Have not wished for anything lately, so how about the P 63 Airacobra. I don't particularly like it but...………..
The Airacobra is the P-39, which we have. The P-63 is the Kingcobra. It may have been used in Russia, but the sources I read said there was some dispute as to whether they actually saw combat.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Mister Fork on June 03, 2019, 10:37:12 PM
The Airacobra is the P-39, which we have. The P-63 is the Kingcobra. It may have been used in Russia, but the sources I read said there was some dispute as to whether they actually saw combat.
+1 - there are conflicting resources on whether or not it saw operational combat. When I researched it years ago, I couldn't find anything about it having actual combat kills.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vraciu on June 03, 2019, 10:44:45 PM
+1 - there are conflicting resources on whether or not it saw operational combat. When I researched it years ago, I couldn't find anything about it having actual combat kills.
Aerial victories are not a requirement for combat.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vraciu on June 03, 2019, 10:46:59 PM
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: FBDragon on June 04, 2019, 04:08:50 AM
I actually like the P63, the P63's in WarThunder are actually pretty good. Yes I play it too ocasionally, when the number in here are really, really low, but ONLY in realistic mode, arcade mode is just way too lame in there!!! If modeled correctly it would make an awesome ground attack plane in here. Just my 2 cents!!!! :cheers: :salute
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: perdue3 on June 04, 2019, 09:27:30 AM
-1 to the King Cobra.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Tracerfi on June 04, 2019, 01:00:49 PM
-1 on the +1 of the -1. No reason we should have combat requirements on aircraft. Its a fictional WW2 sim already with all nations available to each chess piece. Might as well open it up to WW2 era aircraft. The P63 was in service, as well as things like the Meteor.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on June 04, 2019, 02:21:03 PM
-1 on the +1 of the -1. No reason we should have combat requirements on aircraft. Its a fictional WW2 sim already with all nations available to each chess piece. Might as well open it up to WW2 era aircraft. The P63 was in service, as well as things like the Meteor.
Dale has higher standards than War Thunder where any `ol plane they think is cool and players will make a micro purchase for will do. :D
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vraciu on June 04, 2019, 02:38:15 PM
-1 on the +1 of the -1. No reason we should have combat requirements on aircraft. Its a fictional WW2 sim already with all nations available to each chess piece. Might as well open it up to WW2 era aircraft. The P63 was in service, as well as things like the Meteor.
It's almost certain the P-63 saw combat against the Japanese in the summer of 1945, scoring at least one victory against an Oscar. Operations by the Soviets against the Japanese continued to the point that the Kingcobra saw the final combat action by a US-built aircraft in World War Two.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on June 04, 2019, 02:40:05 PM
Can 'certains' be 'almost?' :D
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vraciu on June 04, 2019, 02:45:08 PM
There is certain. There is not certain. I'd say 'almost certain' is the latter. HT deals in certains. :D
Nothing is CERTAIN other than taxes and death. If one didn't witness the event it becomes a matter of probability.
The evidence favors combat usage of the P-63 in Manchuria against Japan (August 1945) , including aerial victories on at least one occasion (Ki-43, 15 August 1945 - Miroshnichenko*).
There is certain, almost certain, and uncertain. In probability theory the term is "almost surely" (used alongside "almost certainly").
Time to go water your high horse.
(I'm done discussing this with the certainly obtuse.)
*poof*
-- * One source credits this victory to Sirotin.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: bustr on June 04, 2019, 04:22:37 PM
I could understand if we were even in High School not doing any leg work but, we all know how to use the Internet ad so does Hitech.
Did a search in Russian and here is a "translation" that shows up at all P-63 Russia history pages in one form or another.
During a short campaign in the Far East, the Kingcobras were used to escort bombers and reconnaissance aircraft, cover troops and ships from the air, attack and bombard the Japanese positions. On the second day of the attack, 40 IL-4s, under cover of 50 R-63, bombed the Chuzhou fortified area, from where the Japanese bombarded the Soviet city of Iman. Parts of the 190th and 245th divisions supported the advancing Soviet and Mongolian forces, acting mainly as fighter-bombers and attack aircraft, also covering transport planes delivering fuel to advanced tank and mechanized units. The bombs were taken by the Soviet, FAB-100, for which several bombers reworked. Underwing large-caliber machine guns, attached to some of the P-63 series, were usually not installed, the 888th and 410th regiments attacked Japanese bases on the Kuril Islands, and then ensured the landing of assault forces on them.
Japanese aviation practically did not seriously oppose the advancing Soviet Army, therefore, it was not possible to check the quality of the Kingcobra in air battles. The only successful battle on the R-63 was conducted by Junior Lieutenant I. F. Miroshnichenko from the 17th IAP (190th IAD). On August 15, he and his leader, Hero of the Soviet Union, Sirotin, attacked two Japanese fighters who attacked transport aircraft approaching the landing in the Vaneemiao area. One Japanese man was shot down, another disappeared, having gone on a low-level flight among the hills. The type of Japanese cars in different documents is indicated differently. And as “I-97” (i.e. Nakajima Ki. 27), and as “Oscar” (according to the American code, Ki.43 was so designated). But he and the other were long-obsolete aircraft, so that the outcome of the battle was actually predetermined from the very beginning.
-------------------------------------
Here is a link to an article:
Cobras join the battle: P-39s and P-63s in Soviet forces. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cobras+join+the+battle%3a+P-39s+and+P-63s+in+Soviet+forces.-a0152512981
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Devil 505 on June 04, 2019, 04:34:48 PM
Hey, I am all about getting easy bomber kills but this thing will be a hangar queen within a week of it being introduced.
Gladiators and Helldivers would get more use than that thing.
Bring on the Kingcobra in any event.
Which "thing" is "that thing"?
I believe you meant the SM.79, but really both it and the P-63 would be hangar queens in the MA.
Sure the P-63 is fast, but it's acceleration and climb rate were well below average for a 1944 vintage fighter. Couple that with the same terrible cockpit views and funky gun package seen in the P-39Q and you have a recipe for a hangar queen.
Also, it has nearly zero use in special events, as Bustr's illustrates.
Arlo is right, the SM.79 is the better potential addition to the game.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on June 04, 2019, 04:44:07 PM
If one didn't witness the event it becomes a matter of probability.
I didn't witness FDR's inaugurations. I think you're forgetting that I've chosen history as a vocation. WWII history is very much a part of it. Professors don't grade 'almost certain' very high. But do the 'you're obtuse because I'm almost certain' dance. :D
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: perdue3 on June 04, 2019, 05:10:28 PM
If it is less than certain it is not *certain*, aka **almost certain**, aka likely.
I wasn't there. I didn't see it happen. Thus the qualifier is appropriate.
Had I said "fully certain" or "really certain" that would be worthy of critique as a pleonasm. Almost certain doesn't qualify.
I wish to unsheathe by lingual xiphos and partake in this war of semantics. Arlo is correct, in language, certain and uncertain may be used. "Almost certain" is indeed a pleonasm. In fact, almost certain simply means uncertain. One is either certain or is not certain, therefore one is either certain or is uncertain. No one somewhat knows something, they either know or they do not. If they are unsure if they know, then they are uncertain of their knowledge. If something is less certain than certain, then it is simply uncertain.
Nothing is CERTAIN other than taxes and death. If one didn't witness the event it becomes a matter of probability.
There is certain, almost certain, and uncertain. In probability theory the term is "almost surely" (used alongside "almost certainly").
Random Franklinisms are nice, but that is but opinion. I feel that many things are certain along with death and taxes.
In probability theory and only in probability theory is "almost certainly" able to be used. Even then, it is rare that is used as a substitute for "almost surely." It is true, however, that "almost certainly" is sometimes used as a sub, so you are not entirely wrong. We must keep in mind that this is no longer a definition which is defined by language, it is defined by mathematics. Still, "almost surely" is the more correct term even in mathematics.
In closing, my advice is to steer clear of "almost certain" and "almost surely" unless one is referring to the probability theory in particular. To exemplify: I am certain, because it is beyond doubt, that the P-63 was used in Manchuria by the VVS in 1945. I am uncertain that P-63 would be used often in Special Events. I am confident that more people would appreciate the addition of many aircraft before they would the P-63, but I am not certain of that.
:cheers:
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: FBDragon on June 04, 2019, 05:42:39 PM
With the mindset of most of the AH crown I've got to agree with Devil and perdweeb, she would be a hanger queen in the MA and almost never come up as an option in situations like Scenario and FSO!!! Even though it's a great aircraft to me ( just my opinion ), it's not a worthwhile plane to put in AH, at least not till many others are put in first!!! :cheers: :salute
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vraciu on June 04, 2019, 05:53:34 PM
I didn't witness FDR's inaugurations. I think you're forgetting that I've chosen history as a vocation. WWII history is very much a part of it. Professors don't grade 'almost certain' very high. But do the 'you're obtuse because I'm almost certain' dance. :D
Well, I am glad I am not paying you for your "expertise" because I know more about history as a hobby than you do as a "vocation". This is Exhibit A. Consider yourself corrected.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vraciu on June 04, 2019, 05:58:50 PM
I wish to unsheathe by lingual xiphos and partake in this war of semantics. Arlo is correct, in language, certain and uncertain may be used. "Almost certain" is indeed a pleonasm. In fact, almost certain simply means uncertain. One is either certain or is not certain, therefore one is either certain or is uncertain. No one somewhat knows something, they either know or they do not. If they are unsure if they know, then they are uncertain of their knowledge. If something is less certain than certain, then it is simply uncertain.
Random Franklinisms are nice, but that is but opinion. I feel that many things are certain along with death and taxes.
In probability theory and only in probability theory is "almost certainly" able to be used. Even then, it is rare that is used as a substitute for "almost surely." It is true, however, that "almost certainly" is sometimes used as a sub, so you are not entirely wrong. We must keep in mind that this is no longer a definition which is defined by language, it is defined by mathematics. Still, "almost surely" is the more correct term even in mathematics.
In closing, my advice is to steer clear of "almost certain" and "almost surely" unless one is referring to the probability theory in particular. To exemplify: I am certain, because it is beyond doubt, that the P-63 was used in Manchuria by the VVS in 1945. I am uncertain that P-63 would be used often in Special Events. I am confident that more people would appreciate the addition of many aircraft before they would the P-63, but I am not certain of that.
:cheers:
Wrong. Almost certain means the preponderance of evidence supports the assertion to an overwhelming degree, i.e. the probability of error is effectively zero. People with brain pans bigger than yours, Arlo's, and mine COMBINED use "almost certain" to show a high level of probability that infinitely approaches absolute. How many threes are in a third of a meter? You get the point.
It is in no way a pleonasm.
Uncertain is more nebulous.
Thus I remain almost certain (99.999%) the P-63 was used in combat against Japan. I'll reserve CERTAIN for the day I see evidence that erases any lingering doubt I may have.
(I'm done debating it. I have better things to do and the airplane will never be added regardless, which is too bad.)
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: haggerty on June 04, 2019, 06:07:32 PM
I could understand if we were even in High School not doing any leg work but, we all know how to use the Internet ad so does Hitech.
Did a search in Russian and here is a "translation" that shows up at all P-63 Russia history pages in one form or another.
During a short campaign in the Far East, the Kingcobras were used to escort bombers and reconnaissance aircraft, cover troops and ships from the air, attack and bombard the Japanese positions. On the second day of the attack, 40 IL-4s, under cover of 50 R-63, bombed the Chuzhou fortified area, from where the Japanese bombarded the Soviet city of Iman. Parts of the 190th and 245th divisions supported the advancing Soviet and Mongolian forces, acting mainly as fighter-bombers and attack aircraft, also covering transport planes delivering fuel to advanced tank and mechanized units. The bombs were taken by the Soviet, FAB-100, for which several bombers reworked. Underwing large-caliber machine guns, attached to some of the P-63 series, were usually not installed, the 888th and 410th regiments attacked Japanese bases on the Kuril Islands, and then ensured the landing of assault forces on them.
Japanese aviation practically did not seriously oppose the advancing Soviet Army, therefore, it was not possible to check the quality of the Kingcobra in air battles. The only successful battle on the R-63 was conducted by Junior Lieutenant I. F. Miroshnichenko from the 17th IAP (190th IAD). On August 15, he and his leader, Hero of the Soviet Union, Sirotin, attacked two Japanese fighters who attacked transport aircraft approaching the landing in the Vaneemiao area. One Japanese man was shot down, another disappeared, having gone on a low-level flight among the hills. The type of Japanese cars in different documents is indicated differently. And as “I-97” (i.e. Nakajima Ki. 27), and as “Oscar” (according to the American code, Ki.43 was so designated). But he and the other were long-obsolete aircraft, so that the outcome of the battle was actually predetermined from the very beginning.
-------------------------------------
Here is a link to an article:
Cobras join the battle: P-39s and P-63s in Soviet forces. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cobras+join+the+battle%3a+P-39s+and+P-63s+in+Soviet+forces.-a0152512981
Don't confuse the "historian" with facts, now, otherwise you'll get clobbered with the passive-aggressive cudgel.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vraciu on June 04, 2019, 06:13:09 PM
I believe you meant the SM.79, but really both it and the P-63 would be hangar queens in the MA.
Sure the P-63 is fast, but it's acceleration and climb rate were well below average for a 1944 vintage fighter. Couple that with the same terrible cockpit views and funky gun package seen in the P-39Q and you have a recipe for a hangar queen.
Also, it has nearly zero use in special events, as Bustr's illustrates.
Arlo is right, the SM.79 is the better potential addition to the game.
If you took the time to read the closing sentence the answer is quite obvious. No to the 79. Yes to the 63. (Pointless discussion as I don't think we will see either.)
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on June 04, 2019, 06:48:15 PM
Well, I am glad I am not paying you for your "expertise" because I know more about history as a hobby than you do as a "vocation". This is Exhibit A. Consider yourself corrected.
How'd you arrive at that conclusion, maestro? Was it my poking at your 'almost certainty?' Odds are, you'll never be signing my paychecks so I won't worry about that. I may send you a book, gratis*, if I live long enough to reach my PhD.
*Just send me your critique and recommended corrections and we'll be square. :D
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on June 04, 2019, 06:51:43 PM
Almost certain means the preponderance of evidence supports the assertion to an overwhelming degree.
Actually, in history what you're describing is not an 'almost.' Overwhelming seems a low bar to you, though.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vraciu on June 04, 2019, 07:34:20 PM
^^^^ Didn’t read. Don’t care. I stand by my original statement. “Almost certain” is the correct terminology. “Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt. Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur.”
It's almost certain the P-63 saw combat against the Japanese in the summer of 1945, scoring at least one victory against an Oscar. Operations by the Soviets against the Japanese continued to the point that the Kingcobra saw the final combat action by a US-built aircraft in World War Two.
The evidence favors combat usage of the P-63 in Manchuria against Japan (August 1945) , including aerial victories on at least one occasion (Ki-43, 15 August 1945 - Miroshnichenko*).
-- * One source credits this victory to Sirotin.
/Discussion
(Feel free to argue with yourself all you like. You’ll still be wrong. That’s a certainty.)
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on June 04, 2019, 07:47:42 PM
Wrong. Almost certain means the preponderance of evidence supports the assertion to an overwhelming degree, i.e. the probability of error is effectively zero. People with brain pans bigger than yours, Arlo's, and mine COMBINED use "almost certain" to show a high level of probability that infinitely approaches absolute. How many threes are in a third of a meter? You get the point.
It is in no way a pleonasm.
Uncertain is more nebulous.
Thus I remain almost certain (99.999%) the P-63 was used in combat against Japan. I'll reserve CERTAIN for the day I see evidence that erases any lingering doubt I may have.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2yuela
- oldman
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vraciu on June 04, 2019, 08:19:11 PM
Wrong. Almost certain means the preponderance of evidence supports the assertion to an overwhelming degree, i.e. the probability of error is effectively zero. People with brain pans bigger than yours, Arlo's, and mine COMBINED use "almost certain" to show a high level of probability that infinitely approaches absolute. How many threes are in a third of a meter? You get the point.
It is in no way a pleonasm.
Uncertain is more nebulous.
Thus I remain almost certain (99.999%) the P-63 was used in combat against Japan. I'll reserve CERTAIN for the day I see evidence that erases any lingering doubt I may have.
(I'm done debating it. I have better things to do and the airplane will never be added regardless, which is too bad.)
Almost surely is more accurate in that case. You proved my point, it is used in a mathematical sense, not in a lingual sense. If you write "I am almost certain about X because Y said it happened" that is very poor scholarship. It is poor simply because of your word choice. The word certain is a poor choice as is uncertain because they are black and white and there are very few certainties in history. This is why we make claims and back them with evidence or interpretations of evidence. I will also add that probability and probability theory is used to predict the future or to determine what will happen in various situations. We do not predict the past.
We can just disagree, V. No need to be so hostile and make cruel comments. I was simply saying that "almost surely" and its synonyms are meant to be used in mathematical conversations. If you disagree, that is fine. I will continue to not use "almost certain" and you are more than welcome to continue to use it.
:cheers:
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Shuffler on June 04, 2019, 08:34:44 PM
New discussion..... kinda mostly
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: perdue3 on June 04, 2019, 08:54:43 PM
I didn't witness FDR's inaugurations. I think you're forgetting that I've chosen history as a vocation. WWII history is very much a part of it. Professors don't grade 'almost certain' very high. But do the 'you're obtuse because I'm almost certain' dance. :D
Are you a grad student at TTU? I would love to study under Dr. Forsythe. I have read his work on early Rome and Livy. His historiographic work on Livy is one of very few of its kind.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vraciu on June 04, 2019, 09:35:11 PM
Almost surely is more accurate in that case. You proved my point, it is used in a mathematical sense, not in a lingual sense. If you write "I am almost certain about X because Y said it happened" that is very poor scholarship. It is poor simply because of your word choice. The word certain is a poor choice as is uncertain because they are black and white and there are very few certainties in history. This is why we make claims and back them with evidence or interpretations of evidence. I will also add that probability and probability theory is used to predict the future or to determine what will happen in various situations. We do not predict the past.
We can just disagree, V. No need to be so hostile and make cruel comments. I was simply saying that "almost surely" and its synonyms are meant to be used in mathematical conversations. If you disagree, that is fine. I will continue to not use "almost certain" and you are more than welcome to continue to use it.
“Almost certain” is the correct terminology. “Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt. Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur.”
Thus, “almost certain” is more precise than “uncertain” which can have an almost (uh oh) unlimited variation in terms of nuance.
“Almost certain” is far more (uh oh) precise than “uncertain” is.
In regard to “uncertain” : “All eagles are birds but not all birds are eagles.” There is NOTHING to preclude a modifier to “certain” in order to communicate a degree of certainty or uncertainty.
I stand by my original statement and its unassailable terminology. Unless you can show me film of the P-63 vs Ki-43 engagement then “almost certain” is as good as it gets. Only the participants *could* know for sure (to a certainty*), and they’re dead. That said, this should not preclude the addition of the P-63 to AH3 by any reasonable, objective, history-based standard.
Now back to your regularly scheduled gnat straining. Good Lord what a colossal waste of time this has been.
— * Even the fog of war could intervene to an extent making CERTAINTY impossible.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vraciu on June 04, 2019, 09:45:07 PM
Are you a grad student at TTU? I would love to study under Dr. Forsythe. I have read his work on early Rome and Livy. His historiographic work on Livy is one of very few of its kind.
Actually, undergrad. I'm on the slow but steady road of 12 credit hours per semester. I don't have the endurance and stamina of the younger crowd that run me over in Holden Hall. I've had Forsythe for Western Civ I, however. At Tech he literally wrote the book (as you infer) and he's the Chair of Ancient History. He basically lectures by reading it to us (braille in his pocket). I finally got the rest of the class to ask him questions by, well, asking him questions. He seemed genuinely glad that there were students in his undergrad class that showed interest. He's a good man. So is Dr. Bell. I had him for an overall study in WWII. He retired last semester and many of us hated to see him go. I might visit him at his digs in Taos. Another good prof is Lutjens. I had him for my Nazi Era class and will have him again this fall for my Weimar republic class. He's fairly young and has the looks and mannerisms of Jack Lemon (imo). He seemed a bit surprised when I told him that.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: perdue3 on June 04, 2019, 10:19:41 PM
Actually, undergrad. I'm on the slow but steady road of 12 credit hours per semester. I don't have the endurance and stamina of the younger crowd that run me over in Holden Hall. I've had Forsythe for Western Civ I, however. At Tech he literally wrote the book (as you infer) and he's the Chair of Ancient History. He basically lectures by reading it to us (braille in his pocket). I finally got the rest of the class to ask him questions by, well, asking him questions. He seemed genuinely glad that there were students in his undergrad class that showed interest. He's a good man. So is Dr. Bell. I had him for an overall study in WWII. He retired last semester and many of us hated to see him go. I might visit him at his digs in Taos. Another good prof is Lutjens. I had him for my Nazi Era class and will have him again this fall for my Weimar republic class. He's fairly young and has the looks and mannerisms of Jack Lemon (imo). He seemed a bit surprised when I told him that.
Very cool, you are very lucky. There have been two times where I have agreed with an historian regarding Livy's abilities as an historian. Dr. Forsythe was the first I agreed with. I have not been in Ancient History my entire career, so I have not studied under many specialists. In undergrad, my capstone regarded the historiography of the French Revolution with an emphasis on Marxism and its counters.
Anyway, to me and to many, Dr. Forsythe is an ancient history all-star. Good luck in your studies.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on June 04, 2019, 10:30:07 PM
Thank you. I had no idea you were also history crazed. I might have to add you to my academic e-pen-pal list, if you want. I'm planning to study abroad at TTU's Seville campus next summer. :)
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: haggerty on June 05, 2019, 06:50:36 AM
The C-47 never shot a plane down and its still in the game, so the P-63 shouldnt be denied just because there are no confirmed kills. It was in service during the war, thats all that should matter.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: perdue3 on June 05, 2019, 08:30:57 AM
Thank you. I had no idea you were also history crazed. I might have to add you to my academic e-pen-pal list, if you want. I'm planning to study abroad at TTU's Seville campus next summer. :)
You have to be crazy to spend 90% of your time reading and writing about things.people don't care about. My concentration area is Alexander and Hellenistic warfare.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on June 05, 2019, 09:27:29 AM
You have to be crazy to spend 90% of your time reading and writing about things.people don't care about. My concentration area is Alexander and Hellenistic warfare.
Well, you know, it takes a student determined not to make money to pick history, I'm told. A prof also once told me, when I handed in a paper that was a bit too abbreviated for his taste, that I seem to have left out the story in history. I'm learning to unlearn a lifetime of concise conversation (collective forum laugh?). I admire your concentration. I'm still determining mine, at this stage. It'll obviously be related to 20th century warfare (history seems to practically revolve around war) but I've been leaning toward the Spanish Civil (Air) War, specifically. Part of my study abroad is to immerse myself in the language and culture.
I suppose we've (I've) hijacked this thread way too far, as is. Apologies to all. :cheers:
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: perdue3 on June 05, 2019, 10:06:02 AM
Well, you know, it takes a student determined not to make money to pick history, I'm told. A prof also once told me, when I handed in a paper that was a bit too abbreviated for his taste, that I seem to have left out the story in history. I'm learning to unlearn a lifetime of concise conversation (collective forum laugh?). I admire your concentration. I'm still determining mine, at this stage. It'll obviously be related to 20th century warfare (history seems to practically revolve around war) but I've been leaning toward the Spanish Civil (Air) War, specifically. Part of my study abroad is to immerse myself in the language and culture.
I suppose we've (I've) hijacked this thread way too far, as is. Apologies to all. :cheers:
I spent a great deal of time deciding my concentration. I finally narrowed it down to three areas: Protestant Reformation in Germany, Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front, Alexander the Great. I chose Alexander because I enjoy the time period more than the sixteenth and twentieth centuries. Along with writing about the Luftwaffe, I would have to spend time learning the politics, social ramifications, and general public history that goes with World War II. Studying Luther would require much of the same, but the historiography is essentially endless on the Reformation (Marxism, Annales, Cliometry, Great Man, Freudianism, etc.). Thus, studying the Reformation would be about 80% historiography, which I did not like the sound of. Meanwhile, to me, there is nothing boring about the fifteen hundred years of Ancient Western history. From 1,000 BCE to 500 CE there is not a bad topic, in my opinion. Of course, this is one of the least popular areas of history, in the English speaking world at least. So, it is a bold move and there is no money it at all. But, one can survive on professor pay.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: bustr on June 05, 2019, 12:28:00 PM
I thought the Sparviero fought from the beginning to the end of WW2 along with sinking allied shipping in the Med as a highly effective torpedo bomber. The P63 flew in squadron strength for the VVS but, the assembly, training, and deployment was out of sync with the major battles against the Luftwaffe. Ultimately flying CAP and maybe some mud moving for the last battle against the Japanese with almost no air contacts due to the late stage of the war in 45. Yes one air to air was claimed, someone would have to research that.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Mister Fork on June 07, 2019, 10:20:58 AM
It would be an easy add to do the P-63 Airacobra. It's a bit of a monster - fast plane. Good guns. Good iron options. Not sure on turn-rate - climb rate kinda poor for a later war aircraft. And that M10 37mm cannon would be the antithesis of the potato gun on the 109K4. So - potential medium altitude bomber hunter.
I've found and referenced a confirmed kill. In Yefim Gordon's - Soviet Air Power in World War 2. ISBN 978-1-85780-304-4. On pages 450 to 455 is a good read on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria mid-August. Soviet pilot Miroshnichenko from 17th IAP/190 IAD shot down an Oscar. Found it in Wiki so I checked the reference. So, there you go. :aok
Being the new head of IT at a college with access to the digital world library online has it's perks. :D
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: icepac on June 07, 2019, 12:24:41 PM
Back off "skull1"....just a little. This behavior didn't work out too well before.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Volron on June 09, 2019, 06:29:47 AM
The C-47 never shot a plane down and its still in the game, so the P-63 shouldnt be denied just because there are no confirmed kills. It was in service during the war, thats all that should matter.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: haggerty on June 10, 2019, 08:59:47 AM
Not sure what you want with your reply. The fight against the P-63 being included in the game is on the basis of no confirmed kills. Any aircraft used in WW2 should be allowed, whether it was succesful or not.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Devil 505 on June 10, 2019, 12:39:13 PM
Not sure what you want with your reply. The fight against the P-63 being included in the game is on the basis of no confirmed kills. Any aircraft used in WW2 should be allowed, whether it was succesful or not.
Success has little to do with it. The P-63 was a mediocre fighter only used in one sideshow battle. Almost any other WW2 fighter has more merit for being added to AH over the P-63.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: haggerty on June 10, 2019, 02:01:00 PM
Success has little to do with it. The P-63 was a mediocre fighter only used in one sideshow battle. Almost any other WW2 fighter has more merit for being added to AH over the P-63.
And we have those fighters. Just because another may have had more success doesnt mean that this one shouldnt be added. Add all of them.
The P-39 saw major use by the Soviets, with the P-63 being an improvement in every category I can see it being used a fair amount
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Devil 505 on June 10, 2019, 02:48:17 PM
And we have those fighters. Just because another may have had more success doesnt mean that this one shouldnt be added. Add all of them.
Ideally, yes. All should be added, but that is impossible to expect. Therefore each potential aircraft must be evaluated based on its merits - of which the P-63 is lacking.
Because of its extremely limited combat service its value to events is almost zero.
The plane's performance indicate it will have little value to the MA. Imagine a P-47D-11 with a big cannon and few rounds for it. Sounds like a real winner there. :devil
Quote
The P-39 saw major use by the Soviets, with the P-63 being an improvement in every category I can see it being used a fair amount
Yes the P-39 was extensively used by the Soviets - against the Germans, There is no proof that the P-63 did anything except participate in one short campaign against Japan when the war was all but over.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: haggerty on June 10, 2019, 04:02:33 PM
Ideally, yes. All should be added, but that is impossible to expect. Therefore each potential aircraft must be evaluated based on its merits - of which the P-63 is lacking.
Because of its extremely limited combat service its value to events is almost zero.
The plane's performance indicate it will have little value to the MA. Imagine a P-47D-11 with a big cannon and few rounds for it. Sounds like a real winner there. :devil
Yes the P-39 was extensively used by the Soviets - against the Germans, There is no proof that the P-63 did anything except participate in one short campaign against Japan when the war was all but over.
I'd say the P-47D-11 is a poor example as its a great flyer, I'd welcome a 37mm on that model. And apart from the usage against the Japanese, their are claims from Germans and the Soviets that they secretly used it in place of the P-39 to avoid agreements that they wouldnt.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Oldman731 on June 10, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
I'd say the P-47D-11 is a poor example as its a great flyer, I'd welcome a 37mm on that model. And apart from the usage against the Japanese, their are claims from Germans and the Soviets that they secretly used it in place of the P-39 to avoid agreements that they wouldnt.
I'm pretty sure we looked into this, some years ago, and concluded that it was an unsubstantiated rumor. If memory servers, there are Soviet sources of a P-63 test unit near Moscow - they weren't terribly happy with the plane's handling qualities - but that was the extent of the P-63 getting anywhere near the Germans.
- oldman
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: haggerty on June 10, 2019, 04:27:42 PM
I'm pretty sure we looked into this, some years ago, and concluded that it was an unsubstantiated rumor. If memory servers, there are Soviet sources of a P-63 test unit near Moscow - they weren't terribly happy with the plane's handling qualities - but that was the extent of the P-63 getting anywhere near the Germans.
- oldman
I'm sure its hard to substantiate something that was done secretly, unless you suck at keeping secrets. Either way, when it comes down to it, the P-63 served in the war and would be a great addition to the game.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Devil 505 on June 10, 2019, 04:34:35 PM
And american pilots in the Pacific thought that Ki-61's were actually Bf 109's when first encountered.
So using a pilot's plane identification skills during combat is less than ideal.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Volron on June 10, 2019, 05:00:58 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not against the addition of a new shinies, it's that the comparison to the C-47 made no sense. A better comparison would be to that of the Meteor, which folks also want in AH. The difference there is that I believe there are solid, documented proof that the Meteor was used in ground attacks on the Germans. The P-63's documentation is sketchy at best.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: haggerty on June 10, 2019, 05:07:56 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not against the addition of a new shinies, it's that the comparison to the C-47 made no sense. A better comparison would be to that of the Meteor, which folks also want in AH. The difference there is that I believe there are solid, documented proof that the Meteor was used in ground attacks on the Germans. The P-63's documentation is sketchy at best.
The comparison to the C-47 was because everyone shuts down the late war planes for not having any verifiable kills.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Devil 505 on June 10, 2019, 05:14:43 PM
The comparison to the C-47 was because everyone shuts down the late war planes for not having any verifiable kills.
Which is a ridiculous comparison given that the C-47 is the most significant transport aircraft in the war and the P-63 is barely a footnote when discussing fighters.
The Boulton Paul Defiant has more merit for inclusion in AH than the P-63.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: ONTOS on June 10, 2019, 05:15:00 PM
Some say the P-63 had no kills (?), so we should not have them. However, there were weapons that were used like the PTAB's for the IL 2, the atomic bomb, and a few others, but we do not have them. Some people want one way, but not the other. ( ok, no atonic bomb ).
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: icepac on June 10, 2019, 05:59:10 PM
There are so many quality planes made in much larger numbers. Russia manufactured 11,000 PE2 during the war and it's highly likely that all of them flew combat missions.
There are many planes flown during the war that would likely handle a p63 that were made in larger numbers that aren't in the game.
It was only 12 mph faster than a 1941 production mig3 at 25,000 feet.
If I were a Japanese pilot flying a KI44 or J2M and happened upon a P63, I would be very happy.
It's only standout quality was it's service ceiling and I doubt many in aces would use it.
In the arena, I would climb to 43,000 feet into the path of b29s reported over 30k.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: ONTOS on June 11, 2019, 03:28:30 PM
We can look for the fastest, most heavily armed, and the best turn fighter to put in the game. But there was mix of all planes in the war. progress made better planes through the war. Having a new plane doesn't mean it has to be the best. Whether the P 63 or the Fiat Cr 42, if you build it, people will fly it. Some people play the game to see how many points they can accumulate, some to show off how many planes they can shoot down, and some just love the WW II airplanes and for a few hours they can time travel back in history. People have different reasons. I would like to see a new plane no matter which one.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 13, 2019, 11:24:53 PM
Nothing is CERTAIN other than taxes and death. If one didn't witness the event it becomes a matter of probability.
The evidence favors combat usage of the P-63 in Manchuria against Japan (August 1945) , including aerial victories on at least one occasion (Ki-43, 15 August 1945 - Miroshnichenko*).
There is certain, almost certain, and uncertain. In probability theory the term is "almost surely" (used alongside "almost certainly").
Time to go water your high horse.
(I'm done discussing this with the certainly obtuse.)
*poof*
-- * One source credits this victory to Sirotin.
There are no official Soviet records that mention any air to air kills against the Japanese. The only "records" are confusing and sometimes contradictory second hand accounts. However, just because the P-63 may have or maybe not shot down another plane, it did see combat in the ground attack role.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: ACE on June 14, 2019, 06:58:18 AM
There are no official Soviet records that mention any air to air kills against the Japanese. The only "records" are confusing and sometimes contradictory second hand accounts. However, just because the P-63 may have or maybe not shot down another plane, it did see combat in the ground attack role.
Ah, AK don’t waste your time with the troll.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Volron on June 14, 2019, 02:17:11 PM
There are no official Soviet records that mention any air to air kills against the Japanese. The only "records" are confusing and sometimes contradictory second hand accounts. However, just because the P-63 may have or maybe not shot down another plane, it did see combat in the ground attack role.
Then just like the Meteor, it meets requirements. :)
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: perdue3 on June 14, 2019, 03:04:25 PM
I don't think the argument is about whether the P-63 qualifies as an addition. The argument should be about whether we need/want it. The list of aircraft that are needed/wanted is very long and the P-63 finds itself near the bottom of that long, long list.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on June 14, 2019, 05:39:39 PM
Agreed. Furthermore, I'd say that MA functionality is no longer an issue. The best heavy bomber of the war is represented. The best jet of the war is represented. The best medium bombers and dive bombers are represented. The best piston driven fighters (with differences of opinion) are represented. The best tanks (again, with differences of opinion) are represented. Ship-wise, for the most part, the best is already represented, as well.
About the only thing left to be modeled there would be based on missing functionality (DD torps, etc.).
So, I contend that the only real reason left to add a plane, vehicle or even a ship would be to fill gaps for events. I agree with Perdue that the King Cobra would naturally fall to the bottom of such a list (as would the Meteor, unless the V-1 is modeled for some odd reason and such an event would be player vs AI).
What we're facing, unfortunately, is a drop in event participation driving a lack of motivation to add:
Fiat G.50 (Battle of Britain, North Africa and Med, Finland) IAR 80/IAR 81 (Romania, Eastern Front - Battle of Stalingrad, Ploiesti) Kawasaki Ki-100 (Defense of Japan - B-29 raids) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 (Eastern Front) Mitsubishi J2M (Battle of Philippine Sea, Home Defense - B-29 raids) Bristol Type 156 Beaufighter (France, Norway, Belgium, Pacific, Burma) Petlyakov Pe-3 (Eastern Front) Handley Page Halifax (Used heavily in the Euro Campaign) Short Stirling (earlier bombing campaign Euro) Armstrong Whitworth Whitley (Bombing campaign Euro, special duties) Bristol Beaufort (Euro, Pacific, Burma, Malaya) Dornier Do 217 (West and South Europe) Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 (Italy's most prolific bomber/torpedo bomber) Curtiss SB2C Helldiver (Mid-war to late-war carrier based USN dive bomber) Douglas TBD Devastator (USN early war torpedo bomber) Nakajima B6N (IJN mid/late war torpedo bomber)
Then there might be consideration for the Ju-52 as well as perhaps modeling gliders for D-Day. If FPS was ever to be a practicality in AH then the Armstrong Whitworth Whitney shuttling commandos might become quite popular.
Players on the forum can argue the merits of such a list to their heart's content and I may offer pros and cons each way but any plane added from the above list would be great, imo.
But, if there's nobody participating in events I'm not sure HT and co. would see it worth their time.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Slade on June 27, 2019, 01:37:29 PM
Quote
But, if there's nobody participating in events I'm not sure HT and co. would see it worth their time.
Good point. We have a point too. ROI. We want to see our $ come back to us that we put into the R & D in this game. If it stops growing then so will the funding.
I am a HUGE fan of AH though. I hope to see ALL the planes in your list come to pass.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on June 27, 2019, 02:39:52 PM
Good point. We have a point too. ROI. We want to see our $ come back to us that we put into the R & D in this game. If it stops growing then so will the funding.
I am a HUGE fan of AH though. I hope to see ALL the planes in your list come to pass.
Your ROI is getting to play the game, itself, unless you really think of membership as part ownership (for some reason). There is no contract between you and HT promising x number of new planes modeled per x period of time. Other than that, the only ROI in this scenario is HT's. Just sayin'. (Not that I don't wanna see those planes I listed. I just know I actually have no right to expect them.)
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: ONTOS on June 29, 2019, 02:27:21 PM
If you people would look at my first entry , I said I did not particular like the P-63, I am lobbing for a new plane, that's all. The Fiat G55 for example. :salute
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on June 29, 2019, 02:38:53 PM
If you people would look at my first entry , I said I did not particular like the P-63, I am lobbing for a new plane, that's all. The Fiat G55 for example. :salute
I think we've all seen that. :salute
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: perdue3 on June 30, 2019, 06:56:27 PM
If you people would look at my first entry , I said I did not particular like the P-63, I am lobbing for a new plane, that's all. The Fiat G55 for example. :salute
I have to ask then, why even mention it?
By the way, we are neighbors it seems. I live on the other side of High Rock Lake.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: morfiend on July 01, 2019, 10:39:14 AM
I see no reason not to include the P63,maybe not the next plane but at some point it should be added! Also if you look at the stats on the 63 you can see speeds from 410 to 430 or so and ROC between 3600 and 4900 fpm which makes it no slouch. The improved Mk10 37 mm carried 58 rounds and it still had 2 or 4 50 cals available.
It was built in large enough numbers and served in squadrons so AFAIK it meet requirements for inclusion.
That said there's plenty of other planes that should come first,Beau and G55 come to mind but I see no reason it couldnt be in game as I've never heard that it "must" have scored an air to air victory. The meteor is in the same class,no reason not to include just because it doesnt have an air to air victory.
YMMV!
:salute
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: ONTOS on July 01, 2019, 11:28:49 AM
I mention it because, you seem to be drifting away from the main reason of the subject, in that we could use a new plane.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vinkman on July 01, 2019, 12:05:59 PM
+1 The P-39 is different and fun. But it cant compete in the Melee because it climbs too slow (2.5K/Min) and is too slow (~350mph) at fight alts. The P-63 is the same quirky gun pack and cockpit, with more wing and more HP resulting in more climb (3.5K/,in) and top speed of ~410. Just enough to make it competitive in Melee.
This plane has historic and engineering merit as the best All American single engine V-12 powered dog fighter of the war. P-51 had a British Engine (Not All American even though Packard made them in America) P-40 was a dog in all variants compared to axis competition. P-39 was under powered and under winged. P-38 had two engines.
It would be nice to have the best All American dog fighter in the Melee arena because we do so much dog fighter there. The Air Force wasn't looking for a dog Fighter June of 1944 when the plane came on line. It need more Long range escort planes like the P-51. The Russians were already familiar with Bell and P-39 so it made sense these planes went to them. But it was not because they weren't capable.
Lastly, the Melee is not historical. Corsairs didn't fight 109s or Mustangs, or Yaks. So talking about combat time might be over blown, as most of the High use aircraft are already in the inventory, and many very low use planes are in the plane set.
Thanks :salute
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Arlo on July 01, 2019, 12:40:27 PM
+1 The P-39 is different and fun. But it cant compete in the Melee because it climbs too slow (2.5K/Min) and is too slow (~350mph) at fight alts. The P-63 is the same quirky gun pack and cockpit, with more wing and more HP resulting in more climb (3.5K/,in) and top speed of ~410. Just enough to make it competitive in Melee.
This plane has historic and engineering merit as the best All American single engine V-12 powered dog fighter of the war. P-51 had a British Engine (Not All American even though Packard made them in America) P-40 was a dog in all variants compared to axis competition. P-39 was under powered and under winged. P-38 had two engines.
It would be nice to have the best All American dog fighter in the Melee arena because we do so much dog fighter there. The Air Force wasn't looking for a dog Fighter June of 1944 when the plane came on line. It need more Long range escort planes like the P-51. The Russians were already familiar with Bell and P-39 so it made sense these planes went to them. But it was not because they weren't capable.
Lastly, the Melee is not historical. Corsairs didn't fight 109s or Mustangs, or Yaks. So talking about combat time might be over blown, as most of the High use aircraft are already in the inventory, and many very low use planes are in the plane set.
Thanks :salute
Are you trying to convince us or HT? HT is the one that counts. :cool:
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: ONTOS on July 01, 2019, 05:19:10 PM
I am trying to convince HT. I always thought that the wish list was to convince HT. It's just a lot of people want to argue a point against it or go to something else off the main subject. The whole thing just make's me tired all over. There are people in here that seem to think they know more or better then anyone else without contributing anything to the cause. Just like teat's on a boar hog, not worth anything. Can not some one make a wish without all the back and forth as to why it will not work or will work. As you said, it is HT that needs to be convinced.
Title: Re: P 63 Airacobra
Post by: Vinkman on July 08, 2019, 12:31:39 PM