P63A with armor 2?

[Dili]

What is the reason for this? I can understand a Il-2 or an Hs129 that were employed for land attack and were heavily armored..Even if it was more the pilot than the engines.

[wdolson]

The P-63's main user was the Red Air Force and they wanted a plane capable of ground attack in an environment with heavy flak. Throughout the production run of the A version the armor was increased from 80 pounds to 236 pounds on the P-63A-10. I'm not sure which version is modeled in the game, but the A-10 was the most produced with about 820 rolling off the production line.

Bill

[Dili]

That is a usual mistaken perception of P63 and P39 use by Soviets, it was employed as a fighter not as a ground attack aircraft. For that propose they had Il-2 and variants.
Also if it is an heavier variant it shouldn't have the same performance levels.

[wdolson]

The most common model of the P-63 had a lot of armor. I suspect that is what is modeled in the game.

They may have mostly used the P-63 for air-to-air, but it was equipped for ground attack. Along with all that armor the A-10 also had rocket rails and a number of hard points.

Bill

[Dili]

A plane like that is not designed for survival as a Il-2 or an Hs129. So there is no reason to have 2 armor and even less to have the performance of the light version if indeed was modelled the version you said.

[wdolson]

I suggest you take it up with Bell Aircraft (which is now part of Lockheed Martin). With the center firing 37mm cannon, the P-63 would have made a good anti-tank aircraft. There may have been some thoughts along those lines. I don't know for sure though.

Bill

[Dili]

I am not aware of any input from Bell Aircraft (which is now part of Lockheed Martin) about the values in editor [:'(]

The gun was slow firing and slow muzzle speed. The 12.7mm had more range than the cannon. For air to air at 100m from target doesn't make much difference the range but for air to ground it does.

Also it seems Soviet pilots took the two 12.7 machine guns out.

[Erkki]

Yep, and even more odd is that the FB Hurricanes also have the armor rating of 2...

Il-2 and Il-10 were AFAIK the only truly armored planes of the war. Hs 129 I think had the pilot sitting in an armored "bathtub."

[Dili]

Yeah that is even more odd.

[wdolson]

The Hurricane Mk IV had extra armor for ground attack. The version with a pair of 40mm cannon was used briefly in the anti-tank role in Normandy, but was withdrawn because they were considered too vulnerable.

The German Bk 37 used on the Ju-87G had a rate of fire of 160 rpm. The M-4 37mm used on the P-39 and early versions of the P-63 had a rate of fire of 150 rpm. The M-10 used in the later model P-63 had a rate of fire of 160 rpm. Very comparable to the Ju-87G.

This is one area where the game engine has little in the way of margins. We're down at the end of the scale. Essentially if a plane has little or no armor, its rating is 0, if it has normal Allied level armor (self sealing tanks, some armor to protect the pilot) it's 1. If it has any extra armor (armored engine, radiator, etc.) it's a 2.

The Hurricane Mk IV and P-63 had extra armor around the engine and/or radiator, so they get a rating of 2. The Sturmovik may have been a little better armored and the HS-129 is not in the game. But the engine only goes from 0 to 2 in this area.

You're always free to do your own mod setting the armor values any way you want.

Bill

[Dili]

Sure Bill we just disagree, i don't think this extra armor - and in case of P63/Hurricane then that mean its performance levels totaly wrong because extra armor means more weight - warrants another step to make them comparable to Il-2/Hs129

Concerning the guns the slow firing i was comparing to the 30mm gun of Hs129 400rpm 900m/s . You are right that there isn't much between the 37mm BK and M4 in rate of fire, but like i said the muzzle velocity of 610m/s to the 1100m/s of BK is the distintion. With one gun only 150rpm, low penetration value and low number of rounds there is no sense to use the 37mm in anti ground. Trying to hit a boat is the only thing that makes sense besides air to air.

In this i just went checking the range values for guns and they are way off with several low velocity 30mm guns having more range than the 0.5 Browning. Or the Mk103 gun equal to the MK108 gun which leads me to believe this was an area without much attention.

[Erkki]

I dont think Mk 103 or Mk 108 are used in any plane in the game... The devices are there but arent used. Ju 87G-1's greatest issue wasnt the rate of fire(a non-issue when the pilot could only fire 1-2 aimed shots during an attack) but the weight of the guns and the very limited ammunition: just 8 shots per gun.

wdolson: thing is that the armor and other protection measures within the "armor: 1" planes varies a lot when it comes to what they had in real life. Those Hurricane FBs and most of the other armor: 2 planes in the game had still very modest protection compared to Il-2 or Il-10 and many of the armor: 1 aircraft are actually similarly or better armored and protected, such as H8K with its armored gunner positions, than the Hurri FB, Tigercat, or most of the other armor 2 planes... Maybe such improvements could be modeled in an increase of the durability value, similarly Zeros. The only armor 2 planes in the latest RA scenario seem to be Ilyushins.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Dili

That is a usual mistaken perception of P63 and P39 use by Soviets, it was employed as a fighter not as a ground attack aircraft. For that propose they had Il-2 and variants.
Also if it is an heavier variant it shouldn't have the same performance levels.

The 39 was used as low level interceptor by the SU, but the P-63 was not.

The P-63A-10 was mainly employed in the ground attack role, with the A-10 being fitted with additional armor and hardpoints for rockets.
The P-63A-10 shows similar performance figures as in game, and suggests a highly armored and rugged design.


Just one of many examples:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p63_3.html

"After refueling, the would be flown to Truax Field in Madison, Wisconsin where Soviet ferry pilots (usually women) would pick them up and fly them to Edmonton, Anchorage and then across the Bering Straits to the Soviet Union. The Russians used the Kingcobra primarily for close-support and ground strafing. The Kingcobra had a relatively good low-altitude performance and had the ability to absorb a lot of battle damage and still remain flying. It proved to be a potent ground attack aircraft and tank-buster, but it never received the amount of attention in the Soviet Union as did the Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik. "

"Specification of P-63A-10:

Engine: One Allison V-1710-93 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid cooled engine with a single-stage supercharger and auxiliary hydraulic turbosupercharger, rated at 1325 hp at sea level and 1150 hp at 22,400 feet. Performance: Maximum speed was 361 mph at 5000 feet, 392 mph at 15,000 feet, and 410 mph at 25,000 feet. An altitude of 25,000 feet could be reached in 7.3 minutes. Service ceiling was 43,000 feet. Ferry range was 2575 miles. Weights were 6375 pounds empty, 8800 pounds loaded, and 10,500 pounds maximum takeoff."

Cited sources on that site:

1. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.


2. War Planes of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.


3. United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.


4. P-39 Airacobra In Action, Ernie McDowell, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1980.


5. Bell Cobra Variants-P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra, Robert F. Dorr, Wings of Fame, Vol 10, 1998.

[Dili]

LoBaron you cite common knowledge which is wrong.

potent ground attack aircraft and tank-buster

For example the tank buster reference shows that the affirnation is not trustwothy, a 610m'/s gun with a dismal range, and without AP ammo - and US didn't send AP ammo to Soviets -

Soviet sources differ and don't list the plane as tank buster.


If the A10 with armor have that performance, all other things equal, then the other versions should be much better performers loosing that added weight and that is not shown.

For example this place shows an heavier A9 with a different performance level http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/5992 ... rformance/ it is not listed the reason for the heavier weight.

I dont think Mk 103 or Mk 108 are used in any plane in the game...

Yes but if you look at others the issue remains. M4 37mm 610m/s seems to be considered like a 850m/s a not a gun which the round dropped, same problem also applies to Ho-203 which was a low velocity gun too.

[LoBaron]

Agree Dili, read a bit more into the topic and it seems that the ground attack myth exists because of a translation error.

For those who are interested:
It seems the mission type prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk [coverage of ground forces] was on several different occasions mistranslated into 'ground support'.

[Dili]

Yes another thing that fails is that Il-2 and Hs129 were not just armor but the aircraft construction, redundancy.

[Strike Eagle]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
This is one area where the game engine has little in the way of margins. We're down at the end of the scale. Essentially if a plane has little or no armor, its rating is 0, if it has normal Allied level armor (self sealing tanks, some armor to protect the pilot) it's 1. If it has any extra armor (armored engine, radiator, etc.) it's a 2.

You're always free to do your own mod setting the armor values any way you want.

Bill

Does upping a planes armor level affect its performance in-game?

[wdolson]

No, armor should be reflected in the other performance numbers.

Bill

[Strike Eagle]

Roger that.

[m10bob]

Kinda late to weigh in here, but this site pretty much justifies Bill's comments ref the Bell P 63 as a ground support plane,(designed as such from the "gitgo"), and that while armor WAS increased for it, the new engine WAS more powerful than its' earlier predecessors..

http://www.aviation-history.com/bell/p63.html