Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Wofat on March 13, 2012, 10:59:18 AM
-
I look...and look. No see my KI-43 yet?
I think if KI-43 ready this month AH staff get pizza for lunch. :D
-
If you buy the pizza then I'll spring for the alcohol for to send with it.
Beware.....asking for this plane, or any Japanese plane is a tricky request. Hope your more flame retardant than the aircraft we would both love to see.
I could post a pic of it if you like, I know Tank-Ace and nrshida would appreciate that :lol
And again a big +1 for the Oscar and or Oscars :rock
-
Bring the Ki-43 for the acrobatic flight! :pray
-
I could post a pic of it if you like, I know Tank-Ace and nrshida would appreciate that :lol
Contribute something constructive. You'd gain supporters instead of wasting people's time.
-
I support the constructive inclusion of a Ki-43 picture posted by High Tone. :devil
-
give wofat ki-43 he will love you long time.
-
I vote: YES!!
Helm...out
-
When get my KI-43 I tear it up baby! Watch out! :aok
Thanks.
-
I could post a pic of it if you like, I know Tank-Ace and nrshida would appreciate that :lol
Again, you miss the point. I have no issue with pictures as support for a thread. I have a problem with pictures posted one at a time, and that are near identicle to one 5 posts up, as a disguise for a bump.
Tell me whats the most hard to circumvent hole the Ki-43 fills in special events, and tell me what it has to offer over the zeke in the MA.
Then we'll see if theres anything thats does more on both accounts. If I find anthing, I'll let you all know.
-
Tell me whats the most hard to circumvent hole the Ki-43 fills
It existed in vast numbers in WWII. Case closed.
-
I think your Ki-43 is up your.... See rule no. 4
-
Again, you miss the point. I have no issue with pictures as support for a thread. I have a problem with pictures posted one at a time, and that are near identicle to one 5 posts up, as a disguise for a bump.
Tell me whats the most hard to circumvent hole the Ki-43 fills in special events, and tell me what it has to offer over the zeke in the MA.
It is more maneuverable than the A6M2, B-239 and Hurricane Mk I. I recall that it rolls much better than the A6M2, has lower wing loading and fowler flaps.
The Japanese got more kills with the Ki-43 than any other fighter. Over 5900 Ki-43s were built, making it the second most produced Japanese aircraft with the A6M being the most produced.
-
Yep its definately the hummingbird of WW2. Not fast but wickedly manueverable.
A6M Zero: Imperial Japanese Navy
Ki-43: Imperial Japanese Army Air Force
Seperate services and service histories just like other countries.
Its like asking why we need a P-47 when we already have the F6F. The Ki-43 fought in China/Burma/India from 1942-45 where the IJN was almost entirely missing from that theater of war save a few raids and China in 1940. We need it in Special Events to do proper AVG and CBI setups. It was also widely used in the Pacific. We need more Japanese planes; fighters, bombers, dive bombers, floatplanes and torpers. We can use them all.
BANZAI!!! :x
-
Yep its definately the hummingbird of WW2. Not fast but wickedly manueverable.
A6M Zero: Imperial Japanese Navy
Ki-43: Imperial Japanese Army Air Force
Seperate services and service histories just like other countries.
Its like asking why we need a P-47 when we already have the F6F. The Ki-43 fought in China/Burma/India from 1942-45 where the IJN was almost entirely missing from that theater of war save a few raids and China in 1940. We need it in Special Events to do proper AVG and CBI setups. It was also widely used in the Pacific. We need more Japanese planes; fighters, bombers, dive bombers, floatplanes and torpers. We can use them all.
BANZAI!!! :x
I've been pushing for more rides in the Burma theater for years, Ki-43 would be a good start - Hurri I's and 2C's against Ki-43s escorting Betty's to Chittagong from Rangoon/Mandalay area.
If we added the wellington it would be a great fit for the theater as well, early war buff that was thrown away at the start of the war for being outdated, typically goes to Burma.
-
Alright, came up with another addition that does everything you guys said the Ki-43 does, and even better, it adds something thats significantly different from what we have now:
Panzer III Ausf. L.
For that matter, so would a StuG III, IAR 80C, or G.55.
An He-111 would do everything but add something significantly different. We could also do with a better EW bomber for the brits, and the Russians are still missing a level bomber.
-
Panzer III Ausf. L.
Is a GV, therefor of grossly less interest to most of us.
StuG III
Is a GV, therefor of grossly less interest to most of us.
IAR 80C
Not very significant compared to the Ki-43, nor does it extend the performance envelope of fighters.
G.55
Insignificant compared to the Ki-43, nor does it extend the performance envelope of fighters.
Non of these suggestions do everything the Ki-43 does, some of them don't do anything it does.
An He-111 would do everything but add something significantly different.
He111 is not, in AH terms, significantly different than the Ju88A-4. We need it, but don't kid yourself about it.
We could also do with a better EW bomber for the brits, and the Russians are still missing a level bomber.
Agreed.
-
Is a GV, therefor of grossly less interest to most of us.
Irrelevent, adding this would do exactly the same thing as adding the Ki-43, and more besides. It would be significantly different, and on top of that, theres far more potential for expansion.
Is a GV, therefor of grossly less interest to most of us.
Irrelevent, adding this would do exactly the same thing as adding the Ki-43, and more besides. It would be significantly different, and on top of that, theres far more potential for expansion.
Not very significant compared to the Ki-43, nor does it extend the performance envelope of fighters.
Significant in that it was the main Romanian fighter for a good strech of WWII, would give us a plane from a completly new nation, and is significantly different from other aircraft in game
Insignificant compared to the Ki-43, nor does it extend the performance envelope of fighters.
Not true, the G.55 offers better preformance than the C.205, and its Italian. Italy currently has the second smallest plane set, definatly deserves its third plane before we add a superfluous Japanese fighter.
He111 is not, in AH terms, significantly different than the Ju88A-4. We need it, but don't kid yourself about it.
Not in the MA, but in special events (what was/is a big argument for the Ki-43), it much better fills the role of an EW bomber, particularly in BoB setups.
Agreed.
Duh.
-
Couldn't a clean D3A do just about the same thing as the Ki-43?
I think your Ki-43 is up your.... See rule no. 4
:rofl
I do agree, however, that we need new fighters for Italy, Japan, and Russia.
-
How is the Ki-43 superfluous? The Zero, Oscar, and Betty were the 3 most well known planes that the Japanese had, with the Oscar claiming the most aerial victories compared to any other Japanese plane, I'm pretty certain on that. Just saying "Oh it has 2 small MG's and the D3A has 2 small MG's and they both turn really tight, makes them the same plane" just weakens your argument.
-
It would be significantly different, and on top of that, theres far more potential for expansion.Significant in that it was the main Romanian fighter for a good strech of WWII, would give us a plane from a completly new nation, and is significantly different from other aircraft in game
It does not expand fighter performance range in AH though. It does not do anything better than an existing fighter.
Not true, the G.55 offers better preformance than the C.205, and its Italian. Italy currently has the second smallest plane set, definatly deserves its third plane before we add a superfluous Japanese fighter.Not in the MA, but in special events (what was/is a big argument for the Ki-43), it much better fills the role of an EW bomber, particularly in BoB setups.Duh.
Once again, the G.55 does not do anything better than an existing fighter. The Ki-43 does, not better than any Japanese fighter, better than any fighter.
-
Its superfluous because it would be the hands down most maneuverable aircraft, a title that's already held by a similar Japanese plane, the A6M.
It wouldn't fill in any gaps in special events that can't be reasonably well filled by the A6M. Its weak firepower would make it less popular in the MA's, and pure maneuverability isn't enough of an asset to counter that issue (as is evidenced by the rarity of A6M's outside of CV battles).
So while it would add something new, it wouldn't add anything new that can't easily be countered with a speed advantage. If it was a new jet, that kicked the speed up to 600mph from 550, then I would agree it would be significant in AH.
@ Karnak: So? My main rides will still be about 50mph faster, dive better, climb quicker, and last I saw, hit approximatly 15 times harder. And thats just on the deck. At alt, I'll be about 75-100mph faster. Its advantage will be of dubious value, becuase it cannot dictate the fight. Most aircraft will be able to engage and disengage at will, and even planes that are notorious for being bad at diving (such as the Ki-84) will be able to dive away.
So my response is this: so what if they don't add anything new? Its nearly guaranteed that they will be of more value in the typical MA fight.
Right now, the main argument for the Ki-43 is its historical significance, as it doesn't fill in the most urgent gaps in special events, and will be out-preformed in the MA's.
My bet is that when they finally do add the Ki-43, you guys are going to freak out and jizz your pants, fly it for maybe a tour at most, and then drop it when you get frustrated with the lack of speed and firepower.
-
Tank-Ace,
Your argument boils down to "We don't need the Fw190 because we have the similar Bf109 already."
-
Its superfluous because it would be the hands down most maneuverable aircraft, a title that's already held by a similar Japanese plane, the A6M.
I can tell you from experience that a D3A with flaps down and no bombload can out turn any A6M with flaps down (and I bet the storch could out maneuver that). Therefore, the A6M is NOT the most maneuverable aircraft right now.
-
Karnak, the 190 flys a lot differently from the 190. its better in different situations, its most effective manuvers are different, its peak altitude is lower, its a better multi-role aircraft.
My argument boils down to "we don't need a 190A-1, we have an A-4".
Alright airlynx, a point. The A6M is the most manuverable FIGHTER aircraft.
And karnak, my point still stands, based on the reasoning of your argument, there are other aircraft and vehicles that deserve to be added ahead of the Ki-43.
-
Tank-Ace,
You're a fan of German stuff, so of course the Bf109 flies a lot differently than the Fw190, but....they are both just BnZ fighters.
The Ki-43 will handle a lot differently than the A6M2, just because you don't have an interest in Japanese aircraft doesn't mean they are all clones of each other.
-
Not quite what I meant: You can't fly a 190 like a 109 and expect to come out with a win. Well you can, I guess, but that doesn't mean your expectations will reflect reality.
However, both the Ki-43 and A6M are going to be TnB planes without any question. If the Ki-43 dives even as well as the A6M, then I'll eat my hat. Based on wing area, lenght, and aileron size, I'm guessing the Ki-43 will roll about as well as an A6M. It will be slightly faster, but not enough to result in a change in tactics.
That being so, you can probably fly a Ki-43 like an A6M and win your fight, and hence the 190A-1 vs the 190A-5 comparison.
And again, my point stands. The Ki-43 is not the best plane we could add based on filling gaps in special events, use in the MA, or historical significace.
don't get me wrong, I would enjoy seeing the Ki-43. But theres other stuff that should be added first, even based on your own reasoning. Fact is that a big reason you guys want this is personal affection for the plane, and thats fine, but that doesn't mean you automaticly get your way.
-
I'd expect the Ki-43 to roll and turn significantly better than the A6M. Speeds will be pretty much the same as the same generation A6M.
-
In all honesty, I have no affection towards this plane. I however, would like to close the most blaring gaps in the plane set. The KI-43 is one of them. So is the Beaufighter. So is the He-111.
-
Its like asking why we need a P-47 when we already have the F6F.
Perfect analogy.
-
I only wish the Ki-43 came with a pair of Ho-5's, then again I didn't have much problem flying the C202 with only a pair of 50s
-
With the Yak-1/3 lineage, the Ki-43 lineage is the most historically important fighter still totally missing from AH.
-
Yep its definately the hummingbird of WW2. Not fast but wickedly manueverable.
A6M Zero: Imperial Japanese Navy
Ki-43: Imperial Japanese Army Air Force
Seperate services and service histories just like other countries.
Its like asking why we need a P-47 when we already have the F6F. The Ki-43 fought in China/Burma/India from 1942-45 where the IJN was almost entirely missing from that theater of war save a few raids and China in 1940. We need it in Special Events to do proper AVG and CBI setups. It was also widely used in the Pacific. We need more Japanese planes; fighters, bombers, dive bombers, floatplanes and torpers. We can use them all.
BANZAI!!! :x
I have to say I agree with this. Imagine how much more realistic the Setups would be invilving the CORRECT Aircraft for said Theatre of war, such as the IJAF Planes and the Soviet Bombers missing from this game. Im just saying if we are never going to get new maps, why not flood the game with more historical AC for each country lacking?
-
Isn't the Ki-43 replaced with the Ki-84 for scenarios? or is it the Ki-61?
-
We usually use the A6M series becuase we have little else or the Ki-61 to stand in for Ki-43s ya. Its like not having the Hawker Hurricane and having to use Spitfires, there just isn't a great solution. We need the IJAAFs main WW2 fighter in AH; The Ki-43 Hayabusa.
-
The Ki-43 is significant enough that we really need three versions of it to give appropriate coverage. The Ki-43-I with one 7.7mm gun and one 12.7mm gun, the Ki-43-II with more power, some protection and two 12.7mm guns and the Ki-43-III with yet more power.
-
So now it's a three-for-one deal? Which one would you like HT to start on? :D
-
So now it's a three-for-one deal? Which one would you like HT to start on? :D
Graphically they'd be very similar, so it should be comparatively easy to do all three at once, but if I had to pick one, I'd say the -II as it can be used as a sub for both the -I and -III as being more or less close enough.
-
Graphically they'd be very similar, so it should be comparatively easy to do all three at once, but if I had to pick one, I'd say the -II as it can be used as a sub for both the -I and -III as being more or less close enough.
(I'm with you fellers) - TM 'Oh Brother Where Art Thou?'
-
Perfect analogy.
No that's actually a stupid analogy, they don't have the same roles.
1) I P-47 can dive over 600 w/o falling apart
2) Eight .50s buzz through Spits like a hot knife through butter
3) Most P-47 Pilots are not flap junkies
4) Most bad a** plane for BnZ
5) Catch up too 262s at high alt (It matches the P-59 Aircomet at 30,000 ft)
6) Carries over 2500 lbs of ord (2 1000lbers, 1 500lber, 10 HVAR rockets)
Compared to F6F
F6F P-47
MGs Six M2 Brownings (400 RPG) Eight M2 Brownings (Six Optional) (425 [or 267] rpg)
Bombs (MAX) 2000lbs 2500lbs
Rockets (45lbs ea.) Six (270lbs) Ten (450lbs)
Max at 30k a tiny bit more than 350 Almost 475
THE PLANES ARE NOT COMPARABLE NEVER EVER COMPARE F6F TO THE P-47!
It's more like the F4U Corsair since they both have the Double Wasp
You're a troll.
-
With the Yak-1/3 lineage, the Ki-43 lineage is the most historically important fighter still totally missing from AH.
Agreed. 110%
We'll have the Me410 and Meteor before anything smaller/slower/with less firepower ever gets introduced (ie Beau, Ki43).
-
Hanger Queen.
Example I-16, New and remodeled P40s, Brewster.
-
Hanger Queen.
Example I-16, New and remodeled P40s, Brewster.
And? Name something that hasn't been added that won't be a hangar queen either by being uncompetitive or by being perked.
(FYI, the old P-40s were hangar queens too.)
-
And? Name something that hasn't been added that won't be a hangar queen either by being uncompetitive or by being perked.
(FYI, the old P-40s were hangar queens too.)
Do not have to. Remodel some of the existing planes that dearly need it.
-
Shoki!
-
And? Name something that hasn't been added that won't be a hangar queen either by being uncompetitive or by being perked.
(FYI, the old P-40s were hangar queens too.)
He-111 (I'd take it over the Ju88 or Ki-67)
Ju-87G
Ju-188
Ju-88G
Pe-2
Tu-2
Mustang I (might be a dog, but people will fly it anyway for the 4x Hispanos)
Sea Hurricane
D.520
IAR-80
Off the top of my head. But yes, IMO, I'd rather have all the current planes/graphics updated before we get a new one.
-
He-111 (I'd take it over the Ju88 or Ki-67)
You're unusual in that. It has nothing over either of them.
Ju-87G
It would get used, but not as much as all that, just not enough ammo or durability.
Ju-188
This might get decent use.
Ju-88G
Hangar queen, just like the Mossie VI.
Pe-2
Hangar queen, small bombload, weak guns.
Tu-2
This might get decent usage.
Mustang I (might be a dog, but people will fly it anyway for the 4x Hispanos)
It is unlikely to have have four cannons as very few did, most likely just MGs.
Sea Hurricane
D.520
IAR-80
All total hangar queens. Slow, under gunned.
-
Karnak, the Ju-87G would probably be about comperable to the Il-2.
And the IAR-80C would be pretty decent. About comperable to some MW spitfires. Just because something isn't super-high-preformance doesn't mean it will be a hanger queen.
In the long run, I'd guess that just about everything on that list would see more use than the Ki-43. Fact is that manuverability just isn't enough on its own; while it could dominate the turning fight, it would have the exact same weaknesses shared with the A6M's that keep them from seeing heavier use, and almost any use aside from CV battles.
And again, even based on YOUR OWN REASONS (historical significance, advantages offered in the MA, and gap fillers) there are more deserving additions than the Ki-43.
-
I beleive historical significance has been covered several times. The rest of it is the usual "it doesn't dominate the MA" stuff we always see as a counter argument at the end of threads. Thankfully Hitech Creations has a more inclusive policy.
-
Karnak, the Ju-87G would probably be about comperable to the Il-2.
And the IAR-80C would be pretty decent. About comperable to some MW spitfires. Just because something isn't super-high-preformance doesn't mean it will be a hanger queen.
In the long run, I'd guess that just about everything on that list would see more use than the Ki-43. Fact is that manuverability just isn't enough on its own; while it could dominate the turning fight, it would have the exact same weaknesses shared with the A6M's that keep them from seeing heavier use, and almost any use aside from CV battles.
And again, even based on YOUR OWN REASONS (historical significance, advantages offered in the MA, and gap fillers) there are more deserving additions than the Ki-43.
Some yes, but some, no. The Ki-43-III would almost certainly see more use than the He111, Pe-2, Sea Hurricane and D.520. As a last ditch base defender it would 1) get off the ground fast and 2) be able to dodge at least somewhat effectively immediately after getting off the ground.
-
Hanger Queen.
Example I-16, New and remodeled P40s, Brewster.
By this definiton, almost half of the AH's units are hangar queens in the LWAs.
-
By this definiton, almost half of the AH's units are hangar queens in the LWAs.
:rolleyes:
-
:rolleyes:
Yeh, that's what you usually post as you aren't really able to contribute anything sensible anyway. Brewster's kills/deaths hover somewhere in the middle of the pack from tour to tour as does the Ta152's for example. So by your logic both are hangar queens. And that in itself is fine as I've yet to see any formal definition which constitues a "hangar queen" and yet, all you are capable of is rolling your eyes.
-
Yeh, that's what you usually post as you aren't really able to contribute anything sensible anyway. Brewster's kills/deaths hover somewhere in the middle of the pack from tour to tour as does the Ta152's for example. So by your logic both are hangar queens. And that in itself is fine as I've yet to see any formal definition which constitues a "hangar queen" and yet, all you are capable of is rolling your eyes.
:rofl
That better for you?
-
:rofl
That better for you?
All same to me. You aren't capable of arguing your point.
-
All same to me. You aren't capable of arguing your point.
I would rather not have an argument it's what you want.
I would rather just have my fun.
I will say there was two reasons I added the brewster. One was because to an extent the Brewster is a hanger queen. Two because I knew you would respond and I wanted to watch you take the bait like the fish you are.
-
I would rather not an argument is what you want.
I would rather just have my fun.
I will say there was two reasons I added the brewster. One was because to an extent a Brewster is a hanger queen. Two because I knew you would respond and I wanted to watch you take the bait like the fish you are.
Heh. :)
Like I said, as there's no formal definition of hangar queen I see no problem of listing Brewster as such. The problem then just is that half of the units would be hangar queens and that in itself would largely limit the choises of new units that wouldn't be considered as hangar queens.
Btw, I fly the planes I fly for my own reasons but I rather find it positive if they are a rare sight in the arenas, not negative.
-
My point is there is planes that are used in the main now that are older models. I would prefer to see those upgraded before they add planes that will see most use in events.
Yaks/110s for example. C202/205 are another set.
-
Well, I disagree with that and prefer the route HTC has chosen, which is adding new units and updating the old models simultaniously. If they would only update the old ones it would be a long long time before anything new would get added. And as HTC has already chosen their policy, the Ki-43 isn't really taking anything away from updating old models per say. The discussion here is more about how to allocate the resources regarding adding new units.
I do think that updating Yaks and Macchis is long overdue due to how old their models are. They are clearly older (and worse looking) than the old P-40 models which were updated just recently.
-
Hanger Queen.
Example I-16, New and remodeled P40s, Brewster.
hmmm i've seen enough of these 3 mentioned to not label them as hangar Queen especially the Brewster.
-
Hangar queen, just like the Mossie VI.
Surely thats a typo?
-
hmmm i've seen enough of these 3 mentioned to not label them as hangar Queen especially the Brewster.
Brewster was more a jab at wmaker. I have seen 1 person fly the i-16 and that is jonah. P40s every once in a while.
-
Surely thats a typo?
Depends on what your personal threshold for "hangar queen" is. Last tour the Mossie VI got about 1/10th the kills that the P-51D got. It got 0.62% of the total kills in the LWA, 1.05% of the total kills by aircraft.
My general feeling is that when somebody is talking about something not being a hangar queen they expect it to break at least two or three percent of the total kills by aircraft.
Top ten by percentage of aircraft kills:
P-51D: 10.47%
La-7: 5.19%
Spitfire Mk XVI: 5.10%
F4U-1A: 4.04%
Fw190D-9: 4.00%
N1K2-J: 3.80%
F6F-5: 3.13%
Fw190A-8: 3.04%
F4U-1D: 2.91%
Bf109K-4: 2.66%
Overall share of the top ten: 44.34%
-
Depends on what your personal threshold for "hangar queen" is. Last tour the Mossie VI got about 1/10th the kills that the P-51D got. It got 0.62% of the total kills in the LWA, 1.05% of the total kills by aircraft.
My general feeling is that when somebody is talking about something not being a hangar queen they expect it to break at least two or three percent of the total kills by aircraft.
Top ten by percentage of aircraft kills:
P-51D: 10.47%
La-7: 5.19%
Spitfire Mk XVI: 5.10%
F4U-1A: 4.04%
Fw190D-9: 4.00%
N1K2-J: 3.80%
F6F-5: 3.13%
Fw190A-8: 3.04%
F4U-1D: 2.91%
Bf109K-4: 2.66%
Overall share of the top ten: 44.34%
Hate to say but I suspect that a more accurate list may actually be derived from 'deaths in.'
-
Hate to say but I suspect that a more accurate list may actually be derived from 'deaths in.'
Maybe, but that would need to be modified by the K/D ratio as well. Neither is a perfect representation of usage.
-
Maybe, but that would need to be modified by the K/D ratio as well. Neither is a perfect representation of usage.
I've taken planes out of the hanger, circled the field and then landed and took another. Would that be a 'partial hangar queen?'
-
Brewster was more a jab at wmaker. I have seen 1 person fly the i-16 and that is jonah. P40s every once in a while.
mizu is a crazy i16 pilot, seen surfinn in it a few times.
I do enjoy flying Japanese aircraft the zeros and the ki-84. Mainly because you can fly circles around most other rides but the ki-43 would be the absolute nuts for turn fighting and I would love to use it against brews :D
pew pew pew.
-
Some yes, but some, no. The Ki-43-III would almost certainly see more use than the He111, Pe-2, Sea Hurricane and D.520. As a last ditch base defender it would 1) get off the ground fast and 2) be able to dodge at least somewhat effectively immediately after getting off the ground.
My K4 can get off the ground about as quickly, and is a much more effective weapon once at combat speed than a Ki-43 would be. Now granted it has a higher effective combat speed, neither one of us would be real likely to do much good. However, while you need a tracking shot, I need a single cannon shell on target; this means that I have a better chance to actually do some harm, since a snap shot is much more likely than a crossing shot.
Your Ki-43 is only good for dominating a single, relativly rare type of fight; low and slow turning. At everything else, its only on par at best, and markedly inferior in most cases.
The fact is that, right now, the Ki-43 is not the most needed addition.
-
The fact is that, right now, the Ki-43 is not the most needed addition.
No, that is an opinion.
I'd be in favour of any early or mid war fighter aircraft because it adds diversity and means more aircraft that would stick around and fight. Besides, someone would always specialise in an aircraft regardless of its limitations and that is always a sight to see and a fun experience to fight them.
-
The fact is that, right now, the Ki-43 is not the most needed addition.
Bite you tong sir! Ki-43 (and may be H E 111) most missing plane this game.
That be said wen AH put out ki-43 it will be done well. :aok
-
Your Ki-43 is only good for dominating a single, relativly rare type of fight; low and slow turning. At everything else, its only on par at best, and markedly inferior in most cases.
Don't state things you don't know. Why low and slow? The A6M handles altitude decently, so there is no need to be low there. As to slow, just because the A6M loses its ability to turn at moderate speeds does not mean the Ki-43 also loses its ability to turn at those speeds.
As to using a Bf109K-4 as a last ditch defender, have fun giving attackers the free kill. I have successfully defended using the A6M2 because I was able to maneuver very shortly after take off whereas the Bf109K-4 would have simply been a sitting duck. I will grant that the Ki-43's firepower is not really what I'd want in a defender like that, but used with some skill it could still have effect.
-
the Ki-43 isn't the most historical thing we're missing in AH: that would likely be the Panzer III at the moment.
The Ki-43 does not fill the biggest/worst gap in special events, various bombers, and some EW fighters do that.
The Ki-43 is not the best figher we could add based on impact/use in the MA. Most other potential fighters would do more.
Adding the Ki-43 would not make us any more worthy of a 'well done' than adding anything else would, as we've already earned it. AH is the best WWII-era combat sim out there, has one of the best GV aspects, and on top of that, AH is actually run out of passion for simming. I'm sure Hitech isn't wanting for cash.
@ Karnak, essentially every fighter we have with a low wing loading and large wing area looses its ability to turn at higher speeds. IIRC, the Ki-43 lacks hydrolic control surfaces, like the A6M. It was also notoriously fragile.
Based on this, we can safely assume that the Ki-43 will at the very least suffer a significant degredation of turning preformance at higher speeds, if not the near total lack of effectivness that the A6M has. Or possibly, you'll just snap off the wings if you try and turn too tight at high G's.
And it depends on what you call last-ditch. If you mean already capped and vulched, then yeah, the Ki-43 would hold a small advantage over the K4. But even with that advantages, its odds of doing anything effective are essentially nil.
If you're talking "Oh ****! look at the size of that darbar, we only have like 2 mins!" then the K4 is far superior. In 2 mins, I could get almost to 6-8k with a K4. And depending on the situation, that ranges from sufficient all the way up to too high.
-
hell maybe HTC should hire tank-ace he obviously knows far more than everyone else.
why are you comparing a K4 against the ki-43? :noid
The Japanese set has some of the most interesting and produced planes that AH doesn't have, the ki-43 also provides EW and scenarios with something the zero shouldn't really be replacing.
-
the Ki-43 isn't the most historical thing we're missing in AH: that would likely be the Panzer III at the moment.
It was the main IJAAF fighter, had the most Allied kills of any other Japanese plane and virtually every single one of the IJAAF aces became aces in the Ki-43. AH not having the Ki-43 would be like AH not having the P-51, it was that historically significant airplane in the Japanese inventory.
ack-ack
-
The Ki-43-III will be fit for LWA.
-
why are you comparing a K4 against the ki-43? :noid
Because he is a tank guy and apparently when he does fly, he must have something really fast and made in 1945.
It comes down to individual skill level, and I will say that the Ki-43 is going to frustrate many while flying it and some flying against it. Sure your gonna have your Tank-Aces's BnZ you in there 2000HP cannon rides, but a true competitor and prop plane fanatic will use it to challenge themselves instead of solely relaying on a planes top speed as a crutch.
the Ki-43 isn't the most historical thing we're missing in AH: that would likely be the Panzer III at the moment.
LOL....sure. I forgot that spawn camping...opps sorry GV fighting is the sole reason most play this game. I always thought the tanks were to supplement the AC, give mission and base taking flexability and give something for AC to bomb. Forgot we play "Tankers High"
-
How well will it dive? Like a zero or like a ki61?
-
How well will it dive? Like a zero or like a ki61?
About as good as a Ki-43. :bolt:
-
How well will it dive? Like a zero or like a ki61?
It should have about the same dive performance of the Zeke, later Ki-43 versions had improved dive performance just like the Zeke.
ack-ack
-
Who cares if it was the main IJAF fighter? The Panzer III still had more historical significance overall. We're still missing any british-designed tank.
Regardless of if its the main attraction in AH, the fact is that the ground war was more significant than the air war. While control of the air helps the ground forces advance, the air forces can't move up without control of the ground. I mean if you want to say, its the most historicaly significant aircraft we're missing, then fine. But don't make it sound like nothing else in the entire war was even half as important as the Ki-43, cause thats just lying.
why are you comparing a K4 against the ki-43? :noid
Because Karnak made it out as if the Ki-43's manuverability would be some great advantage in base defense, and it wouldn't. If you're to the point where you need to be fighting the minute you go wheels up, then a Ki-43 has about as much chance to do something usefull as a K4. Less actually, because a single tater will take out a fighter, so I could get lucky and nail a vulcher.
And if you're not capped, then the K4's ability to quickly climb to altitude, accelerate, and then dictate the terms of a fight out weights the Ki-43's ability to evade.
And high-tone, just because I don't want the Ki-43 so bad that I'm about to explode doesn't mean my ride is a crutch ride. Ask any K4 stick, and he'll tell you that its one of the more difficult aircraft to fly to its potential.
Infact, it could be said that your Ki-43's manuverability is a crutch as well. Its a lot harder to set up a proper shot, and hit your target at high angles, and combined speeds in excess of 650mph than it is to start turning circles like a pansy and make a tracking shot.
-
The Panzer III is not the most needed unit. In fact, the Panzer III has very little use of any kind in AH because its only existent opponent in the game is the T-34/76, which badly outclasses it.
Tank-Ace, I like that you are enthusiastic, but your bias for things German, and by association the things the Germans fought, colors your perceptions. The fact is that the Panzer III, Cruiser IV, Beaufighter, He111, Wellington and Ki-43 are all going to be relative hangar queens in the LWA, but of those the Beaufighter, He111 and Ki-43 are most immediately applicable to scenarios and a true fighter has not been added to AH for quite a long time.
-
I never said they wouldn't be hanger queens, all I said is that the Panzer III was more historicly significant than the Ki-43. The Ki-43 helped in defensive fighting in a single theater of war. The Panzer III helped carry the Wermacht through France and the Low Countries, Afrika, the Ukraine, and Russia.
The Panzer III would be just as much, if not more, of a hanger queen than the Ki-43, because it takes a more skilled tanker to overcome a disadvantage than it takes a fighter pilot to overcome a simmilarly sized disadvantage. But that still doesn't mean it wasn't significant.
-
Ki-43 was also used in offensive operations as the Japanese swept through huge areas, admittedly relatively undefended. It did face, and overcome, the aircraft that were there to defend those territories.
As I said, your bias for things German colors your perceptions.
-
Who cares if it was the main IJAF fighter? The Panzer III still had more historical significance overall. We're still missing any british-designed tank.
You're starting to show your ignorance. Not having the Ki-43 for the Japanese plane set would be like not having the P-51D for the US side, it was that historically significant of an aircraft. You're biased towards ground vehicles, we understand that and which is why in every wish thread for a plane, you insist in posting how the plane is irrelevant and instead a tank should be put instead. No matter how much you try and argue your point, it will not change the fact one iota that you are completely incorrect.
ack-ack
-
Karnak, tell me this, which is more historicaly significant, the Panzer III or the Ki-43?
-
Karnak, tell me this, which is more historicaly significant, the Panzer III or the Ki-43?
Panzer III, though not by nearly as much as you think.
Now, which is more important to AH, the Ki-43 wins by miles.
-
Ki-43 was also used in offensive operations as the Japanese swept through huge areas, admittedly relatively undefended. It did face, and overcome, the aircraft that were there to defend those territories.
As I said, your bias for things German colors your perceptions.
The Ki-43 outclassed every plane when it was designed and overwhelmed what few planes it fought against (Hurricane 1's, B-339s etc) It really had no competition since there was none to begin with, the Dutch units in JAVA were far to thin to put up much of a defense, I once did a "unhistorical" defense of Java putting those planes bound for Australia to ABDA command and placed on Java - it still made no difference since P-40s and P-39s were badly outclassed as well.
Once the new designs came in (F4u-1 and Hellcat followed by P-47D and P38) the Ki-43 was outclassed itself.
It fought well since there was no competition or anyone fighting a war (US or Australia) at the time. Britain completely ignored Singapore and India - enough so the main fighter in 1943 was the Hurricane (far into 1944).
Even still, the Ki-43 places a very large roll in the Pacific campaign of WW2, enough I don't see any other plane other then the He-111 missing its spot. <- my personal speculation
I see the Ki-43 being added sometime this year maybe next year (depending the schedule), hopefully beef the Japanese/Russian lineup of Early / midwar fighters.
Might not be a LWA monster, but I don't tend to fly many LW planes as anyone with experience wants a challange.
-
Panzer III, though not by nearly as much as you think.
Now, which is more important to AH, the Ki-43 wins by miles.
Yes, but that wasn't my point. My point is that the Ki-43 is neither the most hisoricly significant, nor the best ride for the MA, that we could add at this point in time. If you want to say that its one of the top additions when you take both into account, then fine.
But fact is that there are things that are better suited fo, even more deserving of, addition in each criterion you've weighed the Ki-43 in. You yourself have admitted it (finally :ahand). Now that thats out of the way, you can start trying to convince people why its needed despite this fact, which is what you should have been doing all along.
Really, I'm amazed you guys have kept trying to convince me of how important it was and how advantageous it would be in the MA, despite the fact that in any one category, its clearly beaten. Next time try and convince me why we need it, regardless of the fact that others are more important, or better suited to MA use.
-
Yes, but that wasn't my point. My point is that the Ki-43 is neither the most hisoricly significant, nor the best ride for the MA, that we could add at this point in time. If you want to say that its one of the top additions when you take both into account, then fine.
But fact is that there are things that are better suited fo, even more deserving of, addition in each criterion you've weighed the Ki-43 in. You yourself have admitted it (finally :ahand). Now that thats out of the way, you can start trying to convince people why its needed despite this fact, which is what you should have been doing all along.
Really, I'm amazed you guys have kept trying to convince me of how important it was and how advantageous it would be in the MA, despite the fact that in any one category, its clearly beaten. Next time try and convince me why we need it, regardless of the fact that others are more important, or better suited to MA use.
1) You didn't read what I said.
2) What fighter beats it in turning?
-
I want to dogfight with AKAK's P-38J in it! :rock
-
Tank-Ace, you really are a singularly argumentative young man. This Wishlist is not an election campaign and players do not have to justify their requests according to your criteria nor debate over the priority of what should be included before anything else.
Regarding your continual suggestion that any tank should be included before any additional fighter, we disagree with you. We appreciate you are a fan of armour, but I dare say you could always go to World of Tanks if Aces High does not satisfy you in this department. For the majority of players we are interested in air combat, bombers, attack aircraft and fighters. The fans of the latter have waited for a very long time for a new airframe to be introduced to the game.
Whether this will be a Ki-43, a Ki-100, something Italian or whatever, (or perhaps even nothing at all) is the choice of HTC according to their criteria which may be historical significance, contribution to gameplay or business growth or something else. The point is we don't know their policy because they avoid stating it, and as players we can only make and discuss suggestions and present pictures and research material.
This thread should be about discussing the features and shortcomings of the Ki-43 and perhaps why it would be fun to fly and what you could do with it, even in the MA. Your mission seems to be to find a way to devalue it so HTC can get busy adding the things you deem more important. However you can only forward your opinion with the weight of one person and that's all. You cannot browbeat other players and their opinions into submission with your floating logic attacks (Well perhaps you can with some of them, but know that ultimately it won't make a difference to the selection anyway).
In researching the Westland Whirlwind information, I found the first Wishlist thread for this aircraft dated almost ten years ago. The same for the Beaufighter, and for several other aircraft, tanks too. Some players have been adding research material and photographs for years. Some have even paid for restricted information and spent time going to museums specifically to make a contribution. It's hard to see how your approach could influence HTC's selection positively when all you seem to do is attack other people's suggestions and desires to try and secure the control of a very limited resource, in this case: HTC's inclusion of new toys.
If you feel the Panzer Mark III or whatever it is, is a good candidate then make your own thread to suggest and promote it, that's the extent of the influence you can exert.
-
Some have even paid for restricted information and spent time going to museums specifically to make a contribution. It's hard to see how your approach could influence HTC's selection positively when all you seem to do is attack other people's suggestions and desires to try and secure the control of a very limited resource, in this case: HTC's inclusion of new toys.
I've been doing this for years, buying up all the old books and magazines on anything with WW2 involved, I think I have roughly around 150 on vehicles, aircrafts and units. For example when the Panther was introduced I spent around $30 for 10 manuals with different color schemes and unit placements etc.
I couldn't skin for anything other then a stick figure, but maybe my stuff might help someone who can't go out and buy it, but can skin - put it to work.
I already put $20 down on the Ki-43, and the reason I buy so many different books is to research which is the most correct information available, last thing you want is something unhistorical added, and I hope to prevent that kind of mistake.
It might take 3 months to add a plane, but one small mistake could ruin it.
-
@Karnak
1) yes I did, and I admited the Ki-43 would be more used in AH. But thats not what we were talking about just then.
2) who cares? Its not like it would offer anything new over the A6M. It would still just be a turny bird. And moreover, it lacks the ability to dictate a fight, or even get into one if other fighters don't want to engage.
@Nrshida
Thats not what I do, but theres few posts in the wishlist asking for He-111's, and LaGG-3's, and other missing EW/MW stuff. A lot of it seems to be either changed settings or reworked systems, or else uber LW stuff, insignificant, or niche stuff like the Ki-43.
I make threads supporting my own suggestions, and I respond to valid criticism, and explain how despite those faults, the Panzer III would still be a good addition. Thats not what you guys have done here, I've genuinly been waiting to see how you guys can try to convince me on the Ki-43. Infact, I can think of several arguments for it right now, but I'll keep waiting to see if you guys can come up with them on your own.
-
Well don't take this personally young man, but no one has to convince you, that was really my point.
-
I want to dogfight with AKAK's P-38J in it! :rock
just use is its big brother the 84....does the job quite nicely :aok
-
Interesting clip from a 1944 Japanese war movie featuring Ki-43s and Ki-21s against P-40s and Brewster Buffaloes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BXo-jWcGnw&feature=related
-
Interesting clip from a 1944 Japanese war movie featuring Ki-43s and Ki-21s against P-40s and Brewster Buffaloes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BXo-jWcGnw&feature=related
I love that video. Good find :cheers:
-
Well don't take this personally young man, but no one has to convince you, that was really my point.
A point. But it is also true that its completly within my rights to try to educate you all as to what would be better to add than the Ki-43.
You don't have to convince me.
I can try to convince you.
-
A point. But it is also true that its completly within my rights to try to educate you all as to what would be better to add than the Ki-43.
You don't have to convince me.
I can try to convince you.
As you think what would be better is a Panzer III you are clearly wrong. That the Panzer III is your choice also indicates your judgement is so far off base in our opinions that we aren't going to meet anywhere in the middle.
I can think of things that would be arguably better to be added than the Ki-43, but none of them are GVs.
-
A point. But it is also true that its completly within my rights to try to educate you all as to what would be better to add than the Ki-43.
You don't have to convince me.
I can try to convince you.
:lol
don't be offended if other people tell you where to go then with your panzer III.
-
If I tell "World of Tank" game they need include more plane...they think I very silly. :lol
-
A point. But it is also true that its completly within my rights to try to educate you all as to what would be better to add than the Ki-43.
You don't have to convince me.
I can try to convince you.
Perhaps people would be more receptive to your opinion if you indicated that were equally receptive to theirs. Does this sound like a reasonable proposition?
-
2) What fighter beats it in turning?
:bhead
While technically not a fighter, a D3A can beat a Zero in a turning fight, so I bet it could beat a Ki-43 as well.
-
As you think what would be better is a Panzer III you are clearly wrong. That the Panzer III is your choice also indicates your judgement is so far off base in our opinions that we aren't going to meet anywhere in the middle.
I can think of things that would be arguably better to be added than the Ki-43, but none of them are GVs.
I never said the Panzer III would be a better choice overall. You said that I said that. I did, however, say that the Panzer III would be a better addition if historical significance was what we were going off of.
-
I never said the Panzer III would be a better choice overall. You said that I said that. I did, however, say that the Panzer III would be a better addition if historical significance was what we were going off of.
Historical significance counts for a lot, but it is not the only thing that counts. The Panzer III's historical importance is largely negated by the fact that we have almost nothing to range it against to represent that history.
I'd like to see the Ki-43 because it was historically significant, has a decent range of scenarios in which it can be used with existing units in AH and it would be fun to fly.
-
It doesn't really negate it's significance, thats like saying that the historical significance of the Tiger II is negated by the fact that we don't have the IS-2, or Pershing. If anything, that lack exagerates the Tiger II's historical significance as the undisputed heavy-weight champion of the battlefield.
Right now, nothing we have can challenge it head on, and nothing could challenge it head on unless we went post-WWII, or into prototypes. But the Tiger II doesn't feel the lack, as the other tanks would only serve to highlight it's dominance, by going up against the best the enemy had, and beating it.
Now granted thats slightly different from the Panzer III, but the Panzer III's significance still wouldn't be lessened by the lack of other tanks. It's legacy isn't one of dominating the battlefield, but one of overcoming superior tanks to carry the wermacht to victory. The lack of other tanks would really only be felt in the North Afrika setups.
-
The Tiger II's most common historical opponent tanks were the T-34/85, T-34/76, M4A3(75) and M4A3(76), all of which we have. The fact that the Tiger II dominates each of those match ups doesn't make the non-historical
The only opponent of the Panzer III that we have at all is the T-34/76, which heavily over matches it.
-
Depends on the model. The Panzer III Ausf. L wouldn't fare too badly in the hands of an expierienced tanker.
-
It doesn't really negate it's significance, thats like saying that the historical significance of the Tiger II is negated by the fact that we don't have the IS-2, or Pershing.
Right now, nothing we have can challenge it head on, and nothing could challenge it head on unless we went post-WWII, or into prototypes. But the Tiger II doesn't feel the lack, as the other tanks would only serve to highlight it's dominance, by going up against the best the enemy had, and beating it.
So your logic is because we have the Tiger 2, there must be some other tank that can beat it? In the same thinking - we have the 262 so we must add the P-80 to beat it?
Just because Pershings and IS-2's were available does not mean they faced Tiger 2's specifically. In reality the Tiger 2 didn't face the late war lineup you can dream of. T/34-85s, Shermans, Churchill Tanks,
Pershings military record is itchy enough, I proved that a few times you tried to debunk it, it fought in many separate engagements and only 1 squad was in combat. IS-2 is another story, I would favor the IS-1 being added in game which is no way going to combat a King Tiger. It will put up a fight with a Tiger/Panther.
There is a reason the Russians completely ignored the King Tiger - after capturing one they realized mechanically/armor wise it was sabotaged by the workers building it, enough they didn't even bother to lift a finger in attempting to combat a King Tiger, they figure "the few, the broken down" was going to hurt more overall, after all the Russians pumped out hundreds of tanks per one King Tiger. Whether this is the true reason is to be unknown, I support it's probably propaganda, but then again the way the war was going Germany lost it already.
The Panzer III might get added down the road, I hope its not any time soon honestly as it will be a waste of time for those that actually play the game. Only time it would combat right now is the Sherman 75/T34/76 which both would eat it up.
Historically significant? Sure the Panzer 3 holds its place - however for people paying $15 a month, an antique piece of junk won't last 15 seconds in the late war arena.
The Ki-43 however, holds its place in Aces High regardless. Panzer 3? not so much, perhaps once the GV lineups get more completed, then it will serve its purpose in scenarios down the road.
-
Depends on the model. The Panzer III Ausf. L wouldn't fare too badly in the hands of an expierienced tanker.
an experienced tanker wouldn't be in a Panzer L, thus is why we have perks - I'll stay in my Panther, same with most the experienced tankers.
-
an experienced tanker wouldn't be in a Panzer L, thus is why we have perks - I'll stay in my Panther, same with most the experienced tankers.
His name is tank ace yet ive never seen him online?..
-
Butcher, that was just a massive fail on your part in the areas of reading comprehension. And just a failiure in general knowledge in some areas.
I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that I thought we needed tanks to beat the King Tiger. Nothing in my post even suggests that. What I said is that the Tiger II's historical significance (of a heavy-weight juggernaught) is not negated by the lack of contemporary US/Allied or Soviet design, because the Tiger II would still dominate those designs (IS-2, and M26) to almost the same degree that the Tiger II dominates the Tiger I's and Panthers it faces now.
And in LW, yeah, nobody would use the Panzer III L, because it would be out matched (unless it got APCR). However, the T-34/76 and M4A3(75) are both just about as crappy when you stack them up against a Panzer IV H or better.
And for that matter, the Panzer III isn't alone in this. The same could be said for just about any allied (and all soviet) tanks pre-1944.
Ace, I've been inactive for a while after a solid 6 year strech of play. I haven't played since September 2011.
-
Depends on the model. The Panzer III Ausf. L wouldn't fare too badly in the hands of an expierienced tanker.
Yes it would. It's slower, has inferior armor, and an inferior armament compared with every other tank we have.
-
Same speed as the Panzer IV, Tiger I, and is faster than the Firefly and Tiger II.
It's armor is a full 20mm thicker than the Panzer IV F's, and it's gun could penetrate the Panzer IV F's armor out to around 1300yds. It could penetrate the Panzer IV H's turret out to the same distance, the lower hulls of the M4 and T-34's out to about, say, 1000yds.
Its not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be, and its gun would be fairly quick firing too, which would provide a small advantage in some situations.
-
Butcher, that was just a massive fail on your part in the areas of reading comprehension. And just a failiure in general knowledge in some areas.
I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that I thought we needed tanks to beat the King Tiger. Nothing in my post even suggests that. What I said is that the Tiger II's historical significance (of a heavy-weight juggernaught) is not negated by the lack of contemporary US/Allied or Soviet design, because the Tiger II would still dominate those designs (IS-2, and M26) to almost the same degree that the Tiger II dominates the Tiger I's and Panthers it faces now.
And in LW, yeah, nobody would use the Panzer III L, because it would be out matched (unless it got APCR). However, the T-34/76 and M4A3(75) are both just about as crappy when you stack them up against a Panzer IV H or better.
And for that matter, the Panzer III isn't alone in this. The same could be said for just about any allied (and all soviet) tanks pre-1944.
Ace, I've been inactive for a while after a solid 6 year strech of play. I haven't played since September 2011.
No Butcher did not fail...you did.
He is just using your augment against you. You have stated before that the Ki43 would be a hanger queen because in your opinion it's not better than something we already have......FAIL
+1 for OUR Ki43
-
Got enough tiny gnats flying around.
Rather have a ki 45 or ki 102
-
Butcher, that was just a massive fail on your part in the areas of reading comprehension. And just a failiure in general knowledge in some areas.
What I said is that the Tiger II's historical significance (of a heavy-weight juggernaught) is not negated by the lack of contemporary US/Allied or Soviet design, because the Tiger II would still dominate those designs (IS-2, and M26) to almost the same degree that the Tiger II dominates the Tiger I's and Panthers it faces now.
Being a Wehrmacht fanboi is one thing... but your assertion that an Ausf B. Tiger would dominate either an IS-2 or an M26 cannot be considered as having a basis in reality.
This is not to say that either the IS-2 or the M26 would dominate a King Tiger, either.
-
Got enough tiny gnats flying around.
Rather have a ki 45 or ki 102
I can understand wanting the Ki-45 and/or Ki-102, but we are about to get another heavy fighter, the Me410, after having gotten a few bombers and lots of tanks lately. The last new pure fighter airframes that were added are the B-239 and the I-16. I think the fighter boys are due.
-
I can understand wanting the Ki-45 and/or Ki-102, but we are about to get another heavy fighter, the Me410, after having gotten a few bombers and lots of tanks lately. The last new pure fighter airframes that were added are the B-239 and the I-16. I think the fighter boys are due.
+1 this... nothing more need be said.
-
I can understand wanting the Ki-45 and/or Ki-102, but we are about to get another heavy fighter, the Me410, after having gotten a few bombers and lots of tanks lately. The last new pure fighter airframes that were added are the B-239 and the I-16. I think the fighter boys are due.
Oh , I'm new. Didn't know a 410 was coming. Didn't the 410 have guns that shot upward? Feel sorry for the "oh no, no belly gun" buff drivers. Still be nice to round out the Nippon selection with a twin.
-
Oh , I'm new. Didn't know a 410 was coming. Didn't the 410 have guns that shot upward? Feel sorry for the "oh no, no belly gun" buff drivers. Still be nice to round out the Nippon selection with a twin.
I am not sure if Me410s ever had Schragg Musik, but some Bf110G-4s had it as well as some other Luftwaffe and Japanese aircraft. But those were used at night only and the daylight versions of those fighters would not have the guns firing up at 45 degrees forward.
-
The Japanese got more kills with the Ki-43 than any other fighter. Over 5900 Ki-43s were built, making it the second most produced Japanese aircraft with the A6M being the most produced.
If this is correct how can we possibly not have this ac in game?
-
If this is correct how can we possibly not have this ac in game?
The numbers are correct.
And, agreed. Arguably, of all the planes that were produced in numbers greater than 5,000 the Ki-43 is the last one on the list that is "needed".
(Although, I would argue that the Il-4 is also "needed"...)
-
well not only in terms of sheer numbers but in the fact that it was so important to Japan. How many planes did Japan have that they produced even 4K of? How many different ac did Soviet Russia or Us have that they made 4k, 5k+ of?
-
How many different ac did Soviet Russia or Us have that they made 4k, 5k+ of?
P-38
10,037 built
P-51D
15,000+ built
P-47
15,686 built
F4U
12,571 built
F6F
12,275 built
ack-ack
-
well not only in terms of sheer numbers but in the fact that it was so important to Japan. How many planes did Japan have that they produced even 4K of? How many different ac did Soviet Russia or Us have that they made 4k, 5k+ of?
Just sticking to WW2 A/C that saw military use:
U.S.
____
Consolidated B-24 Liberator: 18,482
North American P-51 Mustang: 16,766
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt: 15,686
Curtiss P-40 'hawk: 13,378
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress: 12,731
Vought F4U Corsair: 12,571
Grumman F6F Hellkitten: 12,275
Lockheed P-38 Lightning: 10,037
North American B-25 Mitchell: 9,984
Grumman TBF Avenger: 9,837
Bell P-39 Airacobra: 9,584
Grumman F4F Wildkitten: 7,722
Douglas A20/DB-7: 7,478
Douglas SBD Dauntless: 5,936
Martin B-26 Marauder: 5,288
U.K.
__
Supermarine Spitfire: 20,351
Hawker Hurricane: 14,527
Vickers Wellington: 11,461
Avro Anson: 11,029
de Havilland Mosquito: 7,781
Avro Lancaster: 7,377
Handley Page Halifax: 6,176
Bristol Beaufighter: 5,928
USSR
___________
Polikarpov Po-2: Over 40,000
Ilyushin IL-2: 36,183
Yakovlev Yak-9: 16,769
Petlyakov Pe-2: 11,427
Lavochkin La-5: 9,920
Polikarpov I-16: 9,450
Yakovlev Yak-1: 8,720
Tupolev SB: 6,656
Polikarpov I-15: 6,519
Yakovlev Yak-7: 6,399
Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3: 6,258
Polikarpov R-5: 6,000
Lavochkin La-7: 5,753
Ilyushin IL-4: 5,200
Japanese Empire:
_____________________
Mitsubishi A6M Zero: 10,939
Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa: 5,919
Yokosuka K5Y: 5,770 (Mostly used as a trainer)
Nazi Germany
_____________________
Messerschmitt Bf 109: 33,984
Focke-Wulf FW 190: More than 20,000
Junkers Ju-88: ~15,000
Heinkel He 111: 7,300
Messerschmitt Bf 110: 6,150
Junkers Ju 87: 6,000
-
Of note, that Spitfire total does not include Seafires, but it does include the few post war Spitfires. Mosquito numbers also include post war numbers.
3rd most produced Japanese fighter was the Ki-84 at just over 3,500 including prototypes. Ki-84 has the record for highest production numbers of any aircraft in one year in Japan.
Edit:
Note the complete absence of Italy in the 5,000+ category.
-
Wouldnt expect Italy to have any over 5 k was suprised Japan had only 3 tho but it goes to show how much of their production was used on the Ki 43
-
No Butcher did not fail...you did.
He is just using your augment against you. You have stated before that the Ki43 would be a hanger queen because in your opinion it's not better than something we already have......FAIL
+1 for OUR Ki43
No, he some how pulled a "Tank-ace things we need tanks better than the KT" out of "the KT does not feel the lack of the IS-2 and M26" (paraphrased of course).
And he stated that the armor was thinner than anything we have right now (false), and that its gun is also inferior to anything we have now as well (also false).
Being a Wehrmacht fanboi is one thing... but your assertion that an Ausf B. Tiger would dominate either an IS-2 or an M26 cannot be considered as having a basis in reality.
This is not to say that either the IS-2 or the M26 would dominate a King Tiger, either.
The Tiger II is faster than the IS2, far more heavily armored than the IS2 and M26, has superior optics compared to the Is2 and M26, it has a gun that is hand-down better than the Soviet 122mm or the US. 90mm.
Quite litterally, there are only two spots on the front of the Tiger II that can even theoreticly be penetrated by the IS2 or the M26: Lower hull, and the gun mantle.
The Tiger II could penetrate the most heavily armored spot on either tank out to ranges of around 2500yds. In comparison, the M26 can only penetrate the lower nose of the Tiger II (the weakest armored section on the front, and even then only theoreticly) out to ranges of 1000yds, and the IS2 out to about 1500yds.
Sorry, but neither the M26 or IS2 are even close to a match for the tiger II. The panther is more comperable.
-
Wouldnt expect Italy to have any over 5 k was suprised Japan had only 3 tho but it goes to show how much of their production was used on the Ki 43
There is no rational reason that Japan's production should have been so much higher than Italy, really. Japan had been a medieval tech feudal nation as recently as 1863.
The other thing to note about the lack of Japanese totals over 5,000 is that Japan wasted a lot of potential production building aircraft that were entirely different, yet almost identical in capability and role. Functionally there was little difference between the Ki-21 and G4M, but they are completely different aircraft. This isn't always the case, the A6M and Ki-43 may seem fairly interchangeable, but the A6M was far more expensive than the Ki-43 and the Ki-43's structure far to weak to work as a carrier fighter.
-
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album/watermark.php?file=1619)
-
Tank-Ace,
Your argument boils down to "We don't need the Fw190 because we have the similar Bf109 already."
you dont need a fw190a8 , fw200 condor turns even better :bolt:
Seriously, tank warfare is too cartoonish in here to make pz3 a contender, since we have rare hull-downs, icon revealing type , no camouflage.
IRL if used in urban combat/ broken terrain vs t34/76 it could hurt them, and radio in both stukas and artillery.
That is how we used our light tankdestroyers ( not the stuka,part), we would shot the first and the last tank up from flank, and then called in artillery, for finishing the job.
we could never compete with t62s ,and later t72s one on one in our IKV91s, we could go anywhere though where MBTs had to keep on the roads.
I suggested before, in wish list the sturmgeschutz III, to be the next tank.
-
if we get those planes does it mean we can have one of that scoped gunsight as an option aswell? like if it's a loadout option in hangar?
-
If this is correct how can we possibly not have this ac in game?
Simple you are not going to kill much of anything with it at all.
Would it be a great addition...sort of. In the MA which is where most of us fly it is so noncompetitive it's embarrassing. For scenarios it would be great fun! But an unarmored air frame with two 12.7mm that are crappier than an american .50 is not going to exactly make waves in the MA.
It's important yes, but historically for scenarios. It will suck in the MA, and that's where most of us fly. In terms of fun, it's unique, it's neat, and it's different, but the betty also gave us that as a bomber counterpart...how often is that used in the MA....
-
They're the same two 12.7mm guns as the Ki-61 and Ki-84 have. They really aren't bad.
-
as secondary armament, no they're not bad. But as your only armament, they would be a bit weak.
No matter how many stories you have of killing things with just a pair of .50's or equivilant caliber weapons, theres no denying that the firepower would be wanting. Especially at the typical MA speeds, your shots would be rather short unless you've suckered someone into a turn fight.
-
The armament is fairly weak, at least the C.202 you have an option to add a pair of 30 cal machine guns which still gives it fairly weak armament.
Basically you have to sucker someone into a turn fight, and pour lead - depending your aim if you can go for a wing it would require less ammo then just spraying, and forget about snapshots being effective.
I had one excellent sortie in a c202 and banged out 7 kills, I don't recall ever since doing better then 3-4 on a typical run if I get extremely lucky.
I generally aim for less then 200 - rarely fire above 400 yards or even at 400.
If you can slip behind a spitfire and straddle him, you have a good chance of pulling a few shots off before either climbing out or running off to extend.
-
Basically you have to sucker someone into a turn fight, and pour lead
or "drop in" from above and force one. ;-)
-
(http://f8onpmu.devhub.com/img/upload/dsfdafsrfghtyujyi.jpg)
-
When the KI-43 is added, what criteria is used to determine which variant is added?
These would be a blast to fly:
Ki-43-Ic (Mark Ic)
Variant armed with 2 × 12.7 mm (.50 in) Ho-103
Ki-43-IIIb (Mark 3b)
Variant armed with 20 mm cannons.
-
When the KI-43 is added, what criteria is used to determine which variant is added?
These would be a blast to fly:
Ki-43-Ic (Mark Ic)
Variant armed with 2 × 12.7 mm (.50 in) Ho-103
Ki-43-IIIb (Mark 3b)
Variant armed with 20 mm cannons.
Think it was pointed out a few times the Ki-43-IIb was never in production, as the Ki-43-IIIb only had 2 produced in June 1945.
Ki-43-IIIa has pair of 12.7mm machine guns and the Nakajima Ha.115-II engine which pushed 1190 Hp.
-
Ki-43-IIIa has pair of 12.7mm machine guns and the Nakajima Ha.115-II engine which pushed 1190 Hp.
That works for me! :aok
-
That works for me! :aok
I would say one wonder weapon to add - even perked, would be the Ki-43-IIIc
Even though it didn't serve in combat or was even produced, for a set perk amount? I don't see it being a game changer.
Although I can see the backlash of people asking for other things that wern't produced or in combat during the war.
-
Ki-43 is pretty significant historically for the Japanese planeset. So inclusion into the game is a must :airplane:
early war - Ki-43 Ia
* serial production started in April 1941 by Nakajima Hikouki K.K.
mid war - Ki-43 IIb
* serial production started in November 1942 by Nakajima Hikouki K.K. & Tachikawa Hikouki K.K.
late war - Ki-43 IIIa
* Tachikawa took over final serial production, from April 1944 to end of war.
Ki-43 in the media
(retsu singu arongu! :rock) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS12isLjS5w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BXo-jWcGnw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juic9HiyAZE
-
Ki-43-III-Ko (a) would be fit in LMA.
It has better engine, it provides better climb and acceleration, and it's still an acrobat plane.
I want to see it.
Ki-43-II is fit to med-war scenarios though.
-
Ki-43-III-Ko (a) would be fit in LMA.
It has better engine, it provides better climb and acceleration, and it's still an acrobat plane.
I want to see it.
Ki-43-II is fit to med-war scenarios though.
No need to say it but I would like to see all three added. Its going to be a fine day when Busa posts his first Oscar skin that he is going to do :old: