The P-63 represents too much good engineering, poured into 2600 planes, to be left on the Virtual sidelines.
The Kingcobra did not have much of an impact on the war as it was a victim of circumstance. Rolling off the assembly in the first half of 1944, the P-63 did not reach Russian Air units in large numbers until Late 1944, where they are stockpiled for for use against the Japanese, they saw limited action in the invasion of Manchuko in August of 1945.
It's been a few years and many of the wish list planes have been delivered by HTC (Thank You!):airplane: +100! From what I have read, a truly great aircraft, which was never given the chance to strut its stuff, so to speak. BTW, the 51D' and K models had the Packard built V-1650-7 engines, which were far superior to the Rolls-Royce V-1710's in the early models because of the single stage supercharger. The two stage blower made the D's and K's a great performer at higher altitudes, where the 17's and 24's were flying and getting intercepted. The Packard built engine was licensed by Rolls Royce for production in the U.S. plant at North American.
So I thought it was time to ask again for the P-63 Kingcobra.
Impact on the War Effort
The Kingcobra did not have much of an impact on the war as it was a victim of circumstance. Rolling off the assembly in the first half of 1944, the P-63 did not reach Russian Air units in large numbers until Late 1944, where they are stockpiled for for use against the Japanese, they saw limited action in the invasion of Manchuko in August of 1945.
Numbers
The Kingcobra was however produced in large numbers with 2600 planes making it into Russian hands.
Design/Novelty factor
Easily the best All-American V-12 fighter of the war from a performance standpoint (P-51's have Rolls Royce designed Engines). The Big Allison finally lives up to it's power potential, after a lot of bad installations gave it a bad reputation. The P-63 represents too much good engineering, poured into 2600 planes, to be left on the Virtual sidelines. This was a fantastic mass production plane that entered service 18 months before the end of the war, but due to the strange circumstances surrounding it's Lend-Lease agreement, it never got its chance to shine. Aces High can give it that chance.
Usage
The quirky gun package will frustrate many and keep the skies from becoming full of P-63s. But the P-39 has always had it's dedicated fans, despite it's sub-par MA performance. The P-63 will be solid favorite for those dedicated few, making its addition to the game more valuable than many previously added, more historically significant planes, that became hangar queens a week after they were introduced. If HTC is going to do all the work, we owe it to them to ask for things we will actually fly.
Hopefully it can make the list for the next vote. :salute
Design/Novelty factor
Easily the best All-American V-12 fighter of the war from a performance standpoint (P-51's have Rolls Royce designed Engines). The Big Allison finally lives up to it's power potential, after a lot of bad installations gave it a bad reputation.
Unless there was a full squadron involved in combat I say no. Otherwise AH turns into the what-if WW2 plane sim with every once-flown expiramental machine flying around the LWA in the 100s. Much as I genuinely like the P-63.
Pe-2 (seriously, THE most-produced twin-engine aircraft of the war)Weren't more Ju88s built?
This is why:
And to that last sentence, even after YEARS of requests, no one has ever been able to provide a definitive smoking gun that the P-63 ACTUALLY saw combat. The one story reportedly showing a P-63 getting a kill that's been repeated has placed the incident in about a half a dozen different areas, and against several different types of aircraft.
There's probably a good half a dozen or more Russian birds ALONE that are needed. Then there's the Beaufighter, Beaufort, Ki-45, Ki-44, Ki-27, J2M, ANY French bird, (particularly the M.S. 406) TBD, SB2C, not to mention the Hawk 75 for the French, Dutch, Finns, and Commonwealth.
The case for the P-63 is still no better than for the F8F. And it's pretty much the general consensus that the F8F shouldn't be added.
That's been the problem. None of the sources given can consistently confirm this is the case.
At any rate, everyone's always complaining about the emphasis on late-war American iron. The P-63 may never have flown in American colors, but it's STILL another late-war American machine.
As I said in my post, if you want Russian birds, there's quite a few more significant ones missing:
Yak-1
MiG-3
LaGG-3
Il-4
Tu-2
Pe-2 (seriously, THE most-produced twin-engine aircraft of the war)
Not to mention if you want to flesh out the early-war plane set, the I-15 and I-153 would be invaluable both for Eastern Front scenarios and the early stages Sino-Japanese War.
I would say ALL of these should be added (plus all the ones I mentioned in my first post) before the P-63 is even a blip on the radar.
Please keep the discussion the P-63. :salute
what's your definition of needed? I think too many wish listers want to collect warbirds like Porcelain figurines. They are to sit on the shelf so you can say you have them, but they are not to use. See the He-111 that all of the "historians" said we needed. All that work, by people that don't work for free, and no one uses it. Almost Zero impact on the game. In business that's called a bad investment. I think usage and game play are the most important factor to consider.
See the He-111 that all of the "historians" said we needed. All that work, by people that don't work for free, and no one uses it. Almost Zero impact on the game. In business that's called a bad investment. I think usage and game play are the most important factor to consider.
Please keep the discussion the P-63. :salute
Earl,:airplane: You are right sir! Sometimes this pain med they have me on for my back gets the best of me! I knew better than to try to visit the forum when I have to take one or two of those things, but was excited to see a wish for the P-63. I personally think it would be a great addition to Aces High, but I am sure that Hi Tech has his reasons for not putting it in the game before now.
I am pretty sure you meant to say "Allison V-1710's in the early models" instead of "Rolls-Royce V-1710's in the early models".
Hard to do when you yourself start questioning the viability of other planes already in game.
This is about the P-63. It's about why the hell do we need the P-63 when ALL of those aircraft are far and away more significant?
Two words: Special. Events.
The TBD would be absolutely useless in the Main Arenas. But it's frankly just WRONG having TBMs during the Coral Sea and Midway FSOs or scenarios, while the Ki-45 is outlcassed by almost every other twin-engine fighter in the plane set, but it's just not right seeing Bf-110s in their place in special events.
This game is NOT only about the Main Arenas. The Russian plane set is sadly lacking for special events. It's one thing to toss in Lend-Lease birds to provide a bit of flavor for Eastern Front setups, but they should NOT have to be used entirely because the much more significant native aircraft aren't even in the game.
What need does the P-63 provide? The Russians already have a late-war monster plane in the La-7 (of which the majority of sorties are flown in a configuration that was only RARELY used in real-life in the first place) and arguably the Yak-3. And do we really need yet ANOTHER late-war American fighter to go alongside the P-47M, P-51D, P-38L, and F4U-4?
Yes or no is fine. :salute
All of those saw MONTHS of combat. The P-63 MAYBE saw combat in the very last week of the war (rumored use of P-63s "disguised" as P-39s shouldn't even enter into consideration at all).
That's a HUGE difference.
Yes! What we really really need right now is another last day of the war, insignificant performance monster in the main arena.
Right...
I looked up some of the planes and vehicles that Nashorn mentioned:Talk about lying with statistics.
TA-152, 43 built, production started 1944
ME-163, 370 built, production started 1944
Tiger 2, 492 built, production started 1944
Wirblewind, 105 built, production started 1944
Ostwind, 44 built, production started 1944
F4u1c, 200 built, production started 1944
AR234, 210 built, production started 1944
P63, 2600 built, production started 1943
There were approximately twice as many P63s produced as the TA152, ME163, Tiger 2, Wirblewind, Ostwind, F4u1c, and AR234 combined.
I understand the argument that the Late War arena shouldn't be dominated by planes and vehicles that played a minimal part in the actual war. If that approach is taken, should wirbles be everywhere defending against planes? After all, only around 100 were built. What about ME163s defending the strats and hq? They only shot down a few planes during the actual war. Etc, etc, you get the idea.
I think the P63 clearly should be in the game at some point.
Keep in mind this is a game that uses a simulation as HiTech describes AH. The game allows us to fly a 262 as an example to experience in a small way what it would have been like. Mustangs fighting Spits would never happen in WW2 but it happens here and is totally acceptable. It is the game part of the simulation.Perhaps, perhaps not. Personally I suspect it will be added eventually, but is way, way back in the production line as there are so many more important units to add first.
The Kingcobra fits in.
Keep in mind this is a game that uses a simulation as HiTech describes AH. The game allows us to fly a 262 (which actually saw combat and has several sources backing that up) as an example to experience in a small way what it would have been (was) like. Mustangs fighting Spits would never happen in WW2 but it happens (in the MAs) and is totally acceptable (there). It is the (MA) game part of the simulation.
The Kingcobra fits in.
Talk about lying with statistics.
You can also put forth that eight times as many Ta152s saw combat (assuming the P-63 saw combat at all) as P-63s, let alone all the other units you mentioned. When you cherry pick only the numbers that are favorable to your argument you come off as trying to hide stuff and that winning the argument is more important than being correct.
Sorry, Vink .... gotta -1 this one.
What affect would it have on the MA? Would it unbalance it?It would be perked in the MA I am sure.
What axis aircraft is matched to it, is there an axis counterpart to counter it?
For scenarios I would simply expect the P-63 to get no use at all.
At least when I was participating in FSO, the one time the P-63 would have likely been used was the August Storm setup, which was a deliberately HYPOTHETICAL large-scale Soviet assault against the Japanese, far in excess of what the ACTUAL Soviet offensive was.
That's ONE event in about three years of participation in FSO.
Have you read the book done by the US Army Officer on August Storm Saxman? Incredibly detailed. Didn't seem hypothetical To me :)
Ace are you suggesting the 152 saw a lot of combat?
All of those saw MONTHS of combat. The P-63 MAYBE saw combat in the very last week of the war (rumored use of P-63s "disguised" as P-39s shouldn't even enter into consideration at all).
That's a HUGE difference.
If you would like to go over the amount of combat the 152 saw I would be happy to oblige... http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,351620.0.html
On 1 Day Aug 11<the second day of august storm> the soviets put up more sorties <50> of P-63 than all the combined sorties of the 152H-1. The model of 152H we have in the game possible had 5-8 planes that made it in to combat.
Also I think you should dig into this guy and find out what and where he was flying when shot down. Mikhail Devyatayev. It is well documented how he escaped. What he was flying was kept secret and got him the gulag when he returned home.
:cheers:
As has been pointed out, that is just one of the few stories that are floating around and without any definitive proof, it will always be open for debate.I think I'll stick with what an expert on the subject says :aok Carl Fredric Geust
For example, some accounts have the kill being awarded to Mirishnichenko, other accounts give the kill to Sirotin, some credit both. Some accounts state the plane was either a IJAAF/ MIAF, or RGCAF Ki-43 or Ki-27. Some account say it was a lone Japanese fighter, some account say two. Some accounts have the action taking place in Manchuria on the Trans-Baikal Front, other account say it was in Mongolia and another account says it happened over what is now North Korea. Some accounts have the shoot down taking place near a ship named Vanemyao, though there are no records of this ship and it appears it maybe a misspelling of the Mongolian city that was being attacked by the Soviets at the time.
There are just too many 'accounts' of the story, all with differing aspects that you can't single one out and say, "this is exactly what happened."
Did the P-63 see combat operations during Operation August Storm? Most certainly. Did the P-63 engage in combat? It certainly did, it engaged in close ground support missions. Did the P-63 see any air to air combat? It's widely open for debate. Should the P-63 be added to the game? Most certainly, however, it really doesn't plug any missing gaps in the plane set so I wouldn't consider it to be a 'must need' addition but something to be added further down the line when the glaring gaps in the plane set filled.
ack-ack
I think I'll stick with what an expert on the subject says :aok Carl Fredric Geust
You know I would like to justify all the B-239 claims with Soviet loss totals... can you find that info for me just to make sure it is 100% right?
Also can you find the Agreement the Soviets had with the U.S. 1943 that said they would not use the p-63 against Germany.
I think I'll stick with what an expert on the subject says :aok Carl Fredric Geust
Problem is that many experts on the subject can't agree on the encounter or whether or not it occured. Using an unverified account of a single instance of combat as an argument to get the P-63 added to the game is rather silly. You're better off using verifiable combat missions such as the close air support the P-63 provided during Operation August Storm to support your argument.
There is a group that is currently trying verify the claims by searching through old Luftwaffe and Soviet air force records but it's not complete yet. One thing to note about the 477 claimed kills for a 26:1 kill ratio is that over all number isn't broken down by fighters, bombers or support aircraft and most people think the Finns kill tally and ratio was solely against Soviet fighters.
According to the reference book, "Aviation Lend-lease to Russia: Historical Observations" by Igor Lebedev, the agreement stemmed from a real fear at the time (1942) that Japan would still attack the Soviet Union and that the Soviets lacked the airfields between the ETO and PTO to rapidly move short range fighters to that theater. The US then proposed shuttling fighters to Siberia via Alaska on the assumption that they would be used to reinforce the Soviet air force in the east. Just as the US and Canada built a chain of airfields through Alberta and the Yukon to ferry aircraft to Alaska, the Soviets built a series of airfields from the Urals to Siberia (Called Northern Trace by the Soviet) without informing the US that these airfields were built. The US believed that the P-63s delivered through the Alaska-Siberia route would be reserved for use in the Far East by the Soviets.
As for the use of the P-63 over Germany during the Soviet drive to Berlin, there is no evidence of it. There are no official Soviet records of any Soviet air unit in Europe that operated the P-63. I know there are some that claim the 4 GIAP had secretly converted from the P-39 to the P-63 and that Germans on the ground confirmed P-63 wrecks after being shot down by AAA but again, nothing to support these claims. In fact, the 4 GIAP didn't fly P-39s and were part of VVS KBF and flew La-5s and later La-7s. As for the German claims of seeing wrecks of shot down P-63s, these can be dismissed as simple misidentification, what the Germans probably actually saw were the wrecks of shot down P-39s.
If you were a German soldier, could you tell these two planes apart?
(http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/wyrk.com/files/2011/01/P39.jpg)
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Chino2006/Highlights/P63Chino2006.jpg)
ack-ack
I'm pretty sure you think him the absolute authority because you prefer his second-hand accounting.
So the Ta152, which could be added cheaply, is a travesty you never stop wailing about, but you think the P-63, which would need 100% new art assets, should be added?
What line of "logic" leads you there?
I did a little modelling years ago on an F1 sim, Stretching/Warping the textures was a real problem when re-modelling.
LOL point me to all the research and books you have written on the subject
You almost sound like Krusty :D
I would like to see proof just as you ask for "something concrete" that says "USSR don't use the P-63 against Germany"
As to the Axis aircraft, I don't see how that is relevant. What does it matter that it dominates an N1K2-J or Bf109K-4 anymore than it matters if it dominates a P-47M or Mosquito Mk VI? In all cases the fans of those aircraft have a new predator in the tank with them and it matters not at all whether their pet aircraft is an Axis or Allied aircraft just as it doesn't matter if there is an Allied counter to the Me262.
I think it matters because it's how the air war works. The Spitfire was to balance/counter the 109E, the 262 to counter/balance the 8th AF and so forth.
I should've asked what was the P63 designed to counter, and what was designed to counter the P63 perhaps?
I think it matters because it's how the air war works. The Spitfire was to balance/counter the 109E, the 262 to counter/balance the 8th AF and so forth.
I should've asked what was the P63 designed to counter, and what was designed to counter the P63 perhaps?
It supposedly addressed the deficiency in the 39's interceptor role from what I've seen in various sources.
I'm not sure what Germany or Japan had that the Soviet Union needed to intercept by the time they
received 63s.
True, but according to Loza, the russians loved the P-39 and found it very effective against the earlier german fighters. They used is exclusively as an air superiority fighter. The P-63 would just be a much better performing P-39. :salute
Point me to yours, if you're gonna resort to that. :lol You're impressed with every source
that supports (or you think supports) your opinion, we get it. You're not impressed with
opinions that threaten yours, we get that even more. :aok
Again, the 'If you can't prove that Nazi moon bases didn't exist then my claim of their existence stands until you can' logic.
You don't seem to get why that's backwards, do you? ;)
Having done a LOT of 3D modeling myself, I think you're DRASTICALLY underestimating just how much work is actually involved in altering a model that way. Even if you're just swapping out one part for another, you STILL have to model both sets of parts. Actually altering an existing mesh into a new shape is almost an even bigger pain in the bellybutton than just building it from scratch.
Yeah, that's a BIG part of it. If you modify the mesh, you have to go through and fix your UV mapping which is an incredible pain to get right the first time as it is.
I not impressed with anything if it had turned out I couldn't find anything or if it came out different I would of posted it that way.
Have you ever been to Turkministan?
Is that where you received your formal education?You add nothing to the thread Arlo except stupidity. Why don't you run along :D
You add nothing to the thread Arlo except stupidity. Why don't you run along :D
If you're unable to quantify what Turkministan (Turkmenistan) has to do with what you're going on about in this thread then your suggestion is ironically ill-advised. I've noticed you spin into crazy once you're fatigued and/or you let your feelings get hurt. :aokHave you ever been there? Yes or no will do its not a hard question
Have you ever been there? Yes or no will do its not a hard question
Mnooooo. Have you ever been to Mount Rushmore in the Spring? How about Diego Garcia in the anything?
Now, your turn. Connect the dots why don'tcha? :D
See what I mean you add nada.. You can't even answer a simple question...
I've have noticed that you have a stiffie <Stalker Style> for me that's about it :rofl
But then again you would rather tear down something you don't agree with then actually try to disprove anything. It easier for you to toss around insults. You been doing this over 20years now ...aren't you getting tired of being the internet clown/wiseguy :aok
and once again what have you contributed to this thread .........except Dung you throw at every thread.
Please no wiki spam,
:cheers:
You may wanna re-examine both your claim and your own apparent inability. :D
And there goes crazy, like I said. :aok
zer0 :aok
P-63A-9
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/P-63A-9_zpsd890c1aa.jpg)
ack-ack already posted a pic of the 63. What you're doing does not exemplify addition. It exemplifies redundancy. Step up to the plate you claim others are striking out at, sir.
Anytime at all. :lol
While you're at it, try to explain what all that 'have you ever been to .... ' stuff was supposed to have accomplished. ;)
This is far from my argument... This is Karnaks argument. Karnak is the one that keeps saying the the Ta 152 was easy to add... My response to him is . If the ta152 was so easy to add the P-63 certainly would be just as easy to add.We're not talking about stretching existing models or anything when we're talking about reusing art assets. That sort of thing, if it is done at all, is pretty much the same as making a model from scratch. The Ta152 reuses, without changes, some of the Fw190's 3D model. Cockpit and tail for example. The wings obviously had to be redone and I am not sure about the nose shape or the canopy shape.
We're not talking about stretching existing models or anything when we're talking about reusing art assets. That sort of thing, if it is done at all, is pretty much the same as making a model from scratch. The Ta152 reuses, without changes, some of the Fw190's 3D model. Cockpit and tail for example. The wings obviously had to be redone and I am not sure about the nose shape or the canopy shape.I take it you aren't going to respond to the fact the Ta-152 is was taken directly from the A-3 airframe and modified?
In comparison, the P-63 is 100% new graphics. None of the P-39's graphics, regardless of how similar they look, can be reused.
You people are running an irrelevant argument. The P-63 is one of the last plane this game needs even if it is found to qualify HTC's requirements. Even when it is finally added, it is a perk material if there ever was one. In other words, a waste of HTC resources.
There is a long list of planes to be added that are much more historically significant, plug holes in the plane set, will not require a perk tag and prevent AH from turning into a "summer of 45" game. The wish is perfectly legit, but the chances of getting it are nil.
P-63C-5's
it is easy to tell the difference between the C-5 and A models as the tail is higher on the fusalage.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/P-63C-5_zps11937b2b.jpg)
I don't think anyone is suggesting the 63 is top of the list. Vinkman is a fan. I am too having grown up near an airport where a KingCobra was based. First warbird I ever saw up close as well as in flight.:airplane: Thanks Guppy, for making a senseable suggestion about the org op. :salute
It is worthy of inclusion at some point. It isn't one of those automatic no birds.
There are others I'd like to see sooner starting with the Beaufighter. But I won't mind a KingCobra if it ever shows up.
:airplane: Thanks Guppy, for making a senseable suggestion about the org op. :salute
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/P-63C-5_zps11937b2b.jpg)
Look how gorgeous this bird is!! Come on now...honestly...who doesn't want to fly one? Hmmm? ;)
Looks like triple redundancy to me :lol
Shouldn't you be asking him if he's ever been to Little America and since he's not really adding anything to his own thread that he should just leave?
Hey (you're) the one that said posting cool pictures of the P-63 was redundant <shrug> Have some more :aok
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/P-63A-10_zps36969960.jpg)
I think too many wish listers want to collect warbirds like Porcelain figurines.
No, I said it wasn't adding to the discussion, which was a qualifier of yours as to whether
someone should be posting in Vink's thread. :aok
Ever been to Harlem? :lol
I've seen the Globetrotters.............. twice! :rolleyes:
Triple view
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/bell_p-63.gif)
Nice but disingenuous....
Wasn't being disingenuous. A German AA gunner, especially during this period of the war with the Soviet drive to Berlin, would have been very hard pressed to tell the difference between a P-39 and a P-63. Hell, even Allied fighter pilots had a tough time telling the difference between Allied and Axis fighters and you think a German gunner that was probably a young teenager or an elderly man with rudimentary aircraft identification training would be able to spot the minor visual differences between the P-39 and P-63 that is attacking them?
As I mentioned before, if you're going to argue for the inclusion of the P-63, you better use better arguments than using an A2A encounter that may or may not have happened or the rumored use of the P-63 over Germany in the final months of the war. A smart man would use the fact the P-63 did conduct ground support missions during Operation August Storm to argue their point to get the P-63 added instead of unverified claims.
ack-ack
This late in the war, it was easier for a russian to identify a Tiger tank from a tree. However for a German, the biggest problem is you have to consider how many LIVING soldiers are left alive. Not everyone can put a book out like stephen ambrose. I made the argument a few times using living pilots who said the C.205 used drop tanks and it was unnoticed. Fact is can you anyone take the word of one "pilot" over a theater of pilots? No. A normal gunner in berlin during 1945 is not going to tell the difference been a stuka or a B17. I'm pretty sure they are given the basic instructions on how to spot and aircraft and just start blasting away.
Without facts, its hard to say, the winner usually keeps good records as for the Russians - they never bothered.
Wasn't being disingenuous. A German AA gunner, especially during this period of the war with the Soviet drive to Berlin, would have been very hard pressed to tell the difference between a P-39 and a P-63. Hell, even Allied fighter pilots had a tough time telling the difference between Allied and Axis fighters and you think a German gunner that was probably a young teenager or an elderly man with rudimentary aircraft identification training would be able to spot the minor visual differences between the P-39 and P-63 that is attacking them?:airplane: Question: Wasn't the P-39 or P-63 designated the P-400 at one time? I thought all that went to Russia which ever one it was, was a P-400! To lazy today to research it! LOL
As I mentioned before, if you're going to argue for the inclusion of the P-63, you better use better arguments than using an A2A encounter that may or may not have happened or the rumored use of the P-63 over Germany in the final months of the war. A smart man would use the fact the P-63 did conduct ground support missions during Operation August Storm to argue their point to get the P-63 added instead of unverified claims.
ack-ack
:airplane: Question: Wasn't the P-39 or P-63 designated the P-400 at one time? I thought all that went to Russia which ever one it was, was a P-400! To lazy today to research it! LOLThe P-39 built to British specs (20mm cannon) and then appropriated by the USAAF.
The P-39 built to British specs (20mm cannon) and then appropriated by the USAAF.:airplane: I am a little confused! Are you saying the difference in a P-39 and a P-400 was just the addition of 20MM guns?
:airplane: I am a little confused! Are you saying the difference in a P-39 and a P-400 was just the addition of 20MM guns?Here
:airplane: I am a little confused! Are you saying the difference in a P-39 and a P-400 was just the addition of 20MM guns?Replacement of the 37mm cannon with a 20mm cannon. Probably some other detail changes too, but none that would really affect performance. In AH when you take a P-39D with the 20mm cannon option you are taking a P-400.
:airplane: I am a little confused! Are you saying the difference in a P-39 and a P-400 was just the addition of 20MM guns?
Replacement of the 37mm cannon with a 20mm cannon. Probably some other detail changes too, but none that would really affect performance. In AH when you take a P-39D with the 20mm cannon option you are taking a P-400.:airplane: I did a little more research and right after the attack on Pearl Harbor, 200 P-39L's were sent to the Austrialian Air Force and re-designated the P-400, but could never find the reason for the re-designation. I read somewhere can't remember where, that all the 39's sent to Russia were designated P-400. Just can't find the answer as to why they changed the designation of the P-39. Might have had something to do with the "lend-lease" arrangement we had with Russia, but not sure.
:airplane: I did a little more research and right after the attack on Pearl Harbor, 200 P-39L's were sent to the Austrialian Air Force and re-designated the P-400, but could never find the reason for the re-designation. I read somewhere can't remember where, that all the 39's sent to Russia were designated P-400. Just can't find the answer as to why they changed the designation of the P-39. Might have had something to do with the "lend-lease" arrangement we had with Russia, but not sure.
ME-163... In
TA152... In
P-47M... In
P-63... Yes. :aok
It was redesignated P-400 because 400mph was the advertised speed though in reality I think it topped at 359mph or thereabouts.
ack-ack
What exactly did the P-63 shoot down? There is a greater chance that the Maus prototype with a working gun fired a few rounds at the approaching Soviets than that the P-63 shot anything down, it seems. Therefore we must add the Maus!!!
And where's my Re.2005? Or any of the dozen other things that need to be added before you get your postwar crap.
In another thread I posted much detailed information, there were quite a few Squadrons of P-63s in combat, just because the luftwaffe and Japanese didn't fly doesn't mean it didn't see combat. Over the battle of Berlin the luftwaffe was out of fuel, take an example of the He 162, there was an entire squadron ready to go, except they had absolutely no fuel to fly with.
Also in Manchuria, the Japanese did not want to play with the russians - what few missions were flown on the japanese side were either Ki-43 or Ki-27 hand me downs.
You completely missed my point. And I mean completely.
I'm saying that if we introduce a plane with zero kills, who is to say squadron strength is a requirement then? Hell, you're opening the door to the Do 335 and all its ilk, and you damn well known it.
Let me just say that if we get the P-63, I'm going to start lobbying hard for the He 162, Jagdtiger, Ferdinand, G-10, and every other axis hotrod with low numbers or questionable use that I've daydreamed about flying or driving.
I would be more afraid of the yak3p than of any other prop-plane due to its combined performance.Especially if it inherits the suspicious FM of the Yak3.
Maybe the answer is planes like the P-63 are in but they can not acquire perk points.Who cares about perk points? Half the planes that used to be perked are now unperked and it does not look like new ones are going to be perked. I am accumulating perks at an alarming rate and soon HTC will have to patch AH to make the variable that stores my perk account a double integer. The only use for my perks is to fly jets to prevent others from flying jets.
Who cares about perk points? Half the planes that used to be perked are now unperked and it does not look like new ones are going to be perked. I am accumulating perks at an alarming rate and soon HTC will have to patch AH to make the variable that stores my perk account a double integer. The only use for my perks is to fly jets to prevent others from flying jets.
I'd happily pay perks for P47-M/N, Mossie XXX (if added), loadout of bombs larger than 500lbs, etc. Until that happens (never it seems) perks points are useless.
ME-163... In
TA152... In
P-47M... In
P-63... Yes. :aok
P-63 got kills, served in combat strength and in combat. JagdTiger did as well, and Ferdinand, and He-162 and G-10.
Do-335 however, sorry it wasn't in production. It cannot be a prototype, while the Jagdtiger's numbers were low it did serve in combat on numerous areas of operation. However - fuel and Allied tactical planes posed more of a threat to the J.tiger then anything else rendering it "useless".
Ferdinand was used in Kursk Operation, it was deemed a failure - although massive armor and an awesome gun was plagued by a simple lack of a machine gun, maneuverability and it guzzled gas like no tomarrow.
Not sure why you would want the G-10, Its inferior to the K-4 (which was in production) and marginally better then the G-14 if any at all (I can't recall). Its nothing like in the old days of Aces where the G-10 had the K-4 engine with a 20mm option.
He-162 is a questionable problem, while it was in squadron strength (A training squadron) They simply had no fuel to fly. I cannot recall if it ever flew combat missions, most likely it did because I lobbied for it a while back along with the Meteor.
What kills did the P-63 get? Unless I missed something, there's a few stories floating around about the P-63 maybe shooting down a Japanese fighter in the far East.
That's even less credible than the stories about the Maus being used; they, at least, remain consistent about what happened for the most part.
And I want the G-10 because (IIRC) it had a bit higher critical altitude, and could break 425mph at alt.
You completely missed my point. And I mean completely.
I'm saying that if we introduce a plane with zero kills, who is to say squadron strength is a requirement then? Hell, you're opening the door to the Do 335 and all its ilk, and you damn well known it.
Absoooolutely!!!....... we can call them the "1 month club"
What kills did the P-63 get? Unless I missed something, there's a few stories floating around about the P-63 maybe shooting down a Japanese fighter in the far East.
That's even less credible than the stories about the Maus being used; they, at least, remain consistent about what happened for the most part.
If the P-63 didn't get aerial kills, I think it's lower on the priority list than almost most aircraft that did get kills.
And the Ta-152 not being used in its intended role is entirely irrelevant. No B-29's in Europe means none are there to intercept. But it still got kills, which is seemingly more than the P-63 can say.
And the Spit16 still got kills, as I understand it. No reason the P -63 couldn't have gotten at least 1. If it didn't, that's a damn shame, but circumstances don't change anything.
The P-63 saw combat, not just flew combat operations but actually engaged on combat in the close support role. Because the P-63 did see combat and flew in squadron strength, it does deserve to be added to the game eventually but I don't think it should be a high priority as the P-63 does nothing to fill in the existing holes in the plane set.
ack-ack
And the Spit16 still got kills, as I understand it.Many kills. The myth that the Spit XVI barely got any use (39 hours of combat I seem to recall being claimed) or kills is based on a single Spitfire Mk XVI's service record out of more than 1000 built. And that completely ignores that the Spitfire Mk XVI is nothing more than a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe with an American built Merlin 266 instead of a Rolls Royce Merlin 66 of the same power output. The different mark number is for maintenance purposes because the Merlin 266 needed different tool sizes than the Merlin 66, the two fighters are otherwise identical and rolled off the production lines side by side with mark not being determined until the engine was installed.
they do because Combat is the criteria, not "got a kill". If combat meant ground support then his point is, add it based on that, and if people mostly use it as a fighter, than it will be the same as many AH planes that are used differently then how they were used in the war.
thank you ack. I just think the plane will add more to the game (usage, fun) than some of the gap fillers so I would but on the next vote list. :aok
(http://imageshack.us/a/img580/7895/1cah.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img6/9598/8re.png)
:D
There is one major hole in your proposed plane set. It is lacking the P-38H and until you add it, your list will not be valid.
ack-ack
Also, aircraft that would be very useful for FSO/Scenarios:
I-15
I-153
Hawk 75
M.S.406
D.520
CAC Boomerang
Which scenarios are the above a/c needed for gap filling?
Keeping it to 18 (and the top one doesn't reflect the Lagg someone suggested and I added.
My list isn't related to model updates. :)
I-15 and I-153 were widely used on the Eastern Front until more advanced machines were available in sufficient numbers, not to mention the Sino-Japanese conflict. (We've got the I-16 and the Yak-3 now. The SJ conflict is like the SCW. They're just not quite here yet. I'd like to see them myself but the community rejects 'non-WWII/pre-WWII' stuff.)*
M.S.406 and D.520: Battle of France. (Retreat of France - not much battle.)**
Hawk 75: Battle of France, Continuation War/Early Eastern Front, Sino-Japanese conflict and other early Pacific Theater engagements (Dutch East Indies, Commonwealth, Pearl Harbor scenario, etc.). * and **
CAC Boomerang: Various PTO scenarios involving Australian forces. (I haven't seen engagements where the ANZACs weren't using P-40s and such with the Boomerang being slotted for the trainer/home defense role.)
And why limiting it to 18 when there's well more than 18 aircraft to add? (Because even 18 may be a bit overwhelming a wish to add to HTC's plate. I'd actually like to see players supporting a list he would take seriously as a year long project.)
Middle of the pack. Somewhere below more significant gaps (F4F-3, Ki-44, Ki-45, TBD-1, SB2C, Yak 1, MiG-3, Beaufighter, B6N, D4Y, etc.) but above adding more to the already-crowded Late War fighter (to allow for the late-war Helldiver, which is a pretty gaping hole for the USN) set.
Oh, could also use an early B-17 (probably F since that was the second most-produced variant) since the G was never deployed to the PTO and is out of place in that setting.
Germany could use a Do 217, or a Ju 188. Also a Ju 52. The 190F is in dire need of an ordnance update m(ost loadouts would require no visual modeling.)
All at several orders of magnitude more important than the P-63.
But that's where it becomes a matter of opinion.
The 63 is just as viable an alternative as the Ta152 and I don't see any of you gents complaining that the 152 is in.
For me it comes down to what birds provide the most bang for the buck in both the MA and events. No question the 63 isn't going to be a big event bird. But it's a very viable MA alternative.
Is it first on my list? Nope, But to suggest some of the birds mentioned are far more important than the King, is just silly.
Germany could use a Do 217, or a Ju 188. Also a Ju 52. The 190F is in dire need of an ordnance update m(ost loadouts would require no visual modeling.)
All at several orders of magnitude more important than the P-63.
For me it comes down to what birds provide the most bang for the buck in both the MA and events. No question the 63 isn't going to be a big event bird. But it's a very viable MA alternative.
Actually the P-63 is just as importance as everything else listed, because it served in squadron strength and in combat just like everything except some of what you listed.
Just out of curiosity why do we 'desperately need' the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS?
To me that's a bit like 'desperately needing' a Spitfire XII, Spitfire LFVc and a Seafire LFIIIc and probably a true full span wing Spitfire LFIX. Would it be nice? Sure. Desperate for them....not so sure :)
Obviously my first choice is the Beaufighter for a new addition.
I wouldn't believe a P63 would be a perk plane by any means. At best it gives the Cobra fans a chance to keep up in the late war plane filled MA.
We need a high alt 109 because all but the K4 are horrendously out-classed in the 25+k altitude band in your typical LW event. The instant P-51's and P-47's enter the mix, the 109's are at an unrealistic disadvantage due to the simple fact that we're missing any high altitude models. If you ever flew axis in a LW event, you know we're desperate for one, even if we're not frantically desperate.
Guys throw out different German bombers as you did here. How effective were they? Not very. So the benefit to the game is?
Yeah, because there's not enough late-war monsters to choose from.
It's called a "Gap Filler" because it fills a hole that needs plugging.
The Kingcobra will not be a late war monster, its armament will prevent it from becoming an "easy mode" plane for noobs, and experts alike. It will be flown by fans only.
Heard the same about the Yak-3. Does anyone know how that's working out?
New planes are always good, but I'm with Saxman - and the others like him - who think that there are already plenty of late-war monsters.
- oldman
I try to mix scenario aircraft and MA aircraft into my requested aircraft, but I always favor historically significant units over irrelevant units.
In my opinion the P-63 is right behind the Meteor Mk III in significance. Both have the advantage that they would be MA units, but both would also be perked, which reduces that advantage somewhat.
For the time being I see many other aircraft as being more important to add, both MA and scenario aircraft. Guppy mentioned the TBD as being so narrow as to not be worth adding, but the Japanese are saddled with their equivalent to the TBD even in 1945 scenarios, so the B6N and/or D4Y would be good scenario additions. The Tu-2 would be an excellent MA addition and a good scenario addition. The Beaufighter and SM.79-II would be good scenario addions. The Ki-44-II and J2M3 would be decent scenario and MA additions. We desperately need the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS.
Once we have things like those out of the way, then maybe the Meteor Mk III, P-63, He162 and B7A2 might be good additions.
In my opinion.
You use the word need when you mean want. Why does the game need planes that will be hangar queens? Why do you want planes just to "fill holes in line ups"? That's the weakest argument for adding a plane.
Frankly, this thread is all about trying to justify adding another Late War monster to an arena already oversaturated with them, and one that has ZERO use outside the Mains at that.
The P-63 is nowhere NEAR as important to add to the plane set as the "gap fillers" for that very reason alone.
Because some people notice there's these other arenas called "Early War," "Mid War," "AvA" and "Special Events." LWMA is only ONE part of the game.
But some are shooting down the P-63 just because its a late war monster.
The P-63 would be used in the same fashion for late war scenarios.
Just out of curiosity why do we 'desperately need' the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS?It is a bit different. The Mighty Eighth is a popular event, as well as other American bomber offensive scenarios, which are usually placed in late 1943 through mid 1944. Currently this is a very hard setting to balance as the Germans don't have any of their high altitude Bf109s. Given that even the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS would be at a disadvantage against the P-51s and P-47s you can imagine what it is like for the Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-14. When I say "desperately needed" for a /AS Bf109 I am referring exclusively to this popular setting for events. In the MA I agree it is not really needed.
To me that's a bit like 'desperately needing' a Spitfire XII, Spitfire LFVc and a Seafire LFIIIc and probably a true full span wing Spitfire LFIX. Would it be nice? Sure. Desperate for them....not so sure :)
1) Horse Hockey! You can pick a different plane already and not be in any disadvantage. Hangar choices that we have now do not make a good basis for more wishes to be included. It's like wishing for more wishes.This is only true for the MA. If you are flying Luftwaffe for a Mighty Eighth event set in June of 1944 there is nothing you can pick that isn't struggling at the altitudes the American bombers and escorts come in at.
No, I'm shooting it down because ALL it would be is another LWMA monster. And that's because:
The P-63 would have virtually no life outside the Main Arenas.
Two things here:
1) Horse Hockey! You can pick a different plane already and not be in any disadvantage. Hangar choices that we have now do not make a good basis for more wishes to be included. It's like wishing for more wishes.
2) due to. . . means you owe money. Just saying.
This thread went from "it doesn't meet the criteria! dont add it!" to "Well its a late war monster, bottom of the list!" I am simply defending the fact the P-63 deserves to be added in the game as the next aircraft. What I mean is it meets the criteria to be added, now in my opinion I completely agree with you
that we don't need late war monsters just to fill the main arena. But some are shooting down the P-63 just because its a late war monster. We just got the Yak-3 which is both a Late war filler AND it fills a planet set for the russians in scenarios.
The P-63 would be used in the same fashion for late war scenarios, so it doesn't automatically make it useless in scenarios.
However I do agree without a doubt, there are many other rides that need to be at the top of the list. Wellington X and Beaufighter are two I can think of that served the British quite well in multiple theaters and did its job wonderfully. But I think we are running out of multiple theater aircrafts other then the D.520.
Just to clarify, you are against it because it will only be used in LWMA where 98% or players spend 98% of their time.
I am for it for exactly that reason. :salute
They don't understand that argument ..... you know the FUN for every one concept just evades them.
No it has to be for scenarios ..that if their lucky will get 2 off this year. Maybe 200 players twice a year...That's the basis for adding planes with these guys.... I have no doubt that the FSO would work it in.
:salute
I understand it perfectly.
They don't understand that argument ..... you know the FUN for every one concept just evades them.
No it has to be for scenarios ..that if their lucky will get 2 off this year. Maybe 200 players twice a year...That's the basis for adding planes with these guys.... I have no doubt that the FSO would work it in.
:salute
It is a bit different. The Mighty Eighth is a popular event, as well as other American bomber offensive scenarios, which are usually placed in late 1943 through mid 1944. Currently this is a very hard setting to balance as the Germans don't have any of their high altitude Bf109s. Given that even the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS would be at a disadvantage against the P-51s and P-47s you can imagine what it is like for the Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-14. When I say "desperately needed" for a /AS Bf109 I am referring exclusively to this popular setting for events. In the MA I agree it is not really needed.
This is only true for the MA. If you are flying Luftwaffe for a Mighty Eighth event set in June of 1944 there is nothing you can pick that isn't struggling at the altitudes the American bombers and escorts come in at.
I understand it perfectly.
Do you understand that even more late war monsters running around makes the game less fun for people who are fans of things that aren't late war monsters? Did that even occur to you? Adding the P-63 is fun for some, and the antithesis of fun for others.
Hey I been a firm supporter for the D.520 which from what I hear ...the French are bonkers for a plane to fly that has true flight model. <shrug> and the Boomer.... their not late war monsters.
so the "New" criteria is
1. No more late war monsters
2. No french planes
3. Only planes that fill a gap
4. Only planes built over a certain number
5. Only planes that have a kill
6 No "Tactical" recon planes
7. No more 4 cannon fighters
Do I have it right?
No Fun,
Oh yes, because we should add what is essentially another F4U-4 for you to take our of the hangar one a month. That's much better than getting another aircraft that will have use in both the MA's AND special events.
I mean holy crap, do you really and genuinely believe your own roadkill?
Add planes that have to have a certain number of kills to that list.
Hey I been a firm supporter for the D.520 which from what I hear ...the French are bonkers for a plane to fly that has true flight model. <shrug> and the Boomer.... their not late war monsters.Who is opposing the D.520, other than Krusty?
so the "New" criteria is
1. No more late war monsters
2. No french planes
3. Only planes that fill a gap
4. Only planes built over a certain number
5. Only planes that have a kill <<---a certain number :t
6 No "Tactical" recon planes
7. No more 4 cannon fighters
Do I have it right?
No Fun,
Frankly, this thread is all about trying to justify adding another Late War monster to an arena already oversaturated with them, and one that has ZERO use outside the Mains at that.
The P-63 is nowhere NEAR as important to add to the plane set as the "gap fillers" for that very reason alone.
You use the word need when you mean want. Why does the game need planes that will be hangar queens? Why do you want planes just to "fill holes in line ups"? That's the weakest argument for adding a plane.
They don't understand that argument ..... you know the FUN for every one concept just evades them.
No it has to be for scenarios ..that if their lucky will get 2 off this year. Maybe 200 players twice a year...That's the basis for adding planes with these guys.... I have no doubt that the FSO would work it in.
:salute
I understand it perfectly.
Do you understand that even more late war monsters running around makes the game less fun for people who are fans of things that aren't late war monsters? Did that even occur to you? Adding the P-63 is fun for some, and the antithesis of fun for others.
Who is opposing the D.520, other than Krusty?
No, you do not have it right. You do not seem to understand or accept that things are 1) not black and white and 2) different people can have different opinions that are both valid and correct for them. That is what discussion is about, not obtaining total capitulation of all who disagree with you.
You tried to paint those of us who don't favor the P-63 as simply being against fun. I tried to explain to you why it wasn't that simple, but you either didn't understand my point or, more likely, intentionally misunderstood it so you could troll some more.
He practically begs for the D.520, a plane that would see a little bit of action in events and be fodder in the MA. *ShruG* Methinks he argues along the lines of whatever his current emotional trend is.(http://oi34.tinypic.com/n49ycp.jpg)
the Ik-3 had 11 kills there were 12 made 6 operational flew in squad form......this is about the same as the Ta... we should get this its not late war monster, its not from France, It could fill a gap <small crack> It has kills, It's not tatical recon and dosnt have 4 cannons ....
Oh Please Mr. Tank-Ace man can we have it perty please with sugar and honey on top?
Grrr and I'm gonna fix that 190F thread.
(http://oi34.tinypic.com/n49ycp.jpg)
As I said, the P-63 is below MOST aircraft. Not this one in particular, but still most. Is it below something like the Hawk 75? Hell yes. The I-16, if we didn't already have it? Absolutely. High alt 109? You bet your sweet bellybutton its above the P-63 on the priority list. Panzer II? Probably.
Italians, French, russians, australians and Britain all need to fill in spots.
Just bear in mind:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PZNdLC7oqPg/TI5qKdLoNCI/AAAAAAAAC-8/O27dqjgePl4/s1600/quote-kalaanantarupah+art+center.jpg)
That and .... no, Meg, you can't have it both ways. :D
Not so much. The MA is well stocked with planes that keep the masses content if not happy. In that arena there
will always be a 'hangar queen' ratio of probably 40%+ (ignoring that there are players that fly some of them making
those planes seldom used instead of just hangar queens). That leaves events. Scenarios. As long as there's still
subbing going on, there's a need for event aircraft and vehicle sets to have more models. BoB currently has late war
88s versus the right version. That's isn't, by far, the only example.
If HT didn't think events were important I doubt he would take the effort to provide SEAs or the AvA.
Everyone likes scenarios and planes that support them. Most of these replies are because Saxman acts like everyone who wants an MA plane is a moron. I just try to point out that in a real business, like AH, or anything else that is customer based you can define NEED as what paying customers what to keep paying. The smart money would follow the data.
Over the course of a day, the LWMA averages about 3000 player-hours. A big scenario generates [200 players x 3 hours] about 600 player-hours. If you total up scenario player hours for a year, it's 2 scenarios x 3 frames x 600 player-hours = 3600 player hours. So all the scenarios in a year equate to the usage of about 1 day of MA play. That makes the Ma 365 times more important than scenarios.
What? You like scenarios much much better than the MA so that should factor into the equation, ok how many days of MA play would you give up to fly in a scenario. Imagine you had to. Would you sit out of the MA for ten days to fly in one scenario? On average, for all the players who sign up for a scenario, what would that number be? Let's assume it's 10 days. That makes the MA 36 times higher priority than scenarios.
So if a plane were to ONLY be used in scenarios because it's performance is so below the current crop of offerings (like the He-111), shouldn't that plane be 36th on the development list? Then it's development priority would match it's usage priority.
Let's say my rough calculations are off by 300%, then every 10th plane should be a scenario only "Gap Filler". The rest should be MA planes/vehicles the people will use.
So since the intro of the last scenario-only-hangar-Queen [He-111] they've added...
Yak-3
Ki-43
German tank destroyer 1
German tank destroyer 2
German tank destroyer 3
...so there are 5 more MA planes-that-people-will-actually-fly-daily before the next [French bomber, Italian Espresso machine, whatever]
:aok
Very, very poor argumentation.
The fact that Germany was losing the war doesn't tell anything about how effective these bombers would be in the LWMA, performance figures tell you that. Ju188 for example would be a competitive bomber in the MA.
Your right I'll just put you on ignore :aok
Still zero,
Best used tool for those who can't handle a sustained argument over any subject. :aok
Everyone likes scenarios and planes that support them. Most of these replies are because Saxman acts like everyone who wants an MA plane is a moron. I just try to point out that in a real business, like AH, or anything else that is customer based you can define NEED as what paying customers what to keep paying. The smart money would follow the data.
Over the course of a day, the LWMA averages about 3000 player-hours. A big scenario generates [200 players x 3 hours] about 600 player-hours. If you total up scenario player hours for a year, it's 2 scenarios x 3 frames x 600 player-hours = 3600 player hours. So all the scenarios in a year equate to the usage of about 1 day of MA play. That makes the Ma 365 times more important than scenarios.
What? You like scenarios much much better than the MA so that should factor into the equation, ok how many days of MA play would you give up to fly in a scenario? Imagine you had to. Would you sit out of the MA for ten days to fly in one scenario? On average, for all the players who sign up for a scenario, what would that number be? Let's assume it's 10 days. That makes the MA 36 times higher priority than scenarios.
So if a plane were to ONLY be used in scenarios because it's performance is so below the current crop of offerings (like the He-111), shouldn't that plane be 36th on the development list? Then it's development priority would match it's usage priority.
Let's say my rough calculations are off by 300%, then every 10th plane should be a scenario only "Gap Filler". The rest should be MA planes/vehicles the people will use.
So since the intro of the last scenario-only-hangar-Queen [He-111] they've added...
Yak-3
Ki-43
German tank destroyer 1
German tank destroyer 2
German tank destroyer 3
...so there are 5 more MA planes-that-people-will-actually-fly-daily before the next [French bomber, Italian Espresso machine, whatever]
it's not can't.... it's don't want, dont care too, waste of time too :aok
:cheers:
Your ignore went all broke-like. :DI thought the I-talian espresso machine <Sm-79> was better myself :rofl :aok
I thought the I-talian espresso machine <Sm-79> was better myself :rofl :aok
I started a thread that suggested using that each tour include an early, mid and late era. It was soundly rejected based on the desires of people to fly the high performance planes. That thread, in a strong way, supports Vinkmans wish for the P63. That's what people want. That's why the new yaks took hold.
Well, since you're not ignoring me, after-all, explain to me how suddenly the P-63 takes
precedence over the D.520 and how you now appreciate and support that pov? :D
Presuming the 111 is never used in the MA, even once?Sorry. That's on me. I only flew the He111 once in the MA.
Simple ...It doesn't I think adding new countries to the game is priority over adding new "gap filler"
Was that understandable?
Sorry. That's on me. I only flew the He111 once in the MA.
Several others have flown it, too. Some more than once. :DI say I say it was a joke, son, a joke. :P
Several others have flown it, too. Some more than once. :D
In terms of Late war, who is going to turn in thier Lanc, 17, 24 etc for a Ju188 once the novelty wears off? Wouldn't a Mossie run circles around it?
It still comes down to bang for the buck. I'm not saying I'm against adding them. I'm saying they are not more important than a 63 in the pecking order.
It was soundly rejected based on the desires of people to fly the high performance planes.
Simple ...It doesn't I think adding new countries to the game is priority over adding new "gap filler"
Was that understandable?
You do know that the D.520 is considered a 'gap filler' because it fills in the gap of the early war that isn't very well represented in game.
ack-ack
What gap in the French plane set does it fill?
What gap in the French plane set does it fill?
The one you think will start a French plane set. Which makes your
'AHII is all about pleasing the masses that aren't actually displeased
at all what with all the late war toys they have at their disposal in
the MA' viewpoint that you've suddenly developed 'for years' a might
curious.
search is your buddy
glad your back arlo :aok
What gap in the French plane set does it fill?
For starters the fact that there currently IS no French plane set. That's a bit of one already.
Saxman gave one example.
The other is that the early war plane set is sorely lacking in planes that took part in the during the Battle of the Low Countries and the Battle of France.
ack-ack
Saxman gave one example.
The other is that the early war plane set is sorely lacking in planes that took part in the during the Battle of the Low Countries and the Battle of France.
ack-ack
There is no French plane set and the D520 will start one... then we can start with the gap filling.
Really? ... when we talk about "gap filler" we are talking about "Gaps" in the current plane sets we have, are we not?
Ar and Sax are right ... There is no French plane set and the D520 will start one... then we can start with the gap filling :aok
Which will be fine by me :)
From a purely business perspective ....I would already have had the plane available along time ago and a few others.
I guess we will just see how things go....
:cheers:
Yep, the M.S. 406 and D.520 would both be good starts. Toss in the Hawk and between those three and the Hurricane I we already have you've got a fairly solid Allied fighter lineup for BoF. Just need a proper EW Allied bomber (the Wellington already suggested would be great).
Fairey Battle. <shudder>
The B5N2 is a surprisingly good stand in for the Battle.
Subs are just another word for gap to me. ;)
There's a reason France fell easily (and it has little to nothing to do with courage). The
BOF would be a scenario where everyone pretty much wants to fly German. Then again,
it seems the big BoB scenario is suffering that this year. You'd think the later model 88,
the new bomber wingman join feature, the 110 experimental contingent and the 109E
might have intimidated players from RAF Hurricanes. :(
That's not data supporting the addition of the P-63.
That's not really data, at all. That's presumed statistics.
So you're attempting to sell me on the premise that the more players willing to sacrifice their MA time to create, support or fly in a scenario increases the value of the MA and reduces the value of scenarios? Either I missed your attempted point, you misstated it or you didn't really have one in the above statement.
Presuming the 111 is never used in the MA, even once? I'd like to see the 'data.' What about the 51B vs. the D model? Waste of time and resources? Causing players to quit because the MA got boring what with aircraft in the hangars many won't fly vs plenty in there that they will?
There is no shortage of fun planes to fly in the MA. There is a shortage of planes to accurately fill the slots in scenarios that make them more fun.
Let's say you were lucky and were dead on. It still doesn't support you premise. On the very rare occasion I've seen a player go on about a plane release announcement and get bent out of shape about it being a potential MA hangar queen, not only were there other players with a different opinion, the first player was actually flying a plane (perhaps one of many) that kept him quite content. Doubt he quit over the He-111 being added instead of the P-63.
If we had the Wellington, D.520 and M.S. 406 then we have a nice phony war scenario. Of course the B5n would sub for the Fairey battle. One of the major reasons I am behind Twinboom and the D.520 - not only that, it also served in the ETO for the luftwaffe which makes it one of the few aircrafts
that switched hands during the war.
The Case for the P-63 was made in previous posts.
Yes it is. I've read every Lusche thread on posted usage and stats and I'm using numbers from memory. I think they are well within the 300% error band I bounded them with.
You missed the point, you got it exactly backwards I'm afraid.
This is not analogous to any point I'm making so I can't vouch for this logic or lack there of.
There is no shortage of scenarios to plan based on the plane set we already have either. But that's your argument. Mine is Priority, not Whether or Ever. But if that is your requirement, let's make the Russian invasion of Japan the next scenario. Now we'll NEED the P-63 :D
You seem to be trying really hard not to understand my premise Arlo, I know you like to play Devil's advocate for fun, but I never made a point that people were going to quit because the new plane introduced wasn't the one they wanted.
Whatever 'error band' you claim, you're attempting to mask opinion with 'pseudo-data.'
Then the point you attempted was very poorly phrased if you meant to express the opposite.
Of course it is comparable. You're claiming anything modeled for events is antithesis for the MA
Then what is your point, really, what with the MA priority and 10 to 1 ratio thing? :huh
The data was sufficiently accurate as it was presented and used to support the point that the MA gets over 100 times the usage than scenarios. using adjectives like Pseudo, does not discredit those numbers. If you can discredit them with more accurate numbers, please correct me. :salute
It was perfectly clear. Please re-read my post. :salute
What? You like scenarios much much better than the MA so that should factor into the equation, ok how many days of MA play would you give up to fly in a scenario? Imagine you had to. Would you sit out of the MA for ten days to fly in one scenario? On average, for all the players who sign up for a scenario, what would that number be? Let's assume it's 10 days. That makes the MA 36 times higher priority than scenarios.
That's not what I said. Please re-read my post.
Please re-read my post. It's really quite clear. :salute
Besides, modeling the P-63 to shoot Japanese jeeps is about as needed for events as modeling civilians.
Then what is your point, really, what with the MA priority and 10 to 1 ratio thing? :huh
Back to the topic, can we not simply agree the LWA is just as important as Scenarios/FSO? Both should get planes to fill and we are all happy :)
Meanwhile, those who like the true historical aspect of the planes in AHII (whether in a scenario or in the MA) tend to have a modeling pecking order which usually sounds like 'Ok, lets fill the gaps leading up to your dream-plane first, ok? Nice plane but ... not as important to completing the roster as you're attempting to make it sound.'
Problem is HTC is the one who adds the aircrafts, he has no order - at least from what I've seen over the years. There is a small trend, anytime there is a voting it seems the top winners get added in game, other then that - we can cry all we want about what deserves or wants to be added in game - he chooses himself.
Problem is HTC is the one who adds the aircraft, he has no order - at least from what I've seen over the years. There is a small trend, anytime there is a voting it seems the top winners get added in game, other then that - we can cry all we want about what deserves or wants to be added in game - he chooses himself.
There's a fair bit of contradiction in your post. You state he has no order then you say when players vote Hitech listens and adds the top winners then you say he just plain adds what he wants to add (as if the wishlist [added to the forum by Hitech/HTC] serves no true function).
there is no contradiction in my post. What is on the vote list he adds (as I said) However there is NO TREND on what he adds otherwise. P-40 upgrades? La upgrades? I don't remember those threads to much. Perhaps there were a thread or two over the years, but nothing like the large following some aircraft have.
the P-63 would likely get some serious useage in the Late War arenaNegative. Neither it nor the Meteor would see all that much usage in the MA as they will both be perked.
Negative. Neither it nor the Meteor would see all that much usage in the MA as they will both be perked.
Per Widewing's posts the P-63 does about 385 on the deck, climbs at over 5,000fpm and turns far, far better than the La-7. If you don't think that'll be perked I don't know what to say.
Look at all the perk planes, they do get used even the 262 which is the most perked priced aircraft.
Look at all the perk planes, they do get used even the 262 which is the most perked priced aircraft.
Look at all the perk planes, they do get used even the 262 which is the most perked priced aircraft.There are a number of planes that could be added that will see more MA use than the P-63 simply due to the perk cost.
Shooting at Jeeps :rofl
Why did the Japanese have all these planes then and do the attacking they did? Oh that's right at this point they were the new French Flag waivers :aok
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/pages/ww2/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/pages/ww2/)
Been sittin here watching you argue all morning..... what happened did Flame warrior go down?
I liked the part where you say you have worked so hard on the scenarios :rofl Care to tell me your shade?
Go away Ar, :aok
Don't feed Him.... your finding out... the best thing to do is avoid Ar... he's like sand in your underware. :eek:
But I digress :lol
1 more thing Ar, I would be happy to put my list against yours or Karnaks in a vote in the MA any day.... Why would I win? Because its what folks want. 98% of them. ;)
My List.. In the order I would like of course, :aok
D520
CaC-13
P-51 <MkI, Mk1a>
A-36
P-63
Hs-129
A-20G-1
A-26B/C
:cheers:
You want to see what having a plane having a perk price does? Unperk the F4U-4 and enjoy.
In fact if the P-63 is ever added without a perk, I will be lobbying HARD for an unperked -4.
There are a number of planes that could be added that will see more MA use than the P-63 simply due to the perk cost.
You woke up (watching all morning - you don't have the resistance [ptp], my friend). You forgot your meds again. You don't want to engage me, you don't want others to, then you want to engage me and you have a better list and you have sand in your undies. All in one post, wow. Meh. Promote your list. Who ever wanted to stop you? I've not only promoted a list but mine is actually tweaked from other players/forum members input. :D
(http://imageshack.us/a/img189/9260/hlna.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img4/1133/8pan.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img11/2842/67av.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img197/9102/enbh.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img713/8819/lsvs.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img839/5743/zs2u.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img545/2603/paba.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img42/2318/ug2o.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img835/4440/zg77.png)
You woke up (watching all morning - you don't have the resistance [ptp], my friend). You forgot your meds again. You don't want to engage me, you don't want others to, then you want to engage me and you have a better list and you have sand in your undies. All in one post, wow. Meh. Promote your list. Who ever wanted to stop you? I've not only promoted a list but mine is actually tweaked from other players/forum members input. :D
(http://imageshack.us/a/img189/9260/hlna.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img4/1133/8pan.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img11/2842/67av.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img197/9102/enbh.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img713/8819/lsvs.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img839/5743/zs2u.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img545/2603/paba.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img42/2318/ug2o.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img835/4440/zg77.png)
what a spam clown :aok shaking out the sand
You know this is really disrespectful to go spam in every thread, sorry to say.
Meg,
Most people in the MA are clueless about what they are voting for. I ascribe much more to HiTech's philosophy, give the player what they want, not what they ask for.
Players will quite happily vote their game into mediocrity because most never stop to think of consequences beyond "This would be COOL! I could shoot people down so much better if X!" without ever considering the impact that "X" will have on the game and themselves.
For what it is worth, I could easily create a list that would be voted for over yours. You have way to much non-American stuff on your list to win.
If anyone bothers to ever read any of my other forum posts, they would know I will lobby anything historical first without question, in fact I much rather EW or MW rides before anything else, I have no country in which I lean towards either so I cannot be a fanboy of any country.
Blame my 'shade.' He got caught up in a dose of promoting a scenario. :D
Hey karnak Most people in the MA pay the Bill
Looks like none of us have to go to the effort to look up your old posts since you've made your claim clear just now.
You may wanna check with Lusche as to what his data was designed for. The obvious reason the MA gets more 'usage' than scenarios is because scenarios are scheduled events with time-limited frames and are not run daily, on consecutive days or continuously. You ... ummm ... know this, right? Having said that, scenarios still get several hundred participants. Try measuring numbers of players per frame versus number of players per day on the MA and your 'data' may start to reflect that your '10 to 1' ratio/desire for just any ol' hotrod, whether it had historical significance or not, is really just your attempt to shore up your wish for the P-63.
Why don't you read it again, yourself?
Do you not see that factoring in how much effort I and other players are willing to put into a scenario and how much we, as paying customers, spend doing that instead of flying in the MA doesn't increase the value of the MA over events? Can't you see that it actually illustrates the opposite? How in the world did you come up with your post illustrating otherwise?
As illustrated above, my re-reading your posts does not make them suddenly mean what you hoped they would without the effort put forth by you to be accurate, clear and concise. If you want your meaning known then make sure it is, even if it takes you reviewing it and then clarifying.
Allow me to be redundant - as illustrated above, my re-reading your posts does not make them suddenly mean what you hoped they would without the effort put forth by you to be accurate, clear and concise. If you want your meaning known then make sure it is, even if it takes you reviewing it and then clarifying. :salute :cheers:
Actually, most people with a subscription pay their bill. Which includes Karnak and ... wait a tick .... me even. :D
Note fellow readers of this thread:
I think that the bickering has driven away most of the readers of this thread.
- oldman
I think that the bickering has driven away most of the readers of this thread.
- oldman
Na Karnak the 4 cannon 51 will dominate and so will the A26B/C or A20G-1:rofl
:cheers:
Hey karnak Most people in the MA pay the Bill
No you said you have worked so hard .....wheres all your hard work ....should I ask Brooke or Tiff how much time you have spent on the scenario team devoting all your precious time to make them over the years??
Putz,
Do you not see that factoring in how much effort I and other players are willing to put into a scenario and how much we, as paying customers, spend doing that instead of flying in the MA doesn't increase the value of the MA over events? Can't you see that it actually illustrates the opposite? How in the world did you come up with your post illustrating otherwise?
:rofl
You think people in the MA know the designation of the Mustang with four 20mm cannons. That's cute. A large percentage think the P-51B is the Allison engined version.
Here, this list would beat yours:
P-61B
SB2C
B-32
He177A-5
Seafire Mk III
Tu-2
I think that the bickering has driven away most of the readers of this thread.
- oldman
Note fellow readers of this thread: Please ignore Arlo's re-interpretations of my posts. It's like random thoughts are streaming into his head, and he attributing them to me, then arguing with me about them. For my insights, please see my original, un-quoted. Posts.
Thank you,
Vinkman :salute
Wow, you're really keyed up now that your fingers found the keyboard.
Stuff
I agree, i'm done here, threads been derailed.
na you let him win if ya do that that's what he is trying to do :)
How long have you been paying maybe we should have input allowed based on time served :rofl :aok
Yawn
Note, I posted your quote word for word. How your original rendition (same as what I quoted) is suddenly supposed to take on a different meaning may not impress the masses you seem to be playing to now as much as you just going ahead and starting a post that reads 'What I meant was .... '
:rofl
I give up. :rolleyes:
Thanks for 'adding something', Meg.NP Ar... point to anything of substance you feel you have posted of impotence in this thread..... Oh cripes thats all your posts :rofl
You waking up and posting helped move things right along.
Ok, on to whatever anyone has regarding the P-63, the MA, the value of events, what a gap really is and whatnot. :)
NP Ar... point to anything of substance you feel you have posted of impotence in this thread..... Oh cripes thats all your posts :rofl
Shhhh .... grown-ups are about to talk again. :)Let me roll your crib out of the room then :aok
Let me roll your crib out of the room then :aok
Never try to one up a dis by copy-catting. It just makes you look pitiful. ;)
Is that english?
Simple ...It doesn't I think adding new countries to the game is priority over adding new "gap filler"
Was that understandable?
Are those all planes on your list? If so Good lets get ar's list and give it a go.. lets find out.M26 is a tank.
I'm game,
Well, since you're not ignoring me, after-all, explain to me how suddenly the P-63 takes
precedence over the D.520 and how you now appreciate and support that pov? :D
:cheers:
Simple ...It doesn't...... I think adding new countries to the game is priority over adding new "gap filler".
Was that understandable?
:cheers:
M26 is a tank.
That is a list that would beat your list. Doing a hybrid of those lists would beat either, so if your position is that what people say they want in the MA is what the focus should be on then the hybrid list would be better.
But you obviously don't think that as you have two hangar queens at the top of your list. You are just as guilty of pushing your preferences as anybody else.
You pretend that you want to give people what they want, but then you put a French fighter at the top of your list.
You do no different than I do when considering what I think should be added. Put some MA stuff and some gap fillers on the list. You are just outraged at me that I don't pick the same ones you do and because I don't you make it out that I ask for nothing but things that won't be used in the MA.
I said in the order I would like you have a problem with that?
Now who's hallucinating?
You and Ar have Phd's in internet psycho analysis :lol
Your list wont come close to either fighter or bomber.... Like I said lets argue for a vote on the next planes ;) you will help me do that right?
You won't like it.
I'm pretty sure about that.
What? Your post makes no sense. It doesn't respond to the post you quoted at all. I may as respond to this by saying "Elephant" and it would be just as relevant.
I said in the order I would like you have a problem with that?
Now who's hallucinating?
You and Ar have Phd's in internet psycho analysis :lol
Your list wont come close to either fighter or bomber.... Like I said lets argue for a vote on the next planes ;) you will help me do that right?
My vote would depend on what ends up on the list.
Last vote HTC did rig it by not putting any American aircraft on the list. If the A-26 is on the next list, should there be one, it will almost certainly win unless, perhaps, the SB2C Helldiver divides the vote enough for something like the Yak-3 to slip through or the F7F or F8F is on the list.
What I would do in HTC's position is go ahead and put the A-26 into the aircraft to be added queue and then do another list of non-American aircraft to vote for. This way fans of the A-26s or American metal still get a toy and the vote doesn't have a preordained winner.
Suggested list:
Beaufighter
G.55
He111
J2M
Ju188
Ki-43
SM.79
Tu-2
Wellington
Yak-3
HTC should never have another voting session
No one likes the end result and frankly the community, as a whole, isn't smart enough to decide. As Hitech said himself, sometimes the worst thing you can do is give the customer what they want.
I have never ever said what you state. In fact I always state exactly the opposite.
I have said many time give the customer what he WANTS not what he ask for.
HiTech
What? Your post makes no sense. It doesn't respond to the post you quoted at all. I may as respond to this by saying "Elephant" and it would be just as relevant.
Lets find out ....a real vote describing each and every plane. A vote not just dropped on us for 2 day vote period.... but a at least a week for each voting period..... well put all of your planes all of karnaks and Mine and any others. Lets have the info for the vote posted and an ingame daily message of where to find the info on the BBS. So the "stupid people in the MA" can be well informed. We will half the vote each time.
You will help with that right?
<---starts cheering now ....GO USA!
K, :aok
Bring it :D
I didn't notice where you said you would help promote the vote?
Vote vote vote. Here's my list. Bring your list. If you're wanting my personal promotional time, you'll have to wait until after the scenario is done. Do you really need my help there? You seem to have plenty of time on your hands and can type. Get someone to volunteer to be your editor so the message is as clear as it would be loud.
List. Vote. Go, you, go.
Arlo,
In the future, when a wishlist thread asks for a plane or vehicle, there are two proper options on how to contribute....
1) Indicate your support with a +1 or thumbs up, etc.
2) Do nothing.
HTC can see the level of support by the number of people that give it a +1. They can tell when there is no interest because only a handfull of people reply.
Any other input is spam that makes determining the level of support more difficult. It's not relevant to discuss the logic of why a plane is asked for. Those discussions clog the thread with spam and hide the support or lack there of for the plane.
You spammed my thread to death with nonsense. If you don't understand something...pm me. I'll take all day to explain it to you. :salute
:rofl Pawn
Stuff
-1
Arlo,
In the future, when a wishlist thread asks for a plane or vehicle, there are two proper options on how to contribute....
1) Indicate your support with a +1 or thumbs up, etc.
2) Do nothing.
Did you bother to read the post of mine from the other thread that you quoted?
Just quoting your position on the A-26 is all... or has it changed.... had nothing to do with my post.
:cheers:
Did you bother to read the post of mine from the other thread that you quoted?
Any vote with an American aircraft on it that isn't a complete dud like the TBD would be isn't worth holding the vote as the winner in preordained. Hence, if there is another vote, the A-26 ought not be on it. To solve this the A-26 should just be added to the queue of units to be added that HTC has. This accomplishes two things, 1) it gets the A-26 into the game for those who want it and 2) it allows the vote to potentially be an actual contest with an unknown outcome.
I don't have any paranoia about it. I simply recognize that people aren't asking for it because they are interested in its history or the guys who flew it. They are asking for it simply because they want a P-51 with cannons. Same is true for the guys who ask for Spitfires with four cannons. And A-20s with cannons.
Hey you said your picks would beat mine you didn't say any thing about having a separate vote in this thread... so which is it your picks or a separate vote? :D and don't forget you paranoia about the MkIa.
Go USA!!!,
A-36, I believe, which was the specialized ground attack variant. There weren't a whole lot of them but they did see combat.No, A-36 had machine guns.
I don't have any paranoia about it. I simply recognize that people aren't asking for it because they are interested in its history or the guys who flew it. They are asking for it simply because they want a P-51 with cannons. Same is true for the guys who ask for Spitfires with four cannons. And A-20s with cannons.I posted all about its history it served shot down bombed and strafed stuff and you know I certainly don't care about the history right? It wouldnt be simply cannons now would it, there would also be the MkI 4x50,4x30 model in one plane kinda like going to the track and betting on 1 and getting 1a for free.
The list I posted in this thread would beat the list you posted in this thread. The list you dug out of another thread would not. That is self evident and that you think you have a "gotcha" moment and are crowing about it is silly.
The issue I have with your line of reasoning is that you are claiming to be advocating for what the players want when you push for the Mustang Mk Ia, A-26, P-63 and cannon armed A-20G and contrast yourself to the stuff I ostensibly am pushing, but you include the D.520 and Boomerang as well which are things that definitely don't meet your giving the players what they want criteria. You could make an even stronger list of "things the players want" by replacing the Boomerang, D.520 and Hs129 on your list with the P-61B, SB2C and M26. So why is your position so great when you aren't favoring giving the people what they want?
I also note your petty nationalism.
No, A-36 had machine guns.
Mustang Mk Ia was the British designation. It did see combat but there were not that many made. It is an Allison engined version.
OK, what is the model of P51 with the cannons please ? And was it flown and saw combat and got kills in WW2 ?The P-51.... Yes!
Thank you.
A-36 6x50's dive flaps and eggs saw plenty of combatI have advocated in favor of the A-36 as well.
250 Mk1a quite a few more than the F4u1c p-47m 152H-1 Brew shall i go onYou say stuff like that like you think it matters.
You say stuff like that like you think it matters.In my opinion it does matter when we have a plane in the game that had maybe 8 of the variant that flew and saw combat :aok
A-36 6x50's dive flaps and eggs saw plenty of combat
250 Mk1a quite a few more than the F4u1c p-47m 152H-1 Brew shall i go on
But you are misreprenting it's combat use. The RAF birds order was 150 Mk IA. They didn't get all those birds as many were taken over by the USAAF, of which a few were sent to North Africa with a pair of recon squadrons. The RAF combat birds were mainly Mk I or Mk II Mustangs with the 50 cal, 30 cal mix of the Mk I or the 4 50 cal set up of the Mk II. Those were used for Army Co-op work and recon too.:D
I don't have any problem with adding an Allison Mustang, but do it based on the birds that got used consistantly. Again the early Mustang I's were operational with the RAF for a long time. The A36 got a lot of use in the MTO. The P51A made a name for itself in the CBI with Phil Cochron and the 1st Air Commandos. Many were modified in the ETO for low level photo work.
Adding the 4 cannon Allison Mustang is nothing more then an excuse for another 4 cannon bird in the MA however, and those get abused by folks enough already.
You are correct, A-36 had 6 50s and the British design Mk 1A had 4x 20mm cannons.
In my opinion it does matter when we have a plane in the game that had maybe 8 of the variant that flew and saw combat :aokDoes its use dominate the long nosed 190 category of airframe? No, it does not. The rarely used cannon armed P-51 would completely overshadow the vastly more representative P-51A and even the better performing P-51B. The closest analogy would be the F4U-1C, and look how that turned out, it had to be perked.
Does its use dominate the long nosed 190 category of airframe? No, it does not. The rarely used cannon armed P-51 would completely overshadow the vastly more representative P-51A and even the better performing P-51B. The closest analogy would be the F4U-1C, and look how that turned out, it had to be perked.
In addition that mistakes were made in the past is not a good reason to make them going forward.
Almost 5 years ago ....
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=250681.0
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/5830/ac21uo5.jpg)
:D
Those Burma based birds would make the most sense to me, but you know what? I really don't care either way in the end. Give it your best shot to get em all. Since they'll be doing the early canopy, please include the option to use either that or the Malcom on the 51B/Cs too so there is more accuracy for each particular skin. Don Gentile's bird being a good example of one that needs that option. :aok
I don't care if it gets perked :) I have 27k worth to spend on nothing :) I would love it in the MA perk it to the hills :x
People would love the damn thing it would be .... should I dare say .... FUN! :rofl
*Ding* You have used one slot of your 'Megalodon's Top 20 planes that have not yet been modeled for AHII but should be list' but you have not yet selected which number from 1 to 20 it will currently hold. Once that is selected you will have 19 left. Please select a number from 1 to 20.
:D
Tiff is entitled to his opinion, he doesn't make an bellybutton of himself like you tho :D
A year ago
:cheers:
Notice he got his Ki-43 and his He-111. We also have the Yak-3 now.
There seems a trend. ;)
Lets Vote on it :D just to be true I told Tiff the same thing :aok
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,328441.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,328441.0.html)
You got your backside pummeled quite a lot in that thread. No wonder this is a sensitive subject. Have a doughnut.
Megalodon, you know you could just create a custom arena and ground everything that isn't American and flew after 1942.
It would be essentially what you want, even if you don't know it.
But either way, just leave your bias at home, and stop the "Murica!!!! :rock" attitude.
I didnt get anything pummeled I did do some pummeling though " There is no 51A" was 1 of the better moments
MMmmmmmok. Whatever you have to tell yourself.
It's all ok, dude.
It would be essentially what you want, even if you don't know it.
But either way, just leave your bias at home, and stop the "Murica!!!! :rock" attitude.
Go USA, would like to add a plane to the vote?
How bout a couple bombs for the F that were never used in combat and only hung on the plane for a photo shot at a testing facility?
:rock
Hell Karnak used to be the same, but he's slackin off that british stuff, maybe he stopped drinking Gray Earl tea :bolt:Hmmm. Don't think I was ever exclusively pro-Brit. Certainly that is the direction my bias goes, and I do try to fight it, but I've always advocated for non-Brit stuff as well. For example, I pushed hard for the Ki-84 for a long time prior to it being added. The thing of it is that the American stuff, as our unit list can attest to, really doesn't need any additional advocation and the German stuff has always had fans who are very much more dedicated to it than I am to RAF stuff. The Finns, Italians, Japanese and Russians all are out in the cold compared to the Americans, British and Germans. The French are practically forgotten.
Here's the thread you are talking about.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,347976.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,347976.0.html)
Hmmm. Don't think I was ever exclusively pro-Brit. Certainly that is the direction my bias goes, and I do try to fight it, but I've always advocated for non-Brit stuff as well. For example, I pushed hard for the Ki-84 for a long time prior to it being added. The thing of it is that the American stuff, as our unit list can attest to, really doesn't need any additional advocation and the German stuff has always had fans who are very much more dedicated to it than I am to RAF stuff. The Finns, Italians, Japanese and Russians all are out in the cold compared to the Americans, British and Germans. The French are practically forgotten.
As to the tea, I actually only started drinking Earl Grey tea within the last six months. :p
:rofl dbl pawnt
just like you Ar you continued to get pummeled you just cant figure it out...
How bout those Jeeps? :lol
Thought U wanted to talk today you havent answered the ? about the Japanese planes in the August Storm? No?
The French are forgotten.
What do you want to know about the Japanese planes?
You said the p-63's were plinking jeeps in the August Storm right? There were no planes to fight was your emphasis <shrug> prove it!
Even if he missed the scenario schedule a tad his 300% argument more than covers it.
There's not much proving P-63s managed to fight anything that wasn't a GV or wearing boots.
Wow. Planes to fight and the fight having happened are two different things. This has been discussed in this thread already.
There's not much proving P-63s managed to fight anything that wasn't a GV or wearing boots.
I sympathize. Truly. All these threads you think you shine in. :lol
Shooting at Jeeps :rofl
Why did the Japanese have all these planes then and do the attacking they did? Oh that's right at this point they were the new French Flag waivers :aok
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/joe_brennan/order_of_battle.htm (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/joe_brennan/order_of_battle.htm)
Been sittin here watching you argue all morning..... what happened did Flame warrior go down?
I liked the part where you say you have worked so hard on the scenarios :rofl Care to tell me your shade?
Go away Ar, :aok
Don't feed Him.... your finding out... the best thing to do is avoid Ar... he's like sand in your underware. :eek:
But I digress :lol
1 more thing Ar, I would be happy to put my list against yours or Karnaks in a vote in the MA any day.... Why would I win? Because its what folks want. 98% of them. ;)
My List.. In the order I would like of course, :aok
D520
CaC-13
P-51 <MkI, MkIa>
A-36
P-63
Hs-129
A-20G-1
A-26B/C
:cheers:
Snore
Jeeps :rofl
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/joe_brennan/order_of_battle.htm
(http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/joe_brennan/order_of_battle.htm)
I think meg really might not realize he's losing the argument.
Really........... I'm just tired of you 3-4 Poaching this post :lol
I'm still here have you posted any substance in this thread?
Nope,
So lets include them and others....I'd like to see the D.520 added. Hawk 75 seems widely useful for scenarios.
Far more than you. Your arguments for it being the next plane boil down to "no benefits, no rules against it, and 'Murica!!!!!".
Hell, one of your friends explicitly said he doesn't want discussion, only agreement.
Such an asinine position to argue. Why not just accept that this shouldn't be the next addition?
Arlo,
In the future, when a wishlist thread asks for a plane or vehicle, there are two proper options on how to contribute....
1) Indicate your support with a +1 or thumbs up, etc.
2) Do nothing.
HTC can see the level of support by the number of people that give it a +1. They can tell when there is no interest because only a handfull of people reply.
Any other input is spam that makes determining the level of support more difficult. It's not relevant to discuss the logic of why a plane is asked for. Those discussions clog the thread with spam and hide the support or lack there of for the plane.
You spammed my thread to death with nonsense. If you don't understand something...pm me. I'll take all day to explain it to you. :salute
Find where I ever said this should be the next plane added
<----points to sig and :rolleyes:
Please,
I'd like to see the D.520 added. Hawk 75 seems widely useful for scenarios.
If I had my way the Hawk 75/P36 would be right after the Beaufighter :aok. Lots of places to use that bird and lots of countries. USN Wildcats against Vichy Hawks. RAF Hawks in Burma into 44. Hawks with the Finns. The list goes on :)
You're parading your panties in public for nothing?
Well, not surprising, actually. :D
this is you getting pommelled :rofl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRH3ruCumt8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRH3ruCumt8)
Jeeps?
Wubba wubba jeeps? Yeah, jeeps. What, is your crazy stuck? :D
No you cant seen to stay on track I have already pointed out your AADD :ahand
Can I call you Miley?
No. You can't call me at all. Step away from the glue, you.
You woke up (watching all morning - you don't have the resistance [ptp], my friend). You forgot your meds again. You don't want to engage me, you don't want others to, then you want to engage me and you have a better list and you have sand in your undies. All in one post, wow. Meh. Promote your list. Who ever wanted to stop you? I've not only promoted a list but mine is actually tweaked from other players/forum members input. :D
I'd like to see the D.520 added. Hawk 75 seems widely useful for scenarios.
Okay Ar,
sorry mate.....go on go on :) make your case.... for the Ki84 not being a match for the P-63...
Arlo, ignore him, he's obviously either an idiot or a troll, or both. And luckily hes the harmless kind.
Ar, about those Japanese planes in the August storm care to try again... making the case for P-63's shooting jeeps.. or would you like to rescind your comment?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7NHCy13ZLk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7NHCy13ZLk)
Listen here you little twit ...your opinion is about as worthless as tits on a bore hog backed up by that useless empty storage bin of knowledge you think you possess. Take the OP's advice you have nothing to offer.... and I don't think Ar will get in bed with you so stop sniffing his drawers.
-1 and move along :aok
Ar, about those Japanese planes in the August storm care to try again... making the case for P-63's shooting jeeps.. or would you like to rescind your comment? you wanted to talk! Gap filler? http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=257529.30 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=257529.30)
I have the day off,
:cheers:
:huh
You're just making up stuff to win an argument with yourownself now, aren'tcha?
Besides, modeling the P-63 to shoot Japanese jeeps is about as needed for events as modeling civilians.
Then what is your point, really, what with the MA priority and 10 to 1 ratio thing? :huh
Your reasoning is literally "why not". "It technically meets requirments, and adds nothing new to the game. Therefore it should be next!!"
Your arguing may legitimately be even dumber than that found in the numerous Do 235 threads. There, at least, they actually argued something sensible (does what happened constitute combat). Even though they were wrong, they had a sensible argument. But not in your case, your saying "lets get this next because I want it".
You have been dismissed run along
Your reasoning is literally "why not". "It technically meets requirments, and adds nothing new to the game. Therefore it should be next!!"
I'd like to know these so called requirements,either you've been here longer than me or you have some inside info I'm not privileged to because I have never seen a "requirement" posted.
As for adding the P63,sure why not? I just think it should be added after a long list of other aircraft that deserve to be ingame. Beaufighter comes to mind.
:salute
Pyro said they prefer planes that have been in combat.
Besides, that I'm still right about Meg's reasoning, no matter how little you like it.
No I don't think so ....you were trying to make a point again and it failed to leave the top of your head ...again. :D
Oh, I get it. You're having issues with my use of the word 'jeep.' That meant that sources
are a might scant on it shooting at a flying adversary (and had nothing to do with comparing
it's ability to any other aircraft at all). Sometimes you're really too literal to afford any sense
of humor whatsoever, aren'tcha? :D
You sure chased that imaginary hound for miles. :rofl
Ok, I guess if we're pretending there aren't de facto requirements, keep living in your dream world.
I don't think HTC will ever add anything that didn't see service, get kills, and fly at squadron strength until they run out of stuff to add. Then they'll probably drop the squadron strength requirement before the kill requirement.
Really I'm having an Issue of the non-use of the word Vote, dribbling off your lips, coming from U :rofl .....gonna help me?
GO USA,
P-63 was in service and got kills.
Living in my dream world I could care less what your reasoning is.... :rolleyes:
The fact is there has never been a statement by HTC on any "requirements" but you go ahead and tell me whats what. I don't even have to pretend that you do a fine job all on your own.
:salute
Which aircraft did it shoot down?
Ki.43 and Ki-27 confirmed two kills (that is what I can find from Autumn storm only, I haven't read into the Battle of berlin however only because I have the evidence to prove it served in combat). However you do realize it does not need Kills if it was confirmed it flew in combat right? Look at the Meteor - what planes did it shoot down? None. Was it in the last vote? Yep. The Criteria has been A) it served in combat B) not a prototype.
So far every aircraft we have A) served in combat, and B) wasn't a prototype.
Not that I don't believe you, but sources? I have virtually no info on the far-east campaigns.
And I tend to oppose the Meteor being added as well, just FYI. I personally feel kills should be a requirement until we run out of stuff that was even reasonably significant to add.
Not that I don't believe you, but sources? I have virtually no info on the far-east campaigns.
And I tend to oppose the Meteor being added as well, just FYI. I personally feel kills should be a requirement until we run out of stuff that was even reasonably significant to add.
If we just wanted to get all of this out of the way, what would HTC need to add?
Commonly requested units that saw little to no combat or service:
Do335
F7F
F8F
He162
Meteor Mk III
P-51H
P-63
Spitfire F.21
Yak-3P
YP-80
Commonly requested rare or, at least on paper, super MA units:
A-26
B7A2
G.55
H8K2
He177A-5
IS-2
M26
Mosquito Mk XVIII
P.108
P-61
SB2C
If all that were added would that end this drama or would it just change to pushing for the F-86 and MiG-15?
If we just wanted to get all of this out of the way, what would HTC need to add?
Commonly requested units that saw little to no combat or service:
Do335
F7F
F8F
He162
Meteor Mk III
P-51H
P-63
Spitfire F.21
Yak-3P
YP-80
Commonly requested rare or, at least on paper, super MA units:
A-26
B7A2
G.55
H8K2
He177A-5
IS-2
M26
Mosquito Mk XVIII
P.108
P-61
SB2C
If all that were added would that end this drama or would it just change to pushing for the F-86 and MiG-15?
I wouldn't call the SB2C a "super MA unit."Yeah, kinda covered it by the "on paper" quip as its paper numbers were far better than its actual performance. Still, even on paper it wouldn't be super.
And it certainly isn't rare, seeing as how it completely replaced the SBD on the carrier decks after Phillippine Sea.
If we just wanted to get all of this out of the way, what would HTC need to add?
Commonly requested units that saw little to no combat or service:
Do335
F7F
F8F
He162
Meteor Mk III
P-51H
P-63
Spitfire F.21
Yak-3P
YP-80
Commonly requested rare or, at least on paper, super MA units:
A-26
B7A2
G.55
H8K2
He177A-5
IS-2
M26
Mosquito Mk XVIII
P.108
P-61
SB2C
If all that were added would that end this drama or would it just change to pushing for the F-86 and MiG-15?
Flew flaws here Karnak, those in bold were in combat. Much as I hate to drag out this again and again like a broken record, there is absolutely no reason they cannot be added in AH (the ones I didn't highlight I have hardly any info on to make a claim.I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If you read the header you'll see that I acknowledge that some of those on the first list saw a little combat (add the Meteor Mk III and Spitfire F.21 to the list of "saw a bit of combat). Everything on the second list saw combat, some of them saw heavy and sustained combat. M26 should have been on the first list.
I can argue against the He-162 for good reason, it suffered only one combat loss and its only kill claim came from a Typhoon which the internet lists, when in fact it was a Flak battery that shot down the Typhoon.
Another possible (online) reference:
~~~~~
By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East for an eventual attack on Japan.
I would like to see proof just as you ask for "something concrete" that says "USSR don't use the P-63 against Germany".
Think you could produce that agreement for me?
Good morning!
Why?
:)
(And a mere 'thank you' would suffice.)
For what? The wiki?
Well, yeah. If you'd taken the time to notice, it backed one of your heaviest rants in the thread.
Sheesh, some people are just born ingrates. :lol
P.S. A .pdf isn't a 'book.' It's an online reproduction. So, there ya go. Online source. :)
I didn't say they were books your AADD is showing again, I said Butcher had it right Fool please take off the Clown hat for a min K :)hi finn :)
Geez some people Children,
Thank you.
Well, yeah. If you'd taken the time to notice, it backed one of your heaviest rants in the thread.
Sheesh, some people are just born ingrates. :lol
P.S. A .pdf isn't a 'book.' It's an online reproduction. So, there ya go. Online source. :)
If we just wanted to get all of this out of the way, HTC would need to add...
D520
CaC-13
P51
A20G-1
P-63
Considering the age of most books, I have all the Japanese Monograph in original form, problem is most are in rough to bad shape. PDF files do wonders, I have almost a thousand prints backed up PDF files, not only that its great for quick reference.
Thanks Mega btw, I didn't have those mono's in PDF yet, its quicker to download an archive of them rather then sit half a day scanning :)
Btw the Mono's don't tell anything specifically, that I remember - its a good read never the less, it gives some serious insight of the Japanese planning and defense, although its clear the Japanese were NOT ready to defend against the russians, in fact some units were not only blasted apart, some units even started committing suicide because they had no food or ammo.
You are not the thing I am talking about getting out of the way, Megalodon.
Edit: Let me get my Psycho Analysis in............I don't believe for a moment that if HTC added those five aircraft you would suddenly become reasonable. I expect you'd fixate on your next targets and attack all who disagreed with you in the slightest for apostasy.
Why, you're welcome, Meg. :)
You are not the thing I am talking about getting out of the way, Megalodon.
I don't believe for a moment that if HTC added those five aircraft you would suddenly become reasonable. I expect you'd fixate on your next targets and attack all who disagreed with you in the slightest for apostasy.
Considering the age of most books, I have all the Japanese Monograph in original form, problem is most are in rough to bad shape. PDF files do wonders, I have almost a thousand prints backed up PDF files, not only that its great for quick reference.
Thanks Mega btw, I didn't have those mono's in PDF yet, its quicker to download an archive of them rather then sit half a day scanning :)
Btw the Mono's don't tell anything specifically, that I remember - its a good read never the less, it gives some serious insight of the Japanese planning and defense, although its clear the Japanese were NOT ready to defend against the russians, in fact some units were not only blasted apart, some units even started committing suicide because they had no food or ammo.
No, really, I mean it. Thanks for citing a source, Wiki or not, that supported some of what I
went a little overboard going on and on about. Now that we aren't really at odds about that
detail we can probably focus on the true crux of the matter.
No problem, Meg. I'm glad to see you less into the argument and more into the matter.
:) :cheers:
I'm glad this stopped being about egos and turned into a productive discussion. I'm sorry
about my part in the nonsense before. :salute
Eh, happens to everyone at one time or another. I'm looking forward to your new-found
sense of maturity and cooperative identity. Who knows, if this keeps up you may win
more converts to your desire to have a French plane set and the Battle of France as
a scenario where players would enjoy playing the underdog as well as the German side.
:)
To be honest, I've always kinda struggled with that. I get all caught up in trying to win
fights. So much so that I'll even make up a fight if there's the slightest chance that one
is fizzling. It was so much easier to win them if I was basically having it with myself and
pretending it was with the the other guy. It made me feel, I dunno, tough and important.
It wasn't until just recently that it occurred to me how non-productive and outright
embarrassing it was for me. Now that I see that it takes less effort just to stop making a
fool of myself I also see that, heck, I may actually end up with more friends/allies and be
taken seriously for a change.
Flew flaws here Karnak, those in bold were in combat. Much as I hate to drag out this again and again like a broken record, there is absolutely no reason they cannot be added in AH (the ones I didn't highlight I have hardly any info on to make a claim.
I can argue against the He-162 for good reason, it suffered only one combat loss and its only kill claim came from a Typhoon which the internet lists, when in fact it was a Flak battery that shot down the Typhoon.
To be honest, I've always kinda struggled with that. I get all caught up in trying to win
fights. So much so that I'll even make up a fight if there's the slightest chance that one
is fizzling. It was so much easier to win them if I was basically having it with myself and
pretending it was with the the other guy. It made me feel, I dunno, tough and important.
It wasn't until just recently that it occurred to me how non-productive and outright
embarrassing it was for me. Now that I see that it takes less effort just to stop making a
fool of myself I also see that, heck, I may actually end up with more friends/allies and be
taken seriously for a change.
I'm glad this stopped being about egos and turned into a productive discussion. I'm sorry
about my part in the nonsense before and not adding a single productive thing to this thread. I will try and do better in the future. salute
The P-63 is already on the wishlist, therefore making another thread only serves to lobby for it being moved up on the priority list
And that copy-cat thing. You were right about that.
And that copy-cat thing. You were right about that.
In fact, especially with these types of planes, I really don't think our threads have much any effect on when they're added. The P-63 is clearly going to be one of the last things added, so right now you're essentially just saying "hey, this thing exists, and we might get it years from now. Just FYI.".
You even believe yourself........ remember those are your statements. :aok
Ar, this isn't even fun pummeling you anymore. Your not very witty and your not very humorous either..... what are you going to do next?
Holiday Inn? Disneyland? Donald Trump?
btw I am going to laugh if it does get added in 2 weeks, however reality is my average wish takes 2-4 years :)
That kind of implies your wishing is what gets out added. That or you just happen to want stuff we're getting in a few years, in the order we get it. Both are rather unlikely.
In either case, I'd be astonished if we got it within the next 6 years. It honestly servers no purpose other than as a über LW perk plane that will see relatively little use, and be used timidly.
Again there is nothing Uber about a P-63. It has a lousy gun package for dog fighting. It may not even have to be perked. It will have a regular number of loyal users because they are fans of the plane, as they are of the P-39, not because it will make them unstopable in the MA.
Agreed, by the stats alone its got an awesome climb rate, decent speed on the deck otherwise its another P-39. 10 ENY or so?384mph is decent? Yeesh.
If they add the P-63 and don't perk it I will cancel my account as there would be no reason to even try to fly something like the Mossie in the game anymore.
I haven't even see the specifications or stats on the P-63 yet, only what goes in the forum and I take that with a grain of salt and guessing at the ENY from it.
Can you direct me where it out turns an La7, climbs 5k a minute?
Considering that the P-63A was really a mid-war fighter (1943), it would offer fearsome low to medium altitude performance that would be great fun in Aces High... Check out this chart. The La-7 will have met its match. 384 mph at sea level with water injection.... Add to that a 5,000 fpm climb rate at sea level, 4,750 fpm at 5k... With a lower wing loading than the P-39Q, it should turn well too.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/p-63chart-1400.jpg)
Here is one place Widewing posted about it. He posted more recently too, but I couldn't find that one.
Weird only thing I see is 410mph top speed with 2500ft climb rate, but I'm sick right now and really not going to spend the day looking up info on the P-63C, these might be the stats for the P-63A.Yup, 600ish mile range meant we really didn't have a use for it.
Pretty sure widewing has the info, that would be amazing for a 1943 fighter, why hell we didn't use it? Must of been the range im guessing?
Again there is nothing Uber about a P-63. It has a lousy gun package for dog fighting. It may not even have to be perked. It will have a regular number of loyal users because they are fans of the plane, as they are of the P-39, not because it will make them unstopable in the MA.
And you're not even a newb!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Here is the information Widewing posted.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,330396.0.html
Weird only thing I see is 410mph top speed with 2500ft climb rate, but I'm sick right now and really not going to spend the day looking up info on the P-63C, these might be the stats for the P-63A.
Pretty sure widewing has the info, that would be amazing for a 1943 fighter, why hell we didn't use it? Must of been the range im guessing?
0 ft 5000 ft 10,000ft 15,000 ft 20,000 ft 25,000 ft 30,000 ft
|
This data was from Birch Matthews book on Bell aircraft, with a focus on the Airacobra and Kingcobra. Matthews stated in the book that he could not find Test data for the Water-injected equipped planes. He did however have HP data for those variants of the Allison V-12 at 80lbs of Boost. The water injected versions made 1800hp.
Brewster performance is optimistic, and that'd in game. :neener:
Francis Dean in is AHT-book that the Bell figures are most likely rather optimistic. In USAAF testing showed much more conservative performance.
For example, as mentioned in this thread, Bell's figures show 384mph at sea level with water injection, while the best figure I've seen obtained by the Air Force was 366mph, with another example doing ~340mph.
Data for the P-63: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/P-63.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/P-63.html). As can be seen, there's quite difference between manufacturer's figures compared to what USAAF achieved.
I think you mean 80 inches of mercury. British measured MAP in pounds and 80lbs boost would be from another planet. AHT shows 75"HG MAP for 1820hp.
This is a must-have.
Such a great airplane that never got its due.
And anyone who thinks the Ruskies didn't use this thing against the Jerries is dreaming in technicolor.
And what purpose does it serve? There's NO documented evidence that it saw more than a week of combat. This means it would find use in exactly ONE scenario, and would just be yet another late war monster plane in a main arena already choked with them.
This is BY NO MEANS WHATSOEVER a "must have."
Also:
(http://forums.crackberry.com/attachments/news-rumors-f40/179809d1373210666t-apple-going-down-billions-tax-fraud-thread-necromancy.png)
Nobody but you cares about its IRL and in game usage. The point is it would be a desirable LW aircraft in a game that is (like you stated) already centered around LW aircraft. While it's no monster compared to some others, people will fly it, and many will be thankful for it. :aok
And anyone who thinks the Ruskies didn't use this thing against the Jerries is dreaming in technicolor.
During the trip from august 2014 in the closed alpha to today 2016 in the open beta release 5. We have gotten the following:
7. - Historically correct reticle for each gun sight in every ride.
Show the proof. There is absolutely nothing that proves it saw any action in the ETO, other some anecdotal evidence. There is no dispute that is saw limited combat against the Japanese during the last couple of months of the war in the PTO, mostly CAP and close air support. There is more evidence (even though its rather questionable at best) that the P-63 engaged in A2A engagements at least once against the Japanese than there is evidence the P-63 ever saw combat over Berlin in 1945.
Bull hockey.
There are dozens of Russian pilots who admitted they flew them against the Germans in violation of the Lend Lease agreement, where official reports listed them as "P-39s".
Yeah, governments *NEVER* lie.
And Scalia died in his sleep.
Sure...
Lack of "proof" does not rule out an event. There are more than enough anecdotal, firsthand accounts to support as FACT the use of the P-63 against the Germans. *OF* COURSE the government was going to hide that reality.
*AND*, they saw combat against Japan.
It should be in the game. I hope HTC can bring it to life someday.
Tinfoil hats and anecdotes aren't evidence. There's a REASON HTC has built its flight model around the hard numbers of the flight manuals and technical specs, and not pilot anecdotes and hearsay.
You've been asked to provide verified, documented, AUTHENTICATED PROOF of the claim. Put up or shut up.
http://www.airpages.ru/uk/p63_2.shtml
Deployed to Moscow with the 29th Regiment, May 1944. 17th and 821st had them in the same area by August. Dozens of Soviet pilots admited to using it against the Germans. Numerous German pilots reported possible P-63 encounters. All this combined is proof enough for anyone with a brain.
Where are the combat records? Serial numbers? German pilot reports amount to very little without ACTUAL corroborating records. The first time American pilots engaged Ki-61s they reported them as Bf-109s. The A6M3 wasn't recognized as a Zero at all when it was first engaged. All of your evidence amounts to this:
Bilge.
Bilge.
Bilge.
Ad nauseum.
Serial numbers? Lol
"Records" in wartime are rather subjective and prone to error. Just look at any loss report comparison.
Unit deployments of the zip-63 by the Spviets are well known AND documented--in Western Russia. The Russians had cause to fudge regrading their use in combat in the West. Anyone who thinks they weren't used against the Germans is dreaming in technicolor.
Welcome to my ignore list, Sassman. (Redacted.) I can find all the unwarranted venom I need on 200. Poof.
There's no point in arguing with the BBS warriors like him, man, they've literally brainwashed themselves to think everything they say coincides with HTC's beliefs.
The Russians had cause to fudge regrading their use in combat in the West. Anyone who thinks they weren't used against the Germans is dreaming in technicolor.
There's no point in arguing with the BBS warriors like him, man, they've literally brainwashed themselves to think everything they say coincides with HTC's beliefs.
The P-63 deployed to Moscow with the 29th Air Regiment, May 1944. The 17th and 821st Regiments had them in the same area by August. Dozens of Soviet pilots admited to using it against the Germans. Numerous German pilots reported possible P-63 encounters. All this combined is proof enough for anyone with a brain.
Just FWIW, your source doesn't say all that. It appears that the first 63s were deployed as air defense units in the Moscow area in 1944, but in very small numbers and not otherwise operational. Moscow, in 1944, of course was not near the fighting. The article discusses the serious concerns the Bolsheviks had about the 63's stability and performance. Real numbers of the plane weren't received until much later ("In the spring of 1945 P-63 began arriving in the combat units of air defense"), and they were sent to the Far East because the writing was on the wall in the West by then.
Now there may be sources that back up your claim that P-63s fought the Germans, I don't know, but this isn't one of them.
- Oldman of the Brainless Bunch
Why does every wish list thread for a specific plane turn into people saying "not before we get x, y, and ?"
Whirlwind. Yes
F4F-3. No, already have something like it
TBD. No, same as above
SB2C. Yes!
B6N. No, already have something like it
D4Y. No. Just because
Ki-44. Yes
Ki-45. Yes
Ki-100. Yes
J2M. Yes
Beaufighter. No, have mosquito, better plane
B-17F why? Already have 17
B-24D. Already have 24
B-25J. Already have 2 25s
G.55. Yes
P-63. No. Already have two p-39s
The sarcasm detector just pegged
What do we have that is like the TBD? The B5N? What do we have that is like the B6N? The TBM-3?
Buster hit the nail on the head. The P-63 was not only extremely rare, but it saw no major action. For me, it all comes down to usefulness in special events, to which the P-63 has none. This plane has less merit than the Meteor.
Hell, the Boulton Paul Defiant had a bigger impact on the war, and would provide more use for special events.indeed.
...There are hundreds of angry players in front of the HTC offices right now demonstrating and demanding a Mosquito XVIII tze-tze...
I was going to call BS on this, Bozon, but I'm glad I checked the internet first. I guess the Tse-Tse has a rabid following after all. Who knew?
(http://i.imgur.com/x5X4ChK.jpg)
I was going to call BS on this, Bozon, but I'm glad I checked the internet first. I guess the Tse-Tse has a rabid following after all. Who knew?Awesome!
(http://i.imgur.com/x5X4ChK.jpg)
what are you guys talking about... there hasent been a plane added in here in more than 2 years..... and still have planes that need an updateFor the last time they are working on AH III they will not add new things to AH II if you cant wrap your head around that we cant help you, and I agree with devil and the others there are plenty of other planes that are needed.
1. - Did it fly in squadron force for the US an ally or our enemies during WW2?
2. - Did it engage in combat actions, and did it shoot down enemies of the country flying it?
Unlike the P51H, F7f, and F8f, the P63 flew ground attack missions and shot down a single Japanese aircraft in 1945. Maybe the single kill recorded is a Hitech no go, or wait on the back burner number. There are arguments over the number of kills achieved by Ta-152 pilots with 7 being the most common number. What is forgotten, the existing Ta-152 upped into very packed unfriendly sky's during 1945 loosing about 4 to enemy air activity versus the P-63 flew in a milk run environment.
That may have had more influence on Hitech's decision about including the Ta-152 to the game, even with less than 100 able to fly missions.
P-63 should be added because people will fly it.
The whole usage argumant is so flawed its hardly worth going back over (arado, Ta-152). P-63 qualifes under the rule.
Aces High is a great test bed for how planes matched up and performed relative to each other in ways THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE WAR. P-51s didn't fight Corsairs. But I don;t here you guys screaming about wartime acuracy when it happens.
Yet it's fun to see how German planes match up against Japanese planes, and British against American, Etc...
The P-63 is a very interesting plane because it has the potential to be the best All American dog fighter of the war, something America wasn't interested in, in late 1944. It was interested in Long range escort fighter bombers. Th eP-63 no long matched the mission.
It's value in the game is: It would be fun to fly, would get more use than many hangar queens, and would prove once again that the American air-corps brass were a bunch of knuckleheads.
Saxman and the other WWII history book snobs never take that into consideration. Instead they pound the table for hangar queen after hangar queen, because they were relevant in the war at some point in 1939. Al lof which is just an excuse to flex their trivia muscles on the internet.
Vinkman :salute
SB2C, P-63, and Kingfisher/Rufe/Rex for ports! :furious
P-63 should be added because people will fly it.
The whole usage argumant is so flawed its hardly worth going back over (arado, Ta-152). P-63 qualifes under the rule.
Aces High is a great test bed for how planes matched up and performed relative to each other in ways THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE WAR. P-51s didn't fight Corsairs. But I don;t here you guys screaming about wartime acuracy when it happens.
Yet it's fun to see how German planes match up against Japanese planes, and British against American, Etc...
The P-63 is a very interesting plane because it has the potential to be the best All American dog fighter of the war, something America wasn't interested in, in late 1944. It was interested in Long range escort fighter bombers. Th eP-63 no long matched the mission.
It's value in the game is: It would be fun to fly, would get more use than many hangar queens, and would prove once again that the American air-corps brass were a bunch of knuckleheads.
Saxman and the other WWII history book snobs never take that into consideration. Instead they pound the table for hangar queen after hangar queen, because they were relevant in the war at some point in 1939. Al lof which is just an excuse to flex their trivia muscles on the internet.
Vinkman :salute
Why not just rally/petition for a Korean War arena if uber is better? Vietnam? Gulf War? Star Wars? :D
+1 Korean Arena :aok
At one time I'd back that. With the current game population, I'd just like to see the update finished and the WWII one filled. (And every gap in the popular event scenarios filled, once that happens.) :)
The P-63 saw combat, not just flew combat operations but actually engaged on combat in the close support role. Because the P-63 did see combat and flew in squadron strength, it does deserve to be added to the game eventually but I don't think it should be a high priority as the P-63 does nothing to fill in the existing holes in the plane set.
ack-ack
Ack Ack said it best and this post of his is where it should have ended.
Ack Ack said it best and this post of his is where it should have ended.
Holes in the planes set :bhead
I miss quite a few planes in Arlo's nice picture.
Only in the FW190-series I miss :
Fw190A9 , more than 900 produced
Fw190a6
Fw190a2
FW190G all G series planes
... the P-63 adds nothing to the Main Arenas that other fighters don't already...
This could be said about any new offering.
...again, spending all that time developing a plane just for scenarios is, to put it bluntly, a huge waist of development resources in game that doesn't have resources to spare.
Flight hours is a metric that matters, and the one you just keep ignoring. P-63 will get plenty of use. That's why people keep asking for it. :salute
This could be said about any new offering.
...again, spending all that time developing a plane just for scenarios is, to put it bluntly, a huge waist of development resources in game that doesn't have resources to spare.
Flight hours is a metric that matters, and the one you just keep ignoring. P-63 will get plenty of use. That's why people keep asking for it. :salute
Some people ask for it. Not many. A few.