Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Just bored and was wondering. For some reason, I love that plane, in spite of it seeming so...underwhelming...compared to most of the "big" planes. It seems to have such character, and it was surprisingly successful for an aircraft that never had more than 2 x 12.7mm MG's or any kind of armor at all; sometimes the success that the Japanese and Soviets had with relatively light armament makes me wonder if we really needed as many big guns as we think we did. I also suspect the Ki-43 must have been great fun to fly, being so light and nimble. "Hayabusa" is a great name too. I know the A6M is more glamorous and better known (the Ki-43 was just "The Army Zero" to Allied pilots), maybe better looking too, but I prefer the Ki-43. Supposedly it shot down more aircraft than any other Japanese fighter (basically making it the Japanese Hurricane!), and did it in spite of being much lighter-armed and even more lightly-built than the Zero. And it was gaining victories right up to the end of the war, when in the right hands. Not bad for an aircraft that was facing opponents that outclassed it by such a magnitude. I guess I just always like the underdog...
It is a misnomer that Japanese aircraft never had armor protection or self sealing fuel tanks. The early war fighters did not, and the Japanese paid for it, though at the time they thought the exchange of range and better climb and turning ability was worth it. As the war progressed both the Zero and the Hayabusa were given increased protection so that by the last year of the war they had armor plating behind the pilot, self sealing fuel tanks and bullet proof windscreens. The Zero even had a fire extinguishing system if I remember correctly. That's not to say that their self-sealing tanks were as good as the allies or the Germans but they did have them. Also the 12.7 mm guns of the Ki-43 were considered to be "machine cannon" by the Japanese. The shells were explosive (obviously not as much as the 20 mm size). I don't know how they compare with the American M2 .5 caliber. One of the drawbacks of the weapon is that it did not synchronize well with the propeller blade. The rate of fire was only around 400 rounds per minute, whereas the 7.7 mm rate of fire was 800 and some. That may explain the mix of weapons in some Ki-43 examples. Since the Ki-43 shot down plenty of aircraft including Col Neil Kearby's P-47, they were obviously effective when aimed well.
What fascinates me about the Ki-43 is that for the Japanese army air force it represents a transitional model from the old generation of aerial combat (WWI and after) to the next (WWII).
.
Its Ho-103 12.7mm gun was a Japanese development firing a version of the Vickers .5" round, made semi rimmed because the British Govt wouldn't clear the rimless round used by the RN for export.
Steve
Japanese were surprised to know the zero fighter was most famous or popular with the allies after the war was over.
My father, as a former IJA soldier, would have been happy to hear that, Johnny
In fact, Japanese were surprised to know the zero fighter was most famous or popular with the allies after the war was over.
The Ki-43 was the most famous and popular fighter in Japan during the war.
Even most of Japanese today don't know that.
The CBI theatre (and New Guinea/East Indies ) were really sideshows.
So do you support Nimitz's strategy & path to Japan over MacArthur's?
And just how well were the Allies equipped to handle the strength of Japanese forces in 1944 compared to 1945?Yes. Taking Philippines was mostly for (MacArthur's) political reasons.
Invasion of Peleliu was also a mistake. Nimitz should have instead invaded Iwo Jima, and then Okinawa before the end of 1944.