shot.
-
Second round of the poll is up in game. Ki43 has been eliminated. We're going to get stuck with the Meteor if people with sense don't get behind one of the other planes.
-
I can't imagine a top notch pilot flying a D3A1 and surviving against an La-7 or a Spit-16. Even if it was flown by a noob, I think a noob is smart enough to know when to point their nose the other way, then come back until he lands a lucky shot.
Noobs can surprise you. Many times they will turn with the D3A until it kills them, thinking their super fighter will pull around on the bomber any moment now.
-
I would agree there, and only there. We've had many discussions on these forums, and to say it's mostly pilot is (IMO) more arrogance -- not meaning you, meaning the notion of it. You put a great pilot in a poor plane and the pilot cannot make it turn any tighter, nor fly any faster, nor dive any better before the wings rip off. He cannot make the flaps pop out any quicker no make the bullets punch harder or fly straighter. My own description I like to use is the plane multiplies a pilot's skill... Low pilot skill can be multiplied by an "easy" or "forgiving" plane, but good pilot skill can be reduced by a "hard" or "bad" plane. This is only of course when comparing 2 differing sets of pilot/plane
....
I dont know man, it seems easy to figure out, the plane can do nothing with out the pilot....plain and simple..You agree on this? ..the plane is a tool.....do you agree on this?
if you agree on both of those questions then you have to agree its more pilot then plane.
the way people talk about the spit 16 or any of the spits or LA....the plane will go out and get kills with no input from the stick...which is absurd....the plane will just auger....hence it needs a stick to apply inputs to make it fly, a plane can only do so much like you say and of course I agree with this, but many sticks can make a plane do stuff that others cannot....this is fact...take mOOt in a 152...I have first hand witness of him on the deck out maneuvering zeros and Hurris, NOT BnZing them to death but low in the weeds out Maneuvering them, notice I did not say out "turning them"
I can't imagine a top notch pilot flying a D3A1 and surviving against an La-7 or a Spit-16. Even if it was flown by a noob, I think a noob is smart enough to know when to point their nose the other way, then come back until he lands a lucky shot.
I would put my money on the Vet in a D3A any day over a noob in a 16/LA/uber ride....actually that would be an easy win for the vet. I am talking about the situation being equal at the start of the engagement.
the vet will win in any plane match up. when I say vet I am not talking about just some guy who has been flying for 10 years, I am talking about someone who is a great stick,who has pushed himself to be the best he can be, who has an understanding and ability to use ACM in all situations, who has his timing down pat.....
now I know I am not UBER but I know I will give the UBER guys a fight and have even won a few fights against those guys, I don't know how long you have been flying or HOW you fly, this is above all the most important aspect....HOW you fly.
I will take you up on that fight...me in a D3A(which I DO NOT fly)....you in a spit 16 or LA or whatever....meet at 7k see how long it will take for you to kill me.
a perfect example-I recently went and dueled with someone who thinks he is good, even said he wins all the 1vs1 he has...we fought around 10 times and not once did he kill me, even though He had in his mind the better merge.("in his mind" being the key words)...yet each and every time he lost....why is that? at one point I even gave him my high 6 with at least a 2k advantage...still he died.....in all the plane match ups he chose....
ACM and timing and being a good shot will trump a good plane every time. which translates into it is the Pilot who you fight NOT the plane.
obviously The better pilot at ACM and Timing would do better in a UBER ride, it just gives him more options .....same as a smart carpenter will use a nail gun instead of a hammer....
-
Second round of the poll is up in game. Ki43 has been eliminated. We're going to get stuck with the Meteor if people with sense don't get behind one of the other planes.
>implying people who vote for the meteor donthave sense. :huh
-
I believe that all of us has the potential to become great pilots. Thing is, some don't play enough to get good enough, some are quick learners and some requires more training than usual.
When I first started in AH (4-5 years ago), I just knew the basics, like an Immelman, a loop, turn, and a scissor, having come from Jane's WW2 Fighters.
Back when H2H was still available, I met some great guys who taught me all there was to know. I remember two, Denholm, and one guy I just can't remember his name, but he was an excellent P-38 pilot. Ran his own server with MA settings.
I'm naturally a fast learner, so after a year or so, I was able to match up with these guys, even killed them every now and then.
But I also met guys who *seemed* like they just can't fly beyond the noob phase. A couple of guys and myself helped them, and although it took a while, they finally broke out of their bad habits and were great.
Noobs who fly poorly needs to be outflown in the most embarrassing way possible, just so they can learn from their mistakes. Now of course, don't rub it in their face, but don't tell them it was a "great" fight either, because it wasn't. You gotta teach them step by step, and sooner or later, they'll learn.
-
I believe that all of us has the potential to become great pilots. Thing is, some don't play enough to get good enough, some are quick learners and some requires more training than usual.
When I first started in AH (4-5 years ago), I just knew the basics, like an Immelman, a loop, turn, and a scissor, having come from Jane's WW2 Fighters.
Back when H2H was still available, I met some great guys who taught me all there was to know. I remember two, Denholm, and one guy I just can't remember his name, but he was an excellent P-38 pilot. Ran his own server with MA settings.
I'm naturally a fast learner, so after a year or so, I was able to match up with these guys, even killed them every now and then.
But I also met guys who *seemed* like they just can't fly beyond the noob phase. A couple of guys and myself helped them, and although it took a while, they finally broke out of their bad habits and were great.
Noobs who fly poorly needs to be outflown in the most embarrassing way possible, just so they can learn from their mistakes. Now of course, don't rub it in their face, but don't tell them it was a "great" fight either, because it wasn't. You gotta teach them step by step, and sooner or later, they'll learn.
your first sentence is wrong...not every one is gonna be or has the potential to be great.
when I started in tour 52 I had NO knowledge of ACM but I was getting kills my first day or two.....granted I died A heck of a lot more then killed, my first "tour" I actually got 92 kills :rofl within two weeks I was being called a cheater because 10 or so guys could not kill my zero :rolleyes:
I took to it very naturally, and have pushed myself as hard as I could, ever since, my aim still sux arse but its finally improving, I read a lot through out the years and put names to what I was already doing.
so you are not a noob and should easily smack me around if I was in a D3A you in a spit......lets try it see what happens.
-
the plane is not what you should be thinking about, the pilot is who you fight, to think that they will be an "easy kill" is not good.
tell ya what ill take a 84 you take ANY ride you think will make it an "easy kill" for you, and we will fight.....we will call it an experiment...is it the plane or the stick......what ya say? up for the challenge?
Sorry, taking a 'vacation' from flying. Just don't fly enough with school, sports, and my job to make the $15 worth it. But I know you're a very skilled opponent, even AnglEyes and I together had a hard time beating you in our 109's.
But pilot skill being an unknowable quantity, you have to go based on a plane's characteristics. And the weaknesses of a plane don't change with the pilot. AKAK may be one of the '38 aces', but even he can't keep his plane from compressing in a 500mph dive. HighTone, may be a good A6M stick, but his skill won't keep him from ripping his wings off in a high speed pullout.
Point is that since we're talking in the hypothetical, we cannot evaluate specific situations that are as of yet impossible, and that plane characterisitcs are the best way to tulips a plane's value before its added.
And INK, you in a IIC, I'm not so sure I would be as assuredly dead as you think. I'm not quite in your leauge, admitedly, but I'm far from being easy meat. When I get back on, I'll take you up on your offer as soon as I get some refresher flying.
-
>implying people who vote for the meteor donthave sense. :huh
If the shoe fits! :D
-
Sorry, taking a 'vacation' from flying. Just don't fly enough with school, sports, and my job to make the $15 worth it. But I know you're a very skilled opponent, even AnglEyes and I together had a hard time beating you in our 109's.
But pilot skill being an unknowable quantity, you have to go based on a plane's characteristics. And the weaknesses of a plane don't change with the pilot. AKAK may be one of the '38 aces', but even he can't keep his plane from compressing in a 500mph dive. HighTone, may be a good A6M stick, but his skill won't keep him from ripping his wings off in a high speed pullout.
Point is that since we're talking in the hypothetical, we cannot evaluate specific situations that are as of yet impossible, and that plane characterisitcs are the best way to tulips a plane's value before its added.
And INK, you in a IIC, I'm not so sure I would be as assuredly dead as you think. I'm not quite in your leauge, admitedly, but I'm far from being easy meat. When I get back on, I'll take you up on your offer as soon as I get some refresher flying.
you are right...at the start of an engagement all you know is the plane generally.....I know within moments before the merge if my opponent is any good, and from there I deal with what they do, not what the plane can do.
you mention AKAK in a 38...he for sure cannot pull out of a fully compressed dive...BUT he WONT put that plane into that situation...a noob/inexperienced 38 stick will.
this is my whole point and what I try to get across if someone asks me for help.....PLANE does not matter....ACM....TIMING.....A IM....are the most important for the out come of a duel.
as far as me in 2C goes.....me in a 2C will smoke me in a KI-84.....the Hurri in a 1vs1 is much more of a deadly plane then the KI84...not so much in the MA environment, which is why I switched over to the KI....
its easy to avoid BnZ passes and just roll around on them and caress them with those 4 20's.
I have almost 7,600 killz in the Hurri with a bit over 4000 deaths.....with around 2,500 killz in the KI.....I fight exactly the same in both planes except the KI allows me to climb a bit longer, hold my E a bit better, in the MA environment that is a huge help due to the hoards and being jumped.
anybody can BnZ around picking slow planes that don't see them.
in a duel you must get to your opponents level to make the kill......does not matter if its same plane or different plane match ups...you still have to get within a certain distance to make the kill...BnZing may keep one safe in the MA...but if you are in a Duel that "tactic" just don't cut it. so it comes down to What the Pilot does.....not what the plane can do.
of course this is how I see things and is entirely MY opinion, but it has kept me going and allowed me to kill 5 nme cons out of 5 trying to kill me. while THEY had ALT advantage and faster planes.
-
AKAK may be one of the '38 aces', but even he can't keep his plane from compressing in a 500mph dive.
Yes, I most definitely can.
ack-ack
-
Yes, I most definitely can.
ack-ack
full compression?
-
full compression?
Below 10,000ft a P-38 can easily hit 500mph in a dive without fear of having the controls lock up. This is due to the thicker air at lower altitudes where the P-38 will not enter into a compressibility state.
ack-ack
-
Below 10,000ft a P-38 can easily hit 500mph in a dive without fear of having the controls lock up. This is due to the thicker air at lower altitudes where the P-38 will not enter into a compressibility state.
ack-ack
ahhh.....I take your word on that.
-
Hmmmm... I'm confused, isn't compresion caused by preasure on the control surfaces (caused by airflow over them) greater than that which the pilot and/or hydrolics can overcome, hence the relation to the word compress?
And if that is true, wouldn't thicker air just compound that situation?
Edit: just did some tests offline, and in the P-38L, I suffered complete compression at ~506mph under combat trim, at sea level. I climbed to 8K, accelerated to 340mph, and then began a steep dive, and began to suffer compression at about 1000' above sea level. Will post other test results as I finish them.
-
Hmmmm... I'm confused, isn't compresion caused by preasure on the control surfaces (caused by airflow over them) greater than that which the pilot and/or hydrolics can overcome, hence the relation to the word compress?
Technically, compression occurs when the air flow over an airfoil develops a supersonic pressure wave that has moved onto one or more of the aircraft's control surfaces locking them in place.
People in AH often confuse heavy controls as the Spitfire Mk I/Bf109E-4 get in rolling or the Ki-84 gets in elevators with compression, but those aren't really compression, they are just heavy controls due to the speed of the airflow.
-
OK, then I guess it wasn't compression I was expierencing in the P-38, it was just REALLY heavy controll surfaces.
Anyway, point of this whole conversation is that no pilot can directly overcome an inherent weakness in their aircraft. They can sometimes get around them, and avoid having them exposed, but if they are exposed and exploited, they can't do anything to make that problem stop being a problem.
-
you mention AKAK in a 38...he for sure cannot pull out of a fully compressed dive...BUT he WONT put that plane into that situation...a noob/inexperienced 38 stick will.
Yes, I can pull out of a dive if I made a mistake and entered into a high speed dive at high altitudes (would have to be above 23,000ft) where I would enter into a compressibility state. Just like the real P-38 pilot would do, chop throttle and use some elevator trim to pull out when in more thicker (denser) air.
Compressibility happens when the air over the leading edge of the wing hit critical mach, which would cause the center of lift to move back towards the tail during high speed airflow. At altitudes from 23,000ft and lower, the P-38 can come close to reaching compressibility but won't. About 8 years ago I posted a small table with the various critical mach speeds at certain altitudes to show how to avoid entering into compressibility.
ack-ack
-
OK, then I guess it wasn't compression I was expierencing in the P-38, it was just REALLY heavy controll surfaces.
No, you were experiencing compression (heavy control surfaces due to the high speed air flow) but not compressibility, which is different. You're confusing the two.
ack-ack
-
Compressibility happens when the air over the leading edge of the wing hit critical mach, which would cause the center of lift to move back towards the tail during high speed airflow.
Great explanation. Thanks :aok
-
Yes, I can pull out of a dive if I made a mistake and entered into a high speed dive at high altitudes (would have to be above 23,000ft) where I would enter into a compressibility state. Just like the real P-38 pilot would do, chop throttle and use some elevator trim to pull out when in more thicker (denser) air.
Compressibility happens when the air over the leading edge of the wing hit critical mach, which would cause the center of lift to move back towards the tail during high speed airflow. At altitudes from 23,000ft and lower, the P-38 can come close to reaching compressibility but won't. About 8 years ago I posted a small table with the various critical mach speeds at certain altitudes to show how to avoid entering into compressibility.
ack-ack
I aint gonna argue with ya when it comes to the 38...... :aok
that be like you arguing with me about how to tattoo....well almost.... I got about 25 years tattooing :D
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-4.jpg)
I know it didn't do very well in the last election, but it is still at the top of my wishlist.
:pray
-
but it is still at the top of my wishlist.
Ditto +1
-
+1
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-6.jpg)
:pray
-
Lots of other stuff thats higher on the priority list. Just saying.
-
Lots of other stuff thats higher on the priority list. Just saying.
Then Axis fighter planes....particularly early war ones? Really, like the Me410 we needed so bad....LOL
Maybe it isn't on your priority list, which is why I'm very thankfull HTC runs the game :headscratch:
Ingame ID: Jager Status: inactive N do you even play?
-
Early war should hold the highest priority right now. But sadly the majority controls. And the majority resides in LW.
-
I wouldn't have put the Me-410 on the vote if it had been upto me. IMO, it should have been a vote between
some more italian fighters (EW probably, maybe the G.55.... maybe)
some british EW/MW tanks such as the Matilda or Crusader
the BT-7
Panzer III encompasing several models
a french fighter
and the He 111, encompasing several models
-
I wouldn't have put the Me-410 on the vote if it had been upto me. IMO, it should have been a vote between
some more italian fighters (EW probably, maybe the G.55.... maybe)
some british EW/MW tanks such as the Matilda or Crusader
the BT-7
Panzer III encompasing several models
a french fighter
and the He 111, encompasing several models
Dont forget the M3 Lee.
M3 Lee, Pnzer III, and the 2 british tanks are the 4 major missing pieces from the EW lineup. Especially for desert AvA and scenarios.
-
I figured that we have enough US stuff, and to keep the pole simple, I wanted to keep the options to a minimum of 6 potential additions.
I would have had 3 rounds of voting. Remove the 2 least popular after the first vote. Remove the 1 least popular, and then have the final round of voting determine the addition.
-
I once again voted for the Ki-43, but it disappeared after the first round of voting.
Seems strange that a WW-II aircraft used by Japan in such great numbers, and throughout WW-II would not just automatically be available in the hanger.
USBP1969
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-8.jpg)
:pray Ki-43 in 2012
-
Denied. Because you keep bumping with similar pictures from an apparently very thick book :neener:
-
I once again voted for the Ki-43, but it disappeared after the first round of voting.
Seems strange that a WW-II aircraft used by Japan in such great numbers, and throughout WW-II would not just automatically be available in the hanger.
USBP1969
It comes down to voting, while HTC does add planes from time to time, the community voted and it didn't make it past the first round. I was more keen to voting on the IAR-80, Me-410, Yak-3, or D.520 myself, when it came down to attributes, the Ki-43 is great respectably except for the gun package of a pair of 12.7's, which is where it lost my vote, however I don't think the gun package had much to do with the lack of interest, perhaps because the B239 (Brewster) was just added, people may not of wanted another turny bird?
-
Too bad. It's a great plane that can carry 2 x 250kg bombs as well as turn inside an A6M2 with the first notch (combat notch) of flaps. (That is' if the A6M2 is clean.)
Problem with voting is that the big numbers, as someone already stated, are in the Late War Arena, where folks seem to like to go fast and have lots of guns.
Perhaps the voting should be "weighted" with an A/C that will be flown in EW & MW (mostly) being given a multiplier, based on the usual populations of the arena(s) in which the A/C will be used most.
Last time the B-29 was chosen, an A/C I will never fly since I do not fly bombers and frequent only EW and MW. I kinda suspect that I am not alone in that.
Butcher: You mentioned the B-239. I love the plane, but it was used in WW-II in far fewer numbers than the Ki-43. Guess the focus is not so much on representation of actual numbers flown as it is on the game aspect.
I don't know what won, but the Yak-3 would have been a good choice since it out performed the Yak-9.
Respectfully,
USBP1969
-
Yak3 wasn't much different from Yak9, and came later. It filled no holes in the planeset.
While I would love to see the Ki-43 as well I don't think we need to mope about the poll. Flawed as any poll in this game is, "weighting it" or anything of the sort is a terrible idea. Especially considering 99.9999% of all EW/MW is statspadding. I think the Ki43 has a big role to play in AH but not for the EW arena. For scenarios. For mixing up with later planes.
Nothing stops you from flying EW/MW planes in the LWA. In fact you can get certain advantages, since most later planes turn far worse than the earlier variants.
The thing about the poll is it's not the end of the discussion. It's not the last plane HTC will add. It's just the "next" plane. Look at all the new variants they've added just recently without asking, without polling, without announcing in advance.
They are still working to add new planes (some badly needed!) to this game, regardless of what the poll says. Ki-43 will have its' day.
-
Flawed as any poll in this game is, "weighting it" or anything of the sort is a terrible idea.
Well Krusty, I have been reading and re-reading that one. It's a "head scratcher" for sure.
That AH even has a poll is unique, and I have to believe that they have a genuine desire to see what the subscribers want.
As I stated earlier, the Ki-43 was so numerous and played such a significant roll in WW-II, that it not being in the original lineup is surprising. (At least to me)
Respectfully,
USBP1969
-
Especially considering 99.9999% of all EW/MW is statspadding.
Wow! There are some "regulars" in EW / MW that would take great issue with that statement. Some perhaps would even take it as a personal affront.
USBP1969
-
Wow! There are some "regulars" in EW / MW that would take great issue with that statement. Some perhaps would even take it as a personal affront.
USBP1969
Some regulars.... I could probably count all of them on two hands for both arenas, in reality its always been known for stats padding or perk farming.
Only reason I go in EW/MWA is perk farming, one or two flights is enough perks for a B29, if I get lucky I can hash out enough perks for drones in 2 flights.
Other then that its always been used to pad stats for the main page.
-
Weighting it is a terrible idea, because its not a true representation of what people want. Its just saying "since fewer people fly in EW/MW, we're making their oppinions worth more".
If people don't want a Ki-43 that would see limited use once the 'new' wore off (and it WOULD see limited use outside of the SEA's and EW/MW, none of the "but what about this specific scenario where you NEED turn rate and nothing else will get you out of trouble" comments change that), thats their concern, not anyone elses.
Although I agree with you about the EW/MW needing some love, I would disagree that that love should come in the form of aircraf. Our EW GV set is basicly non-existant, and our MW GV set is a little lacking.
-
haha, if it had 20mm cannons not 12.7mm MGs...AH people want it. :lol
-
I'm a bit late, but only now spotted:
Perhaps the voting should be "weighted" with an A/C that will be flown in EW & MW (mostly) being given a multiplier, based on the usual populations of the arena(s) in which the A/C will be used most.
Wouldn't change anything, as
a) Basically all planes are used the most in LW and
b) for example EW has only about 0.5% of the activity LW has.
So the vote would have been "weighted" so much, you could drop it alltogether. ;)
-
I can tell you why the Ki-43 wasn't voted in Aces High, I rarely see anyone land kills in a plane above 25 eny in the Late War Arena, let
alone anything with only a pair of 12.7mm's. Someone made a bet with me last tour and I landed 7 in a C202 - with just the pair of Breta's in the nose.
Problem is most don't have that kind of aim, let alone want a plane with simply a pair of "MG's in the nose". most dogfighters would love this sort of setup, problem is why take up a Ki-43 when I can get a Brewster with 4x50 cals?
My idea is the plane is simply to SLOW, way to high of ENY, with no GUN'S, and nobody is willing to vote on it, should it of been added in Aces High?
The Ki-43 should of been added in Aces high long ago with the He-111 which both are instrumental to World War 2 and should of been added already in game.
Now I wouldn't rush and create the Ki-43, with the handful I see land kills in something above 25 Eny, I highly doubt the trend of "ignoring higher eny" aircraft is going to break anytime soon the late war arena, although us handful that test them against late war will stand by our decision,
you don't see many 30+ eny aces in the Late war Arena, so adding the Ki-43 will not effect anything other then fill a few scenario slots or FSO.
Game Changer? nope.
-
Hijack!
I can tell you why the Ki-43 wasn't voted in Aces High, I rarely see anyone land kills in a plane above 25 eny in the Late War Arena
Though the usage of 25+ ENY planes is somewhat higher than indicated by the landing messages, as they simply less often survive long enough to actually land the kills they gained.
Usage (Kills+Deaths) 2010:
(http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/3964/fughterusagebyenylw2010.jpg)
-
I know a couple who can and did land 10+ in an eny30 plane.
Anyway, the ki-43 would be boring for one reason: the tactic used against it.
Two 12,7mm mgs isnt enough to hurt your opponent fatally since possibly he will just dive away or on the deck hit the wep and stick stir away.
Dont let me wrong, i would like to see this plane, just saying there is this kind of danger.
-
Anyway, the ki-43 would be boring for one reason: the tactic used against it.
Two 12,7mm mgs isnt enough to hurt your opponent fatally since possibly he will just dive away or on the deck hit the wep and stick stir away.
I do agree very much with the second part, in most LW engagements this will happen. Even worse, the Ki-43 would have to fight the "friendlies" as much as the enemies. Because while you are saddling up and trying to inflict catastrophic damage to your enemy, the faster late war rides will swoop down and clear your 12.
But for me that would mean using the Ki-43 exactly in the same context as I did with Hurricane I and the I-16: In base defense vs CV attacks. That's the perfect environment for such a plane.
-
+1 :aok
-
If it is brought in, I would hope it can turn with a brewster.
-
If it is brought in, I would hope it can turn with a brewster.
It would out turn the B239.
-
How would it fair against the A6M2?
-
How would it fair against the A6M2?
It's more maneuverable than the A6M2 but slower even though it's lighter and has the same engine as the A6M2.
ack-ack
-
It's more maneuverable than the A6M2 but slower even though it's lighter and has the same engine as the A6M2.
ack-ack
Depends on the version. A -I is slower than the A6M2, but the -II is faster than the A6M2 while slower than the A6M3 and A6M5 and the -III is faster than any A6M.
-
To the lack of kills landed by ENY 25+ planes, I would like to say that they are odds-on to be more effective than lower eny aircraft, simply because the pilot is more likely to be skilled.
Spitfire: whats the ratio of dweebs/aces? Pretty damn low
P-51: same, although to a lesser extent
Niki: same
190D: same, but again to a lesser extent. Its lack of turn rate compared to its peers means more advanced tactics need to be used, which would make it unpopular with dweebs and twits
190A5: A hell of a lot lower
109G2/F: again, a lot lower
P-40: a lot lower
Yak-9T: a lot lower
Ki-61: a lot lower
-
Okay...which variant are we pushing for? All 3? If that is so, I would hope they don't do another F4F-3/4 hybrid thing. But if you had to chose just ONE variant for the time being, which would be the best add? :headscratch:
-
Okay...which variant are we pushing for? All 3? If that is so, I would hope they don't do another F4F-3/4 hybrid thing. But if you had to chose just ONE variant for the time being, which would be the best add? :headscratch:
You can't do a F4F-3/4 hybrid with the Ki-43 as the different versions are delineated primarily by having progressively more powerful engines.
-
But if you had to chose just ONE variant for the time being, which would be the best add? :headscratch:
The one with highest deployment numbers
-
*IF* you could only add one, it would have to be the Ki-43-I. The early war planeset has the most scenario potential but we can't even begin to do half the scenarios when the only plane we have in-game that fits the bill is the A6M2.
Yes, the Ki-43-II was important also, but the -I is what started the war and kept it going for quite some time. IMO, hypothetically it would be the most important.
That said, I can't image we'd only get one. We'd have to get 2 (both -I and -II) at least.
-
All three should be added.
-
All three should be added.
Eventually. But since we actually have a usable EW plane set, the EW GV set should get priority if we absolutly need an EW addition next.
-
Eventually. But since we actually have a usable EW plane set, the EW GV set should get priority if we absolutly need an EW addition next.
Actually, the EW arena really doesn't have a usable plane set as there are quite a number of planes that shouldn't be in that arena but are out of necessity.
ack-ack
-
AKAK, byy usable I mean we actually have an EW plane from every country. We can't say the same of the EW GV set.
Really we need a Panzer III, and either an M3 stuart, and/or a Matilda or Crusader.
-
AKAK, byy usable I mean we actually have an EW plane from every country. We can't say the same of the EW GV set.
Really we need a Panzer III, and either an M3 stuart, and/or a Matilda or Crusader.
I for one would rather HTC finish out the plane sets - for example we got a redone P40C (EW) P40F + N (MW) - Hurri and C205 could use some updates.
Most of their money is coming in from Late War Arena, I don't believe they would focus on EW or MW anytime soon.
To the 12 that I offended i'm sorry, but there is over 300 in Late War begging for something. Honestly I don't care I tend to fly EW and MW,
however something like the Ki-43 is going to have a pretty tough time convincing voters.
If I had to make a choice right now on what planes to add it would be:
He-111
G.55 (with redone c.20x)
D.520
Running up with certainly be the Beaufighter and Ki-43/44 and I.A.R 80
-
AKAK, byy usable I mean we actually have an EW plane from every country. We can't say the same of the EW GV set.
Really we need a Panzer III, and either an M3 stuart, and/or a Matilda or Crusader.
No, you are incorrect. We do not have an EW plane from every country. There are some planes in the EW arena that should be in the MW arena instead. Again, some planes that should be in the MW arena are in the EW arena out of necessity which is why the EW plane set has the biggest gaps in it, with the MW being second in that regards.
ack-ack
-
EW tanks/cannon-armed vehicles: T-34/76, M8, M3(75), Panzer IV F1.
EW planes: Bf 109E, 110C, B5N, D3A, A6M, Hurricane I, Spitfire I, I16, Brewster, SBD. Thats all I know for sure, but I'm sure others were also used during the EW period.
Yup, cause I'm sure that we could run a Fall Gelb event with our GV line-up, or an Early Afrika Korps set-up.
Just saying, the EW GV line-up is the most lacking, as we are physical incapable of running events for most EW operations.
-
The SBD-5 we have is actually a 1943 aircraft.
-
To be fair the only real differences on the SBD-5 vs the SBD-3 were different voltage power systems, double the ammo in the nose .50cals, and 200 more horsepower. Overall the armor and defensive capabilities were the same. The 200 hp is the most notable difference, but IMO when talking about such a slow and vulnerable craft to begin with I think it can substitute for its earlier brother without too much harm.
-
To be fair the only real differences on the SBD-5 vs the SBD-3 were different voltage power systems, double the ammo in the nose .50cals, and 200 more horsepower. Overall the armor and defensive capabilities were the same. The 200 hp is the most notable difference, but IMO when talking about such a slow and vulnerable craft to begin with I think it can substitute for its earlier brother without too much harm.
Speed is the best defense they have. If we had the D3A2, the SBD-5's contemporary, it would be 40mph faster than the D3A1. That is a significant improvement in speed and would significantly improve its chances of reaching the target.
-
Oh, to be sure. Please don't misunderstand: I'm not saying there's no difference. I'm saying that even with the "better case scenario" (the 1200 hp variant) it's still extremely catchable and vulnerable. It's not a what-if issue like with the D3A2, it's a "we have it now" issue and it's not like it's running around owning the arena like the Hurr2C is.
That's all I meant.
-
besides that, we only have 2 legitimate EW tanks, and 2 other cannon-armed vehicles. Not saying that we need an EW addition for out next update or anything, but I'm just saying that EW GV's should take priority over EW Aircraft, from a purely "What are we most lacking of?" standpoint.
-
Tank-Ace, most of us play this air combat simulator to fly. With an incomplete plane set you can hardly justify us needing this tank or that.
-
Tank-Ace, most of us play this air combat simulator to fly. With an incomplete plane set you can hardly justify us needing this tank or that.
:aok :cheers:
-
He's too busy running up his tank score by abusing a bug in his video driver that allows him to see tanks he would otherwise not be able to see.
-
He's too busy running up his tank score by abusing a bug in his video driver that allows him to see tanks he would otherwise not be able to see.
You'd have to have a online account to do that!
:salute
-
You'd have to have a online account to do that!
:salute
He's to busy running up his post count - fixed.
-
I have no problem with people liking tanks and ground battles if that's their thing, and I further understand HTC's decision to expand the armoured vehicle set to attract the WOT LOT, however there is no leverage you can apply until some of the obvious aircraft holes are filled.
There shouldn't need to be a vote or an overwhelming petition to have things like the He111, the Ki-43, the Beaufighter etc. added. Not unless, err, oh dear, hadn't thought of that before... :bolt:
-
This isn't and never has been an air combat simmulator. Show me a quote from the HTC staff or the website that explicitly says that it is an air combat simmulator. Not that aerial combat will be the primary focus, but that this game is an 'Air Combat Simulator'.
Point being that you can't use the "well we need it for its historical significance, for EW and scenarios, and nothing else really matches it for a substitution in Special Events :old:" rationale for why ki-43 should be the next addition when there are other more needed additons (based on those criterion), particularly in the EW GV lineup.
You want the Ki-43? Fine, but don't use the "well its needed for EW" reasoning if you don't want me to raise perfectly valid and legitimate arguments against it, or for other additions ahead of it.
-
This isn't and never has been an air combat simmulator. Show me a quote from the HTC staff or the website that explicitly says that it is an air combat simmulator. Not that aerial combat will be the primary focus, but that this game is an 'Air Combat Simulator'.
In the main page it clearly says:
"Get Started!
-With the best combat flight simulator
It also clearly states in the main page that this game at it's heart is a "high fidelity flight simulation" and doesn't mention how the ground war is the "heart of the game".
We understand that you prefer the ground portion and why you feel GVs should take a center stage but the developers think otherwise.
ack-ack
-
Aw crap.... I feel dumb now :lol. Though it said "WWI and WWII combat simmulator".
Either way, my point about the reasoning for the Ki-43 still stands.
If you bring up the EW, use, or holes in the plane set thing, I'll come right back at you with our whopping total of 2 tank in EW.
-
KI43s shot down B29s in the war.
That sounds to me like successful late war operations.
-
In the main page it clearly says:
"Get Started!
-With the best combat flight simulator
It also clearly states in the main page that this game at it's heart is a "high fidelity flight simulation" and doesn't mention how the ground war is the "heart of the game".
We understand that you prefer the ground portion and why you feel GVs should take a center stage but the developers think otherwise.
ack-ack
I certainly agree, I enjoy the ground warfare aces high brings, however it's named "Aces High" for a reason, up to a few years ago the ground vehicles were never much an interest to HTC, I think the expanding of it brings plenty of great ideas and fun to the game, it's always going to take a
back seat to the air war.
-
I feel dumb now :lol.
there is a reason for that :old:
-
KI43s shot down B29s in the war.
That sounds to me like successful late war operations.
It also shot down more Allied planes than any other Japanese fighter and almost all of the JAAF pilots that made ace did so in the Ki-43.
ack-ack
-
Bring Ki-43-II- Late version or Ki-43-III for me err Aces High!
-
ki-43 I/II/III in 2012 PLEASE! and He-111.
HTC please support special events more, that's where the best in-game experience happens! :aok
NOT the mA! :cry :cry :cry
-
And the winner of the 2012 election is....
KI-43 I/II/III, Yak-3 and He-111!!!
-
And the winner of the 2012 election is....
KI-43 I/II/III, Yak-3 and He-111!!!
I would love to see that.
:pray
-
And the winner of the 2012 election is....
KI-43 I/II/III, Yak-3 and He-111!!!
Sorry. As long as stupid people are allowed to vote, the end vote wont for for a well thought out and logical answer. We saw that in the 2008 US Presidential election. ;) Instead, we'll keep getting the "flash-bang" effects and the "in the now" items instead of the more long term and better suited additions to AH.
-
As many have said before, many many many times, whats long-term and better suited is a matter of oppinion. Are we talking from a purely Special Events standpoint, a purely MA standpoint, or a mix of the two.
Ki-43
SE: important for PTO events only, needed, but of lower priority than the He-111 based on # of relevent events.
MA: needed for EW/MW, probably just a faster Brewster buffalo with even less armor in the LW arena, not very important.
He-111
SE: Imporant for EW ETO, Afrika, and EW-MW Eastern Front events, needed
MA: needed for EW/MW, Hanger queen in LW, not very important overall.
Panzer III (assuming multiple models are given):
SE: important for ETP, MTO, Eastern Front, between EW-MW. Needed above He-111 and Ki-43 based on # of relevent events (assuming GV's are used)
MA: Needed for EW/MW, hanger queen in LW.
From a purely MA perspective, none of the above are really important. From an SEA event, they are (within their own events). Mixed, it would probably be the He-111 or Panzer III simply because they can be used for a wider range of events, and give us something thats significantly different in the MA.
-
As many have said before, many many many times, whats long-term and better suited is a matter of oppinion. Are we talking from a purely Special Events standpoint, a purely MA standpoint, or a mix of the two.
Ki-43
SE: important for PTO events only, needed, but of lower priority than the He-111 based on # of relevent events.
MA: needed for EW/MW, probably just a faster Brewster buffalo with even less armor in the LW arena, not very important.
He-111
SE: Imporant for EW ETO, Afrika, and EW-MW Eastern Front events, needed
MA: needed for EW/MW, Hanger queen in LW, not very important overall.
Panzer III (assuming multiple models are given):
SE: important for ETP, MTO, Eastern Front, between EW-MW. Needed above He-111 and Ki-43 based on # of relevent events (assuming GV's are used)
MA: Needed for EW/MW, hanger queen in LW.
From a purely MA perspective, none of the above are really important. From an SEA event, they are (within their own events). Mixed, it would probably be the He-111 or Panzer III simply because they can be used for a wider range of events, and give us something thats significantly different in the MA.
GV's are not important for any special event.
And you are to quick to label something a hanger queen.
Ki-43 :pray
-
Like I said, its assuming they are used.
And I'm not at all quick to assume anything. The Brewster is a hanger queen for the most part. You rarely see them now, save for a handfull that up to defend against a CV attack. We'll probably see the same with the Ki-43 if we get it.
-
It is irrelevant if the aircraft becomes mostly a 'hangar queen' in the MA after it is introduced. Assuming HTC uses historical significance as a guideline for the introduction of aircraft (and I don't think they do) then both the Ki-43 and the He-111 (for instance) will already be in the queue for inclusion.
The case for arguing that this tank or that should be included before any aircraft doesn't hold any validity amongst the majority of us since some people have been requesting their favourite aircraft for more than ten years and gathering resources, data and pictures etcetera, living in perpetual hope that theirs get introduced next.
Besides, I think I don't only speak for myself when I say that the ground war aspect has been very well developed lately, with many new vehicles added, the new 'commander mode' of operation added and now a change to icon ranges and the inclusion of the Storch.
The fighter aircraft fans can justifiably feel neglected :old:
-
out of all the scenarios in rotation, i am least likely to join anything pacific theater due to inaccurate planesets. for example, burma.
i really hope htc considers developing for special events.
ther most hardcore/loyal/longtime subscribers participate in special events mostly.
and the scenario 3 to 4 hours on a saturday night/afternoon tops the best times i've had in this game by a mile!
developing/supporting special events will undoubtedly increase participation.
id also like to add progressive planesets every frame like in battle over germany make it so much better too.
just look at the #'s and the feedback in the forums!
-
I'm not arguing against that nrshida, all I'm saying is that if we're going purely by historical significance, then there are other more important additions. If we're going by purely MA usage, there are other more important additions. If we're going purely off of special events usage, then there are other more important additions.
If you want the Ki-43, then fine. But don't try to make it sound like its THE most important thing we could get right now, cause its not.
-
Actually, looking at it from a "which is most important historically" perspective, the Ki-43 will, at worst, tie any other aircraft not in the game. The He111 went from failure to failure. The Wellington, the workhorse of RAF Bomber Command for the first two years of the way, presided over the period in which the average distance an RAF bomb missed its target by was measured in miles. The Pe-2 was extremely important to the VVS and is the most likely aircraft to be "more important historically" than the Ki-43.
-
Aircraft, yes. But you're completely ignoring GV's. If you want to use the 'this is historicly important' argument, then you have to acknowledge the fact that GV's did the heavy lifting in WWII.
Aircraft were important, yes, but it was the GROUND troops that actually went out, and took the land away from the enemy. Ground troops could have won the war if aircraft had never been invented, but the aircraft couldn't have won the war without the ground troops to actually go and take the land away.
-
I'm not arguing against that nrshida, all I'm saying is that if we're going purely by historical significance, then there are other more important additions. If we're going by purely MA usage, there are other more important additions. If we're going purely off of special events usage, then there are other more important additions.
If you want the Ki-43, then fine. But don't try to make it sound like its THE most important thing we could get right now, cause its not.
Well that's arguable of course. And I am saying that historical significance or MA usage being the criteria that HTC uses for the choice of which aircraft to include next is an assumption on behalf of a lot of forum users and a dubious assumption at best, if you look at the evidence.
Actually I'm personally indifferent to the Ki-43. I'd like to see every plane that ever fired a round or dropped a bomb included eventually. My personal favourite that we don't yet have is the Westland Whirlwind (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,313538.0.html) and I'd have a fairly hard time justifying that on any of the criteria listed above.
-
Aircraft, yes. But you're completely ignoring GV's. If you want to use the 'this is historicly important' argument, then you have to acknowledge the fact that GV's did the heavy lifting in WWII.
Depends on which battle and theater, but most often, yes. However, Aces High is primarily a flight combat game. I don't object to more GVs being added, but it would take a lot of additional changes to make things like the Panzer III, Char B and Cruiser IV to be viable for anything, even scenarios, beyond just adding them.
Aircraft were important, yes, but it was the GROUND troops that actually went out, and took the land away from the enemy. Ground troops could have won the war if aircraft had never been invented, but the aircraft couldn't have won the war without the ground troops to actually go and take the land away.
In some battles it was all on the aircraft, in some it was all on the ships. Ground troops don't handle oceans very well.
-
Aircraft, yes. But you're completely ignoring GV's. If you want to use the 'this is historicly important' argument, then you have to acknowledge the fact that GV's did the heavy lifting in WWII.
Aircraft were important, yes, but it was the GROUND troops that actually went out, and took the land away from the enemy. Ground troops could have won the war if aircraft had never been invented, but the aircraft couldn't have won the war without the ground troops to actually go and take the land away.
you forget we are not playing a game that is based on the war........it does not matter what happened in the war....all we are using are the tools from WW2...the only time it matters are scenarios and FSO's...and that's just for plane match-up.....
GV's are NOT main focus of Aces High, that is why they put more effort into the Air game, but I see a lot of attention going to the GV game that I personally think is Boring and pointless and feel HTC should only focus on the High part of Aces High. :D
just my .02$
-
Depends on which battle and theater, but most often, yes. However, Aces High is primarily a flight combat game. I don't object to more GVs being added, but it would take a lot of additional changes to make things like the Panzer III, Char B and Cruiser IV to be viable for anything, even scenarios, beyond just adding them.
In some battles it was all on the aircraft, in some it was all on the ships. Ground troops don't handle oceans very well.
Clearly he knows nothing about the Pacific War, which were dominated by Airpower not ground or tanks. Case point the Triangle from Rubaul, Moresby to Guadalcanal, Aircraft dominated this theater in every respect where tanks were not an option due to the terrain, bases were the most important thing as well as aircraft maintenance - something Japan neglected all to often and paid the price when more fighters sat on the ground due to missing a single part in which a broken up plane down the line had the part - however they wern't allowed to simple ravish the broken up plane for parts.
Torpedo 8 had a similar situation at Guadalcanal (Lunga) where they pieced together a bunch of F4F's, SBD's to rebuild a busted up TBM used to bomb japanese artillery positions, surprisingly nobody wanted to up the lone TBM because frankly it was made from to many parts of other aircrafts.
Tanks and ground troops played a vital role on the ground, but it wasn't until air power dominated the theater that ground troops had any effect overall, you couldn't simply sneak ships around, look at the Solmon slot which Japanese tried to run destroyers though, airpower was the key to survive.
Tanks do have a place in Aces High, but will never stand up in line with the planes.
-
I know that GV's aren't the main focus of AH, but again, thats not the point. The point is that you're saying "this is most needed right now because of its historical significance" when just about every EW GV we don't have actually had more historical significance.
Again, you want the Ki-43? Fine. But don't expect me to let you get away with the lie.
Butcher, again, not the point. Aircraft couldn't have won the war, because aircraft couldn't have taken all the islands away from the Japanese. Really, all WWII aircraft's worth simply boils down to how it can help the ground troops. I can't think of one single conventional weapons-carrying aircraft that doesn't follow this rule.
Bombers: attack enemy infrastructure and weaken morale, so your ground troops have an easier time of it
Ground Attack Planes: directly support a ground attack, or hit other targets that could otherwise delay the ground troops
Fighters: stop enemy bombers and ground attack planes
Transports: move ground troops and stuff FOR the ground troops to where it needs to go
Recon planes: gather intelegence and reconosance thats usefull to the ground troops, or other support weapons.
Really, only a nuclear armed aircraft has the potential to end a war without need of ground troops. But in WWII (the main focus of this game) they were limited by range. Range had to be extended by ground troops going out and taking land away from the enemy, so the aircraft could take off from further forward and reach their target.
-
The ground troops at Coral Sea and Midway sure played a huge role.
-
Again, you miss my point. Those aren't war winning battles. The war could have been won if those actions hadn't been fought. But the same isn't true of the Allied invasion of europe.
and the aircraft at coral sea were inderectly supporting the ground troops either way. They were trying to ensure that they had controll of the skys in later battles, so they could support the most important element of any army: the common foot soldier.
-
The Ki43 has an excellent handling when shooting, IJAAF pilot called it as "Flying Sniper".
So you can get kills in it in a sortie, of course only if enemy aircrafts tried turn against Ki43... :salute
Bring Ki-43/Ki-100 to Aces High... :pray
-
Again, you miss my point. Those aren't war winning battles. The war could have been won if those actions hadn't been fought. But the same isn't true of the Allied invasion of europe.
and the aircraft at coral sea were inderectly supporting the ground troops either way. They were trying to ensure that they had controll of the skys in later battles, so they could support the most important element of any army: the common foot soldier.
It would have been very much harder to beat Japan without breaking their sword at Midway, or elsewhere and no such breaking would have involved troops on the ground. You are much too dismissive of the navy and air forces.
-
I said nothing of the navy. But the fact remains, you still have to actually go out and take the ground away from the enemy, no way around it.
-
I said nothing of the navy. But the fact remains, you still have to actually go out and take the ground away from the enemy, no way around it.
Which cannot be done in the Pacific as long as there are strong navy and airforce units in play. The boots on the ground are the final phase, but the outcome is already decided by the time there are any boots on the ground and that outcome is decided by the ships and planes. The war was even ended from the air.
The best the Japanese could do on the ground is turn what was supposed to take a few days into a month long grind on Iwo Jima.
-
You misunderstand me. I'm not belitteling the airforce in any way. Nor the navy. All I'm saying is that, without the ground troops, the aircraft and ships would be rather pointless. Yeah, you've bombed and shelled some island back into the stone-age. But you STILL have to have troops on the ground go and take it away from the enemy before anyone, airman, seaman, or soldier, can use it.
To that end, all of our modern weapons are simply infintry support weapons (save possibly tanks, since the two often co-depend on each other).
So saying that a major aircraft is more significant historicly than a major ground vehicle is simply not true. Arguably, even the M3 halftrack is more significant than the Ki-43, since it served on all fronts and in large numbers.
Thats all I'm saying.
-
Didn't need to capture Rabaul. Cut it off by air and sea, and the Japanese troops there ended up having to fight off starvation instead of an invasion.
+1 for the Ki-43 :pray
-
Didn't need to capture Rabaul. Cut it off by air and sea, and the Japanese troops there ended up having to fight off starvation instead of an invasion.
+1 for the Ki-43 :pray
Here's the difference from Europe and Pacific, Rubaul and Truk were both fortresses and bypassed and cut off, using air power and naval power neither were able to defend themselves, doesn't matter how many million of ground troops they had (exaggeration) they were - simply starved to death of fuel, food, medical supplies. This is majority why the allied island hopping campaign was effective, take one base to isolate and cut off the others.
Using raw power, the american's were able to crank out carriers like no tomarrow, by the time Guam/Saipan invasion came the Japanese pretty much had no more air power due to lack of training - however its funny to note at this particular time the Japanese were cranking out more pilots in 44 then from 39-43. However the skill level was not there, these pilots were simply fresh from flight school with no time in an air frame (Marianas turkey shoot).
+1 Ki-43, although its a nimble little turny bird, I still think the gunpackage blows
-
Again, you miss my point. Those aren't war winning battles. The war could have been won if those actions hadn't been fought. But the same isn't true of the Allied invasion of europe.
How little you know of WW2 history...at this point you should just stop.
and the aircraft at coral sea were inderectly supporting the ground troops either way. They were trying to ensure that they had controll of the skys in later battles, so they could support the most important element of any army: the common foot soldier.
The Battle of the Coral Sea was not fought in support of ground troops like you seem to think, it was to stop the Japanese invading force from landing at Port Moresby.
ack-ack
-
Was more talking of midway with the support of future battles, but still Coral Sea was fought to prevent a ground invasion.
No matter how you twist it, it all leads back to the troops on the ground.
And once again, you want the Ki-43? Fine, but don't say its imperative, which its not.
-
And once again, you want the Ki-43? Fine, but don't say its imperative, which its not.
To you because you don't like to fly airplanes, but to say the one plane that shot down more Allied planes in the PTO than any other Japanese plane isn't imperative or historically significant? That just goes to show how truly ignorant you are on the planes and vehicles that took part in the war and the entire war in general.
ack-ack
-
Again, I'm not saying that it is insignficant, infact, I never even said anything even resembling that. But I DID just that it isn't the most significant thing we could get right now. You guys just seem to be unable to recognize the difference
IMO, what we could get that is MOST significant as far as historical usage goes, would be the Panzer III simply because it was the backbone of the Panzerkorps for almost 2 years, and served extensively on all fronts.
If we didn't have the M4 sherman, then I would be arguing that we need the M4 sherman, since it was the main tank of the US armored forces for the latter half of WWII, and continued to see service into Korea.
Ki-43? Sure, would love to see it added..... eventually.
-
Why is someone "inactive" so active in the Wishlist Forum? :headscratch:
-
Tank-Ace,
A Ki-43-I is capable of shooting down an Me262. The Panzer III is not capable of destroying a Tiger II.
There is a difference between being at a heavy disadvantage and being completely incapable of winning.
-
Thats not what we were dicussing though Karnak.
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-48.jpg)
:pray
-
Hightone, even though that image is labeled "Ki-43", I'm pretty sure those are Ki-44 Shoki ("Tojo") planes. Look at how far forward the horizontal stab is in relation to the rudder, the shape of the cowl, the shape of the wing, and the presence of inner doors to cover the main wheels.
Anyway, as I asked at the top, "For use in various special events, please add the Ki-43." :salute
-
Lol, thats funny. Even its stalwart wishers don't care enough to make sure they have the right picture.
-
I believe Mr.Santa will bring Ki-43/44/100 for me... :pray
-
Lol, thats funny. Even its stalwart wishers don't care enough to make sure they have the right picture.
Thats okay we could use the KI-44 as well.
-
it may not be a MA monster, but in scenarios it would be a pleasure to fly. Against the early I-16 versions (not the later cannoned versions), against early P40s and so on. The KI-43 was a feared and respected plane in its time.
Again though, it will never win a general vote and will take the intervention of the gods to make it happen.
Btw, as someone who has a summer home in Tillamook county (not the city) and visits the air museum every summer, that particular plane is really cool to see IRL.
-
These two variants would be fun and even effective in LW (would have to be flown to its strengths of course).
Ki-43-Ic (Mark Ic)
Variant armed with 2 × 12.7 mm (.50 in) Ho-103
Ki-43-IIIb (Mark 3b)
Variant armed with 20 mm cannons.
-
Slade you may benefit from a bit more research. The 20mm were only on a couple of prototypes. There is some bad info about these planes out there on the 'Net.
-
No 20mm version in Ki-43.
Please give me Ki-43-III/Ki-44-II/Ki-45-KAI/Ki-84-I-Otsu/Ki-61-II-KAI/Ki-100-I in Aces High! :salute
-
There is some bad info about these planes out there on the 'Net.
(http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0804/the-internet-demotivational-poster-1207941575.jpg)
-
Slade you may benefit from a bit more research.
OK. What sites would you say have accurate information?
-
OK. What sites would you say have accurate information?
Its best to research it yourself, read 20 websites and see if they credit their sources anywhere, I for example have have a library of information, you can simply pm me what info you are looking for and I can give it to you.
Internet routinely does not "credit" its source - which means they probably stole it off someone elses website.
What about the Ki-43 do you need?
-
Here's some Technical information:
Ki. 43-Ia 35 built
Ki. 43-Ib 45 built
Ki. 43-Ic 716 built (this includes all Ki-43-I series)
Ki-43-IIa 2524 built
Ki-43-IIa-Kai Tropical 300 built
Ki-43-IIb 1531 built
Ki-43-II-Kai 500 built
Ki-53-IIIa 1098 built
Ia had twin 7.7mm machine guns, Ib had a 7.7mm and 12.7mm, every other version in operational numbers had twin 12.7mm's.
Most flew with a pair of 30kg bombs, only later versions carried a pair of 250kg bombs.
None flew with 20mm cannons except the Ki-43-IIIb which only 2 were created and flew in June 1945.
Early versions used the Ha.25 engine with 950 hp, later models used Ha.115 with between 1120 and 1150 hp.
All were built by Nakajima except for the two prototypes of the Ki-43-IIb (20mm version) which was made by Mitsubishi.
Sources: Ki-43 by Richard M. Bueschel (Schiffer military history book) and Profile Publication number #46, Ki-43 Hayabusa
-
Ki-43-III's Ha-115-II engine had 1230hp.
-
blah tried to fix some errors in that, The 20mm version was a Ki.43-IIIb - my edit was a little to late.
-
[sarcasm]
If only the ki-43 was used more in WWII maybe AH would include it. :old:
[/sarcasm]
-
Ain't the Ki-43 basically a Zero without cannons?
I know they're different airframes, but the tactics for using them were the same right?
-
Ain't the Ki-43 basically a Zero without cannons?
I know they're different airframes, but the tactics for using them were the same right?
Pretty much, Ki-43 and Zero were pure dogfighters, Ki-43 had no armor and was land based dogfighter - it served pretty much in every theater in the pacific from Burma to new guinea.
-
Ki-43 is turner than A6M. :)
You can fight like a WWI air battle in it with 270rds x2 12.7mm guns!
I wished it could have 500rds per gun...ahhh. :bhead
-
Interesting note about the Ki-43, it still kept on flying with various countries after the war.
ack-ack
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JYo-Un6bSk&feature=related
:pray
*ignore Japanese speech and BGM. :D
Although I would like to see Ki-100-I, Ki-61-II-KAI, Ki-84-I-Otsu, and J2M3 or 5 than Ki-43...
Because it had 20mm cannons, so everyone would use it in LWA.
-
Is there a version of that song about the Hayate, and if so, where can I get the mp3 from? :banana:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JYo-Un6bSk&feature=related
:pray
*ignore Japanese speech and BGM. :D
Although I would like to see Ki-100-I, Ki-61-II-KAI, Ki-84-I-Otsu, and J2M3 or 5 than Ki-43...
Because it had 20mm cannons, so everyone would use it in LWA.
So very true, my biggest drawback with the Ki-43 is the gun package, but I can't dismiss how many victories it had despite the lack of gun package.
-
[sarcasm]
If only the ki-43 was used more in WWII maybe AH would include it. :old:
[/sarcasm]
Apparently, it was the most common Japanese Army Air Force fighter of WWII and had the most victories in the JAAF. It's like the TIE fighter of WWII really.
-
Not to weigh into the merits of yes or no on this bird but a technical, historical question.
The firepower on this plane is very inadequate, and was obviously known by the Japanese War Dept (?), evidenced by the fact that later birds had cannons added. Why did they build so many of these birds without increasing the gun package? Were the other Nakajima planes essentially spruced up Oscars, which answers the previous question? Any history you might have would be great.
Thanks in advance!
Boo
-
Ki-44 and Ki-84 are most definitely not just spruced up Ki-43s.
-
Not to weigh into the merits of yes or no on this bird but a technical, historical question.
The firepower on this plane is very inadequate, and was obviously known by the Japanese War Dept (?), evidenced by the fact that later birds had cannons added. Why did they build so many of these birds without increasing the gun package? Were the other Nakajima planes essentially spruced up Oscars, which answers the previous question? Any history you might have would be great.
Thanks in advance!
Boo
This has been covered in great detail elsewhere in this thread, so I'll only summarize, briefly:
The 7mm machine gun was very reliable, and had a high rate of fire. The 13mm machine "gun" was, technically, a "cannon" because it fired rounds that had fuzes and explosive charges. However, in RL, the 13mm gun was very unreliable. Not only did it jam often, but those explosive shells often detonated inside the barrel! Several Ki-43s were apparently lost due to this flaw! It was common enough that on at least some Ki-43s a slab of iron armor was placed *underneath* the gun in order to protect the engine. Talk about quality control issues...
As for other Nakajima fighter planes, they were not much like the Ki-43 Hayabusa ("Oscar").
The Ki-44 Shoki ("Tojo") was a point-defense interceptor optimized for climb rate and speed.
The Ki-84 Hayate ("Frank") was a late-war monster which, despite miserable quality control problems on the production lines, could give both the P-51D and the P-47D a run for their money.
EDIT: (The Ki-61 was not a Nakajima plane, per the post by Karnak)
The Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien ("Tony") was one of the very few IJA planes to use a liquid-cooled inline engine. The Ki-61-II used an uprated version of the license-built Aichi copy of the Daimler-Benz DB601, but quality control was so bad that it often suffered catastrophic *crankshaft* failures on takeoff! <shudder!>
-
I have also read that another reason the Ki-43s used 7mm guns was because the IJA command were more interested in the ground war and felt that army airpower was second fiddle; and rather than spend the time and money to develop better aerial gun platforms, they felt that superior marksmanship would make up for the small caliber gun package.
-
Apparently, it was the most common Japanese Army Air Force fighter of WWII and had the most victories in the JAAF. It's like the TIE fighter of WWII really.
You mean it blows up on first contact with any size stray bullets?
-
The Ki-43-II and Ki-43-III were both armed with two of the 12.7mm guns. The 12.7mm guns are the same as those on the Ki-61 and Ki-84 in AH.
Bino,
The Ki-61 was a Kawasaki product, not a Nakajima product.
*Subaru is the post-war name for Nakajima.
-
The Ki-43-II and Ki-43-III were both armed with two of the 12.7mm guns. The 12.7mm guns are the same as those on the Ki-61 and Ki-84 in AH.
Bino,
The Ki-61 was a Kawasaki product, not a Nakajima product.
*Subaru is the post-war name for Nakajima.
Oops! My bad!
-
Ki-43-II and Ki-43-III were both armed with two of the 12.7mm guns
FYI...
I fly the C202 regularly and its guns are similar to the above. I have no problem shooting down planes in it. Storches to P-47s. I set the convergence to 275 and do not fire until target is 400 or less. The Ki-43 when introduced will be an effective bird if flown to its strengths.
Can't wait!!! :O
-
I have also read that another reason the Ki-43s used 7mm guns was because the IJA command were more interested in the ground war and felt that army airpower was second fiddle; and rather than spend the time and money to develop better aerial gun platforms, they felt that superior marksmanship would make up for the small caliber gun package.
The reason why the IJAAF went with the 7mm machine guns is that they believed those guns were sufficient enough against any plane they were likely to face based on their experiences in China.
ack-ack
-
Right, but even after being presented with the effects of the superior firepower of opponents like the Brewster and the I-16, the Ki-43 was only eventually upgraded to twin 13mm (in large numbers), when the majority of the Ki-43s fighter opponents where flying gun packages of at least four .30cals or .50cals. The IJAAF commanders never really felt they needed to beef up the hitting power of their army airforce planes until later in the war. Preferring to rely on the superior marksmanship of their pilots, which is an ok strategy unless you start to lose your experienced pilots and are being forced to put greener and greener (to coin a phrase) recruits in the cockpit. I guess what I am saying is that the Ki-43 always seemed to lag behind its opponents in terms of weight of firepower, and imho this is due in part to the IJA commanders not placing a proper amount of importance on army airforce R&D in order to at least stay abreast of their enemies capabilities.
...and just so my position is clear on the Oscar in AH; +100. This plane should be the next plane added right after they finish with the 410
-
Ki-43 was the primary Japanese Army fighter throughout the war. Lets just say, by leaving it out, it's like leaving the P40 out of the USAAF line up.
+1 add to all
-
Right, but even after being presented with the effects of the superior firepower of opponents like the Brewster and the I-16, the Ki-43 was only eventually upgraded to twin 13mm (in large numbers), when the majority of the Ki-43s fighter opponents where flying gun packages of at least four .30cals or .50cals. The IJAAF commanders never really felt they needed to beef up the hitting power of their army airforce planes until later in the war. Preferring to rely on the superior marksmanship of their pilots, which is an ok strategy unless you start to lose your experienced pilots and are being forced to put greener and greener (to coin a phrase) recruits in the cockpit. I guess what I am saying is that the Ki-43 always seemed to lag behind its opponents in terms of weight of firepower, and imho this is due in part to the IJA commanders not placing a proper amount of importance on army airforce R&D in order to at least stay abreast of their enemies capabilities.
...and just so my position is clear on the Oscar in AH; +100. This plane should be the next plane added right after they finish with the 410
+2
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-40.jpg)
+3 :pray
-
I'm all for more jap planes. I love poking holes in them
-
I'm all for more jap planes. I love poking holes in them
Either way...for me to fly and for you to shoot. Works out for both :rock
-
I luv Kieeeeeeeeeeees too. :)
but...but i hope to see J2M and H8K too..... :D
-
Ki-43 good plane. Make sure art werk of LA7 and Spit16 pilat.
Scor hip no tiezed boyz will run from it.
+1
-
I luv Kieeeeeeeeeeees too. :)
but...but i hope to see J2M and H8K too..... :D
Maybe we could get the Oscar and the Jack in a combo release. Either one would be a good/fun addition.
-
Oscar is the biggest missing piece in the Japanese plane set. For events it's really a must at some point. That being said, it's another one of those birds that only a few will take up in the MA
-
.... the Ki-43 was allways one of my beloved one, so i pray
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-120.jpg)
:pray
-
Perhaps a new thread would be more effective?
-
Perhaps a new thread would be more effective?
Why? HiTech is already aware that many people want to have the plane. What would another thread on the same topic accomplish?
-
It would help keep people from passing over it as a simple punt (high-tone's post was exactly that, it didn't give any new info, or further the discussion in any way shape or form, it simply served to bring the thread to the top of the list).
Infact, the only reason I posted in this again is because I've been growing annoyed at havin this spam show up in my "new replies" page.
-
(high-tone's post was exactly that, it didn't give any new info, or further the discussion in any way shape or form, it simply served to bring the thread to the top of the list).
True. Though I don't really see the point, I doubt HiTech or most of the people would forget about it.
Maybe HighTone should start a thread labeled oscar pictures in the O'club or something and stop spamming us.
-
(http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww189/sasforever99030507/Ki-43-120.jpg)
:pray
410 :noid
-
True. Though I don't really see the point, I doubt HiTech or most of the people would forget about it.
Maybe HighTone should start a thread labeled oscar pictures in the O'club or something and stop spamming us.
If nobody will forget, than that makes this entire thread pointless.
Point is that NOTHING new has been said in forever, yet people keep spamming us with "KI-43 FOR TEH WINZ!!1! :rock :pray :rock :pray :pray :pray :rock" posts, or just putting up pictures that we have an almost identicle copy of a mere 8 posts down. If thats all that people are going to do, then this thread has quite clearly exceeded its usefull lifetime.
-
Thank you Tank-Ace for posting on this one. Being the GV "fighter" you are your negative yet helpfull comments are always welcome.
Comming from someone who doesn't fly or even have an account, your deep insite as to why YOU would not fly the Ki43 is fascinating to me.
Keep being a detractor bud. :cheers:
-
But he does have a point that the photo bumping is slightly annoying.
-
But he does have a point that the photo bumping is slightly annoying.
That's because he or most folks don't have access to sourceful information besides wikipedia, granted he is saving money for a vehicle and not playing aces high - unlike he's going to go out throwing $20 bills down for a few 1960 magazines for photos.
I will see what I have in the Ki-43 picture department and post, including skins and such :)
-
Well high-tone, I'm not by any means exclusivly a GV'er. Yes, its where I specialize in, but I'm at the very least competent in all areas, and I wasn't too bad in fighters. And frankly, if I have an account at the moment is pretty damn irrelevent. I don't think I've posted any negative comment on the Ki-43 that doesn't have some legitimate issues behind it. I still have 6 years of expierence with Aces High. I still have a fairly good idea of what the fighting is like in aces high (unless we randomly expierenced a sharp shift in aircraft and capture-method preferences).
And beyond that, I haven't posted anything 'negative' on the Ki-43 for a while. I only posted because your picture spamming is getting annoying. For one, it can't be portrayed as constructive, or furthering the argument in any way. And for two, if anything, its only hurting your chances of getting the Ki-43. If I posted a picture of a 109E7 and the attached message"ZomGE!!! 109F :rock :rock!!!!" every few days, its not doing a single solitary thing to support the argument for the plane, and only annoyes people with the spaming.