P-63 King Cobra

[Bronk]

Does the P-63 qualify for inclusion. Yes
Should it at this time. NO

There are way to many more important AC to be added. Early war Japanese to be specific.

My thinking on why is.. fill in some of this EW stuff and more might fly EW arena. That and no more free Hurri2cs.
 

[oboe]

The Airacobra is dead sexy, and the King Cobra,at 1800hp, is drop-dead sexy.

I hope it is added at some point, but in the meantime there are lots of holes in the planeset, particularly Japanese, that I hope are filled soon.

 

[Shifty]

The Airacobra is dead sexy, and the King Cobra,at 1800hp, is drop-dead sexy.

I hope it is added at some point, but in the meantime there are lots of holes in the planeset, particularly Japanese, that I hope are filled soon.

 

I agree.

[fbEagle]

Looks Like Fun!

[Saxman]

Saxman I'm surprised. Why write off the Russian pilot's account of the use of the P-63? that's sertainly more than a handful of reports? no? And if this is backed up by German records of plane wreckage, doesn't that complete the picture.

WHAT GERMAN RECORDS? Wikipedia mentions in passing, but there is NO CITATION. What was the source? Where are the action reports? What tail numbers in the wreckage? Wikipedia says NOTHING about what evidence the Germans had to say that "This was a P-63."

And ONE PILOT'S ACCOUNT does NOT overturn maintenance logs, service records, serial numbers, inventories, flight logs, inspections, and the countless other reports and logs that make up the official paper trail in which the Soviet Union said: WE DID NOT USE ONE P-63 AGAINST GERMANY.

Is it POSSIBLE the pilot account was true? Yes, it can't be ruled out. However this is NOT sufficient evidence to support adding the aircraft. It's service against Japan has more weight, but there's this VERY important little detail:

The USSR didn't begin combat operations against Japan until August 9th. Japan surrendered a week later.

Does ONE aerial victory in such a short time-frame provide a realistic justification for adding the aircraft of THESE grounds?

[Ack-Ack]

Saxman I'm surprised. Why write off the Russian pilot's account of the use of the P-63? that's sertainly more than a handful of reports? no? And if this is backed up by German records of plane wreckage, doesn't that complete the picture.

The problem is that there are no official Soviet records for the P-63 being operated on the Eastern Front or in Europe as they marched to Berlin.  There are also no official German records about shooting down any P-63s nor any photographs of any wreckages from these shoot downs.  As someone pointed out, it is very plausible (and more than likely) that the Germans misidentified the P-39 as a P-63.

The official combat record of the P-63 shows a plane that came in during the later stages of the war and saw very limited combat with only one air to air kill to its credit when Captain Vyacheslav Sirotin of the 17th IAP shot down either a Ki-27 or Ki-43

Using only the words of a former Soviet pilot that he flew the P-63 over Europe as undeniable proof that it happened isn't considered good data when you do not have anything official to back up the pilot's story.

Should the P-63 be included in the game?  Sure it should but it's definitely not one of those planes the game is in dire need of.  Hell, I'd put it near the bottom of the list of planes to be eventually added.  It brings nothing new to the game nor would it have any sort of significant impact.  Definite a very, very low priority addition.

ack-ack

[Bronk]

Does ONE aerial victory in such a short time-frame provide a realistic justification for adding the aircraft of THESE grounds?

1. no experimental aircraft.  check
2. Must be  at squadron strength.  check
3. (and this is debatable for inclusion) must have fired guns in anger. again check

Now that we have the bases covered,  want to rethink the above?

[Saxman]

No, I do not. This isn't a small deployment number that nonetheless that still saw a good amount of combat, IE the F4U-1C, P-47M, and Ta-152 (even the 152 saw more than a month of action). This is an unknown number of aircraft (does anyone have records of TOTAL numbers of P-63s that actually FLEW combat sorties against Japan or do we just have a record showing one P-63 scored A victory? It doesn't matter a damn if it was deployed in squadron strength if those squadrons never actually flew combat sorties) that saw, at most, seven DAYS of battle, if that.

Add the P-63 under these conditions and you're opening a RIDICULOUS can of worms.

[Bronk]

No, I do not. This isn't a small deployment number that nonetheless that still saw a good amount of combat, IE the F4U-1C, P-47M, and Ta-152 (even the 152 saw more than a month of action). This is an unknown number of aircraft (does anyone have records of TOTAL numbers of P-63s that actually FLEW combat sorties against Japan or do we just have a record showing one P-63 scored A victory? It doesn't matter a damn if it was deployed in squadron strength if those squadrons never actually flew combat sorties) that saw, at most, seven DAYS of battle, if that.

Add the P-63 under these conditions and you're opening a RIDICULOUS can of worms.

What can of worms??? What other 3k plus produced ac shot down 1 enemy fighter?
Do you think that russian was up there by his lonesome, you know just out for a spin? I'm thinking he was up there with his squadron doing combat patrol.
You are now being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.
It fills out the so called requirements.


Edit: I'm also for the meteor inclusion at some point. I think shooting down buzz bombs would be some dangerous shineola.

[Karnak]

Bronk,

How many days of service did the Ki-43 see?

[Bronk]

Bronk,

How many days of service did the Ki-43 see?

Have you not noticed that twice I said No to the 63 at this time. In fact i said early Japanese birds are far more needed.

Sheesh jump on me when I'm agreeing with you.

[Vinkman]

You claimed the P-63 was an upgraded P-39.  That is false.  They are entirely different aircraft.

You claimed that the Typhoon and Ki-61 were obscure aircraft that one would have to dig deep into the bowels of the internet to find any information about them.  That is false.

You claimed that the P-63 saw heavy combat.  That is false.  It saw little combat that can be verified.

You inferred that the Typhoon was more obscure than the P-63 and that their services were similar in scope.  That is false.

I said none of those things. Read the posts.

[Vinkman]

And ONE PILOT'S ACCOUNT does NOT overturn maintenance logs, service records, serial numbers, inventories, flight logs, inspections, and the countless other reports and logs that make up the official paper trail in which the Soviet Union said: WE DID NOT USE ONE P-63 AGAINST GERMANY.

I haven't had a chance to read all those logs yet. Can you forward them?

[Vinkman]

1. no experimental aircraft.  check
2. Must be  at squadron strength.  check
3. (and this is debatable for inclusion) must have fired guns in anger. again check

Now that we have the bases covered,  want to rethink the above?

Thank you Bronk. On a side note I need to check into why the Russians would help develop a plane,  buy 2800 of them, and agree not to use them. Stranger though, is why the U.S. would not want them used against the Germans.

I'm not familiar with the Ki-43. I will look it up. While I agree that there is a good argument for filling out the line up, and historical significance based inclusion, I would also argue that planes of lesser performance might move down the list because few might chose them. The EW arena has 1/4 of the people in LW, and the LW isn't chock full of P-40s, and TBMs. No telling how many would chose a P-63 either, but it's spec sheet suggests it would be a fairly fun plane.
I think fun factor might be higher on the P-63 

[Ack-Ack]

Edit: I'm also for the meteor inclusion at some point. I think shooting down buzz bombs would be some dangerous shineola.

Read an account from Wing Commander Roland Beamont (commander of 150 Wing) that he had his cannons converged at 300 yards in his Tempest as he figured this was the best range to harmonize his guns at.  Talk about things getting hairy when he destroyed one, at that range he definitely must have felt the shockwave of the blast.  I wonder if there were any pilot deaths as a result of getting too close to an exploding V1 in the air.


ack-ack