Effectiveness of the P-38 (5 Viewers)

[GregP]

He's thinking in a another reality other than WWII. The A6M was a decent airplane all the way to the end of the war if flown by a veteran pilot.

Yes, there were better airplanes, but the A6M AND Ki-43 were dangerous if you treated them lightly and didn't execute well. Same as any street-fight opponent.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

And there's also sort of a "horses for courses" deal. I do doubt that planes like the Zero or Ki-43 would be viable in the ETO after 1940 as far as what would be wanted as a frontline fighter. However, conditions in the CBI and Pacfic did allow for them to stay competitive for longer, also maybe helped a bit by the Allies' "Germany first" policy. But even in Europe, planes that were less performant than the Zero or Ki-43 were able to get kills against technically better enemies due to pilot skill and/or lack there of.

Even if you have the best fighter in the world, an unskilled or overly cocky pilot will likely one day meet his end by a better pilot, even if said better pilot is in inferior equipment.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

If your measure for the viability of a given fighter is a high altitude air race, then I would agree.

If your measure for the viability of a given fighter is ability to shoot down enemy fighters, intercept and shoot down bombers, and escort friendly bombers, then I disagree.

The A6M and Ki-43 clearly stayed competitive into 1944. Which is a fair bit longer than 1940 or 41.

I just don't think they were inferior at all, they were just aircraft adapted to a different type of Theater. Lets also remember that between the ultra intensity of the Battle of France and Battle of Britain, and the ramp up of escorted heavy bomber raids, there was a couple of years where most of the real air combat going on in the war was not in NW Europe.

And that by, say, 1944, the ultimate outcome of the war, or you might say, both wars or all three wars, was no longer in doubt.

In that crucial interim period, while the outcome was definitely still in doubt, it just does not appear that 'performance' in terms of maximum speed or altitude capability were the sole determinants of combat outcomes.

And in fact, I would argue that the stars of the fighting in NW Europe - the Bf 109 and Spitfire, as well as most of the aircraft fighting in the Soviet - German war, would have been relatively useless in the Pacific Theater and of limited value in China and Burma due to their short range. It wasn't until the longer-(medium) ranged Spitfire Mk VIII arrived that they had an aircraft which could even compete in these Theaters.

 

[Shortround6]

The Zero stayed viable longer than the Ki-43, in large part because of it's better armament.
Ki-43s did shoot down allied aircraft until the end of the war, but not enough of them.
And that was a problem, it took too many Ki-43s for each kill, especially on large aircraft.
There was a 1943 raid in the Solomons (St. Valentine's day Massacre?) where are large group of Zeroes and Rufes shot down 4-5 B-24s (?)
AND 6 escorting fighters. The best the Oscar ever did was 4-5 B-24s using 2 squadons plus (?) A few Ki-45s. But they didn't have any escorts to deal with. The Zeroes could do more damage, at least until the ammo ran out and later Zeroes carried double the cannon ammo as early Zeroes. The Oscar stayed stuck with the two 12.7mm guns and 250rpg.
The Oscar needed good pilots/marksman to be effective and such pilots were harder to come by as the war went on. The Allies with their harder hitting aircraft could do more damage in a limited amount of time maximizing firing opportunities. They still needed to get into firing position.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

If your measure for the viability of a given fighter is a high altitude air race, then I would agree.

If your measure for the viability of a given fighter is ability to shoot down enemy fighters, intercept and shoot down bombers, and escort friendly bombers, then I disagree.

The A6M and Ki-43 clearly stayed competitive into 1944. Which is a fair bit longer than 1940 or 41.

I just don't think they were inferior at all, they were just aircraft adapted to a different type of Theater. Lets also remember that between the ultra intensity of the Battle of France and Battle of Britain, and the ramp up of escorted heavy bomber raids, there was a couple of years where most of the real air combat going on in the war was not in NW Europe.

And that by, say, 1944, the ultimate outcome of the war, or you might say, both wars or all three wars, was no longer in doubt.

In that crucial interim period, while the outcome was definitely still in doubt, it just does not appear that 'performance' in terms of maximum speed or altitude capability were the sole determinants of combat outcomes.

And in fact, I would argue that the stars of the fighting in NW Europe - the Bf 109 and Spitfire, as well as most of the aircraft fighting in the Soviet - German war, would have been relatively useless in the Pacific Theater and of limited value in China and Burma due to their short range. It wasn't until the longer-(medium) ranged Spitfire Mk VIII arrived that they had an aircraft which could even compete in these Theaters.

You do seem to be forgetting that whole "horses for courses"/theater specific thing I mentioned as far as Western Europe. What is forgotten is that the Zero and Ki-43 also tended to cruse at fairly low speeds, which not only made them if/when jumped, but they wouldn't be able to keep up with bombers if used as bomber escorts.

In the Pacific/CBI, they also didn't have to deal (often at least) with fighters that were 50-80 mph faster until really 1944. Add to that that many (but not all) of Japan's best pilots were dead or invalided, the initiate was by then on the other foot.

If the IJA or IJN has to deal with the allies in Europe in 1942, they'd still have their cream of the crop pilots, but they would've suffered mightily. Because the Zero or Ki-43 weren't suited for combat in the ETO.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The Zero stayed viable longer than the Ki-43, in large part because of it's better armament.
Ki-43s did shoot down allied aircraft until the end of the war, but not enough of them.
And that was a problem, it took too many Ki-43s for each kill, especially on large aircraft.
There was a 1943 raid in the Solomons (St. Valentine's day Massacre?) where are large group of Zeroes and Rufes shot down 4-5 B-24s (?)
AND 6 escorting fighters. The best the Oscar ever did was 4-5 B-24s using 2 squadons plus (?) A few Ki-45s. But they didn't have any escorts to deal with.

Hmm... I don't think that's actually true though, there were a few incidents with the JAAF shooting down B-24s over Burma, let me see if I can find some examples to plunge into. It might also be worth the effort to compare the famous St. Valentine's Day Massacre with some of the lesser-known engagements in the CBI, such as how many fighters on both sides, how many bombers etc.

The Zeroes could do more damage, at least until the ammo ran out and later Zeroes carried double the cannon ammo as early Zeroes. The Oscar stayed stuck with the two 12.7mm guns and 250rpg.
The Oscar needed good pilots/marksman to be effective and such pilots were harder to come by as the war went on. The Allies with their harder hitting aircraft could do more damage in a limited amount of time maximizing firing opportunities. They still needed to get into firing position.

I admit, for me, it's one of the rather baffling traits of the Ki-43 that they seemed to shoot down so many planes with just the two nose guns - particularly when one considers that in 1942 and early 1943, a lot of them were using two 7.7mm machine guns, or one 7.7mm and one 12.7mm - and they were having trouble with their 12.7mm guns and the ammunition, particularly in earlier 1942. AND that the Ki-43-I, which was used through 1942 and into 1943, had a periscope gunsight!

I suspect the reason they were successful anyway may in part be that the guns are in the nose, which helped a lot with accuracy. But that is just a guess. Clearly the excellent agility of the aircraft also played a role.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

You do seem to be forgetting that whole "horses for courses"/theater specific thing I mentioned as far as Western Europe. What is forgotten is that the Zero and Ki-43 also tended to cruse at fairly low speeds, which not only made them if/when jumped, but they wouldn't be able to keep up with bombers if used as bomber escorts.

I don't think that's actually true though. Japanese bombers, particularly the JAAF ones, were typically quite fast (~300 mph), and I don't think their cruising speed was necessarily lower than that of US or British bomber types.

In the Pacific/CBI, they also didn't have to deal (often at least) with fighters that were 50-80 mph faster until really 1944. Add to that that many (but not all) of Japan's best pilots were dead or invalided, the initiate was by then on the other foot.

By 1944, the initiative was on the other foot. But they did encounter 50-80 mph faster aircraft already in 1943, and to some extent in 1942.

If the IJA or IJN has to deal with the allies in Europe in 1942, they'd still have their cream of the crop pilots, but they would've suffered mightily. Because the Zero or Ki-43 weren't suited for combat in the ETO.

I'd say that is highly debatable. I guess it would depend on the campaign type, if you were talking about a ground campaign or strategic day-time bombing, which wasn't actually going on in ETO in 1942 that I'm aware of. In any long range combat though, fighters with long range are going to be quite helpful, IMO.

One deficiency that the Japanese air forces did have though is bomb-load. Most of their bombers only carried around 1,000 - 2,000 lbs of bombs. So in a strategic bombing duel against say, factories in cities, they would be at a disadvantage in that destruction of targets would likely be much slower.

On the other hand, in something like one of the many convoy fights which were going on during 1942, and various naval and ASW actions, they probably had an advantage as they had torpedo carrying bombers which could range quite long distances, and they also had very good dive bombers, comparable to the Stuka, which could kill ships and hit all kinds of ground targets far more accurately than any level bomber could.

In ground fighting such as in North Africa, I think it would be a mix. The Japanese planes would be more vulnerable (though going by the fighting in Burma and India, maybe not as much as you might think) but their bombers are more accurate than most and their fighters are probably at least as good as the enemy, with twice or three times the range.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Ok here goes.

Disclaimer - the following isn't meant to prove anything, it is an example of a few days of the operational history in the CBI in late 1943 and early 1944. The source is Christopher shores Bloody Shambles volume III, starting on page 114

There was a cluster of B-24 raids in Nov 1943:

14 Nov 1943
Six B-24J from 493 Sqn, 7th BG raided Pakokku with no escort, and were intercepted by seven Ki-43-II from 50th Sentai.
Outcome: 4 Ki-43s shot down or crash landed (apparently surprised by front turret on B-24J) with one pilot KiA / 3 B-24 shot down with ten aircrew captured.

25 Nov 1943
Sixty B-24J from 308 and 7 BG took off amid a series of accidents due to the inclement weather (two 308 BG B-24s lost). Thirty headed for Insein, escorted by P-38s from the 459 FS, and thirty attacked Zayatkwin airfield, these were supposed to be escorted by six P-51A from 311 FBG but they failed to make rendezvous so the bombers were alone. Both heavy bomber groups were unable to find their targets and hit an alternative target instead, one lost to AAA. The P-51As from 311 FBG went looking for the B-24s amidst the heavy storms but instead encountered enemy fighters - Ki-43-IIs from the 64th Sentai. One P-51A was shot down right away, another, piloted by Lt Robert L. Lockett was chased by Wt off Tadashi Konishita 125 miles to Bassein, where it was shot down at low level.

B-25s from 490th Sqn, escorted by 530 Sqn P-51As then attacked Mingaladon airfield where they were attacked by twelve Ki-43-II from 64th Sentai and six Ki-45kai from 21st Sentai. The P-51 of flight commander Col Harry R. Melton, was hit in the cooling system and after flying 150 miles north, he was forced to bail out and became a POW. One other P-51A was shot down. One Ki-45 was also shot down. A Ki-43 pilot was also killed on the ground by bombs from the B-25s.

Then after dark, Liberators from 355 Sqn raided Prome, and Wellingtons from 215 Sqn bombed Mahlwagon. 64th Sentai sent up Ki-43-IIs as night fighters, resulting in heavy damage to two B-24s, both of which crash landed on base with some KiA
Outcome: 4 P-51As shot down, 2 B-24s crash landed / 1 Ki-45 + one Ki-43 pilot also killed on the ground.

27 Nov 1943
Eight squadrons of B-24J from 7th and 308th BG (50-60 aircraft?), plus 490th Sqn B-25s set out on raids against Burma, escorted by P-38s from 459th FS, and a total of 15 P-51As from 311 FBG. The JAAF was forwarned by their observer network and Capt. Yasuhiko Kuroe, top JAAF ace in the Theater, led the 64th Sentai which scrambled eight Ki-43-II and one Ki-44 to climb up to defend the targets. An unknown number (probably 4-6) of Ki-45Kai from 21st Sentai also joined the defense. The 64th Sentai Ki-43s attacked the first Liberator group at 18,000 ft, going after the P-38 escorts initially. Capt Kuroe and Lt. Yohei Hinoki from 64th Sentai shot down two P-38s piloted by Capt Armin J Ortmeyer and Lt Jay R. Harlan. A Ki-45 pilot claimed a Liberator. In the subsequent fighting the Ki-44 was shot down by Mustang, and a Ki-43 piloted by Cpl Teizo Yammamoto made a reckless attack against the Liberators at close range and was shot down by defensive fire and baled out. Six Ki-43s pressed the attack on the Liberators, making head-on passes, but were engaged again by the escorts. Lt Yohei Hinoki claimed one B-24 and a P-51 shot down before he was hit by another P-51, his aircraft severely damaged and he was seriously wounded. But he didn't give up easily, he then attacked the escorts for the B-25s and claimed another P-51, before landing back at base. His leg later had to be amputated. Meanwhile two more B-24s were claimed, and Capt Kuroe chased a P-51 for a long distance, snuck up and shot it from below, damaging the radiator, after which it crash landed in a swamp. It is notable that despite the losses, the bombers apparently did a lot of damage.
Outcome: 2 P-38s, 4 B-24s (3 from the 308 BG and one from the 7th), 4 P-51As / 1 Ki-43-II, 1 Ki-44, 1 Ki-45Kai

28 Nov 1943
Eight squadrons of B-24J from 7th and 308th BG (~50 aircraft?) took off to attack the Botataung docks, and B-25s attacked Sagaing, escorted by P-51As. Six Ki-43-II from 3rd Chutai, 64th Sentai intercepted, as well as some Ki-45Kai from 21st Sentai. Both side made claims in the subsequent engagement, but no losses were suffered by either side.
Outcome: No losses

 

[Shortround6]

Hmm... I don't think that's actually true though, there were a few incidents with the JAAF shooting down B-24s over Burma, let me see if I can find some examples to plunge into. It might also be worth the effort to compare the famous St. Valentine's Day Massacre with some of the lesser-known engagements in the CBI, such as how many fighters on both sides, how many bombers etc.

It seems that the US lost 30-31 (?) B-24s in Burma and China combined in 1943 spread out over 22 engagements. There may have been a few engagements when neither side lost an aircraft. One Book says that in 6 engagements the US lost 0 aircraft while inflicting losses on the Japanese. Wording of accounts has to be looked at with care. One US mission (of 5 planes) is listed as having 80% losses, except that 3 were lost in enemy territory and the 4th was lost on approach to the home airfield. It was lost but why? Flying error/bad weather or combat damage got to be too much? accounts don't say.
Japanese units involved are given but not actual numbers of aircraft. Japanese claim only 20 (?) fighters lost in 1943 with zero losses in 8 engagements. Once the US lost 3 planes to one Sentai (number of fighters not given), twice they lost 4 to two Sentais (incluiding the above mentioned engagament) and once 5 B-24s to 2 Sentais. List is from a book on the Ki-43 vs the B-24 and while the Ki-45s are mentioned briefly no details on actual success.
One does wonder in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre how much good the Rafes did. Helped herd the US planes into a kill zone? Picked off a few cripples? never got off a shot? I don't know. The two US bomber groups in Burma/China (one in each area) rarely dispatched more than 9 planes on a single raid and often mechanical problems meant as few as 5 planes actually flew some of the missions.
US losses are from all causes and AA might have helped a few times?

I admit, for me, it's one of the rather baffling traits of the Ki-43 that they seemed to shoot down so many planes with just the two nose guns - particularly when one considers that in 1942 and early 1943, a lot of them were using two 7.7mm machine guns, or one 7.7mm and one 12.7mm - and they were having trouble with their 12.7mm guns and the ammunition, particularly in earlier 1942.

In the first 3-4 months much of the Allied aircraft in Burma/China did not have good pilots, good pilots were squadron or flight leaders. Chinese aircraft were few in number, obsolete and pilot quality? It took quite a while for the Allied Air Forces to catch up to the Japanese in 1942. DEI, if they came up against the JAAF were going to have problems. I am not sure where the RAF was with the US .50 cal guns in early 1942. In the spring/summer of 1941 they considered the US .50 cal to be near useless in the Tomahawks. How fast they got that fixed I don't know. British in 1940-41 were also ordering their own ammo and not using US spec ammo.

AND that the Ki-43-I, which was used through 1942 and into 1943, had a periscope gunsight!

And yet that was considered to be better than the ring and bead gunsight that many less than 1st rate fighters used in 1940-41-42.
Yes a reflector sight was much better.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

This is from Osprey's Ki-43 Aces of WW2, starting on page 64. These earlier raids in China and Indochina and are not covered in Shores book.

21 Aug 1943
14 B-24D from 374 and 375 BS, missed rendezvous with their escort, and attacked the harbor area of Hankow China. JAAF was prepared thanks to radar and 25th Sentai Ki-43-I and II intercepted the B-24s. In the first pass the Ki-43s shot down the flight leader - Major Bruce Beat. One more B-24 crash landed on a sandbar, their crew later rescued by Chinese guerillas. A third made it back to Lingling fighter air base and crash landed, ten more damaged. Another ten were seriously damaged.
Outcome: Two B-24Ds shot down, one crash landed / No Ki-43s lost

24 Aug 1943
14 B-24D from 373 and 425th BS, 308 BG attacked Hankow, escorted by 16 P-40s (I think from 23rd FG) and 8 P-38s as top cover. Six B-25s from 11th BS were also bombing nearby Wuchang airfield. JAAF warning net notified the defenders and 40 Ki-43s from the 25th and 33rd Sentai were scrambled. Ten of the P-40s were diverted to protect the B-25s during their low-level attack, so only six remained to defend the B-24s, along with the P-38s. The P-40 pilots led by Capt Arthur Cruikshank shot down one Ki-43 but were soon involved in fighting for their lives. One Ki-43 was shot down by defensive fire from the bombers. Later these P-40 pilots saw three Ki-43s chasing the surviving B-24s and shot another one down. One of the Liberator pilots later described the battle 'I can still visualise the lines of "Zeros" paralleling our course and peeling off one at a time to attack and then pass right over the top of us.'

Major Akira Watanabe led the 33rd Sentai in head-on attacks on the B-24s. They quickly shot down four B-24s, a fifth, the flight leader of B flight, was hit 200 times and with a dead tail gunner and four other wounded crew, crash landed at Kweiling. A sixth force-landed at Hengyang fighter base.
Outcome: 4 x B-24D shot down, 2 B-24D crash landed / 3 Ki-43 shot down.

15 Sept 1943 (first raid)
5 B-24Ds from the 373th BS were intercepted on a raid against Haiphong harbor in Vietnam (Indochina) by 12 Ki-43s from the 25th Sentai. The lead B-24 was quickly shot down, one other had it's No. 3 engine set on fire, and a third was shot down after falling out of the formation from damage. Defensive gunners shot down one Ki-43 piloted by Sgt. Maj Chuzaburo Imai. The remaining bombers jetissoned their loads and fled.
Outcome: 2 B-24D Shot down, mission aborted / 1 Ki-43 shot down

15th Sept 1943 (second raid)
12 Ki-43s from the 1st Chutai, 25th Sentai intercepted six B-25s from the 11th BS escorted by 14 P-40s from the 23rd FG. One P-40 was shot down, Lt Col Pike bailing out and becomming a POW.
Outcome: One P-40K shot down

1 October 1943
308th Bomb Group B-24 Liberators attacked Haiphong, escorted by 24 P-40s, at least some of which were from a Chinese unit. No bombers were lost but 3 P-40s were shot down, with two Chinese pilots killed, for two Ki-43s shot down with both pilots killed.
Outcome: 3 P-40E or K shot down / 2 Ki-43s

24 December 1943
29 B-24s from 308th BG attacked Tien Ho airfield, escorted by 3 P-51A and 12 P-40s ( think these were from 23rd FG). These were intercepted by 11th and 85th Sentai (11th had Ki-43-II, 85th had Ki-43-I). The 23rd fighter group escorts became engaged with these Oscars and left the B-24s unescorted, at which point they were attacked by another group of Ki-43s from the 25th Sentai. One B-24 was shot down and five damaged.
Outcome: One B-24 shot down.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

This is also from the Osprey book Ki-43 Oscar Aces of WW2, starting on page 81, this covering fighting in New Guinea

16/17 Aug 1943
~50 JAAF aircraft including numerous Ki-43s destroyed on the ground by a night attack from 50+ B-17s and B-24s

2 Sept 1943
30 P-38s made a fighter sweep over Wewak, intercepted by 36 fighters (a mix of Ki-43s and Ki-61s) from the 14th Hiko-dan. While these engaged the defenders, 30 B-25s swept in to strafe and bomb ships in the harbor, sinking one and heavily damaging two more. The P-38 pilots claimed ten Ki-43s, actual losses were three Ki-43s shot down, one more crash landed, and two Ki-61s crash landed. JAAF claimed five P-38s and six B-25s, actual losses were 3 B-25Ds.
Outcome: 3 Ki-43s shot down, 1 crash landed, 2 Ki-61s crash landed / 3 B-25Ds shot down.

16 October 1943
13 Ki-43s from 13th Sentai, plus Ki-61s from 68th Sentai, claimed 5 B-25s out of a group attacking Wewak airfrield, losing three fighters (two Ki-43 and one Ki-61). It's unclear from the text if this raid was escorted but it probably was.
Outcome: 2 Ki-43s, 1 Ki-61 / 5 B-25s

1 Dec 1943
40 B-24s on their way to bomb airfields at Wewak, escorted by P-47s (no unit given) were intercepted by 20 Ki-43s from the 248th Sentai and 14 Ki-61s from the 68th sentai. Three B-24s were shot down for the loss of one Ki-43.
Outcome: 1 Ki-43 / 3 B-24s. 11 JAAF aircraft also destroyed on the ground by bombs.

24 January 1944
35 B-24s escorted by P-47s again attacked Wewak, and were intercepted by 63 Sentai. Fighting was bloody and seven Ki-43s were lost, including the plane of top JAAF Ace, Capt Nango. In exchange five B-24s were shot down.
Outcome: 7 Ki-43 / 5 B-24s.

 

[GregP]

Just so we're all thinking the same thing, the last verified victory by an A6M2-N floatplane fighter, which was considerably slower than an A6M5, was on 16 Feb 1945, well past when it was supposedly obsolete. On that day, A6M2-N pilots from Kashima and Konoike claimed two victories over F6F Hellcats.

Naval Air Pilot 2/c Yoshiichi Sasaki was a notable "Rufe" ace, scoring 4 individual kills and 5 assists during the Aleutians campaign (1942–1943), but the Rufes weren't quite done ...

The last confirmed air-to-air victories by Japanese Zero fighters occurred during the final days of World War II in August 1945, with the most notable action occurring on the very last day of combat, August 15, 1945. That was the day the Emperor announced the Surrender. The victim was Supermarine Seafire flown bySub-Lieutenant Fred Hockley. Hockley successfully bailed out but was captured and subsequently executed by Japanese forces after the surrender broadcast.

That same morning, Japanese pilot Sakae Morika of the 302nd Kokutai also claimed a victory, achieving "ace" status on the war's final day of combat.

So, they WERE making kills until the last day of the war.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

So based on those three short examples I posted, I'd say the Ki-43 was fairly good at shooting down heavy bombers. Just my opinion, I'm not saying it was fact written in stone.

One the one hand, yes these were relatively small combats compared to 8th AF etc., but it got up into the realm of 50-60 bombers and 20-30 fighters on each side. This is certainly a fraction of the scale of 8th AF, but I'd say it is comparable to operations in the Mediterranean.

They sometimes caught bombers unescorted, but did also intercept them with substantial escorts and shot them down anyway.

A few Ki-45s and some Ki-61s and other fighters (Ki-44) were present in some of these battles, but the Ki-43s got the majority of the claims.

The nose turret on the B-24J was apparently a nasty surprise, as the head-on attack had become the go-to solution to the heavy bomber problem.

I don't think, based on this, that we can say that Ki-43s had a particularly harder time shooting down US heavy bombers than most typical fighters did. The A6Ms didn't do particularly better. Would Bf 109E, F or Gs do better in these situations? Would Spitfire Mk Vs or Mk IXs? P-40Ks or Fs, or P-51As? P-38s? Yak 1s or Yak 7s? La 5s?

Fw 190s you could make a case for, I'll grant that. But when you look at the big defeats of the 8th AF like at Schweinfurt, the Germans had gun pods added to their fighters, extra armor on their fighters, multiple types of heavy fighters (bf 110, Ju 88s etc.) with large caliber cannons, rockets, all kinds of stuff.

Are there cases of an equivalent regular Bf 109s attacking say 50 or 60 B-24s or B-17s with better results?


I would also note, Ki-43s did not have a particularly hard time shooting down US fighters like P-38s or P-51As even though these were 50+ mph faster

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think, based on this, that we can say that Ki-43s had a particularly harder time shooting down US heavy bombers than most typical fighters did. The A6Ms didn't do particularly better. Would Bf 109E, F or Gs do better in these situations? Would Spitfire Mk Vs or Mk IXs? P-40Ks or Fs, or P-51As? P-38s? Yak 1s or Yak 7s? La 5s?

Setting aside the Allied fighters you mention, do you have numbers on Ki-43 vs A6M vs BF109, or to throw in another you didn't mention, FW-190s?

My reading indicates that cannon-armed fighters were more potent against Allied heavies, which is supported though not proven by the fact that Axis fighters increased cannon armament in both caliber, ammo storage, and barrel numbers.

If two machine guns were so deadly, why the trouble and expense of uparming/upammoing their fighters to cannons and stowage, as both the Germans and Japanese did?

 

[BarnOwlLover]

It in someways doesn't matter if planes have a 5-6:1 kill loss ratio, or a 10-11:1. The :1 implies that someone had some success in shooting down some of them. And underestimating opponents or forgetting the tactics you were taught (especially by those with experience) can be fatal even against obsolescent aircraft.

A lot of the time, it's not the tool that fails, but the "tool" who was using it. You can have the best fighter plane in the world, but if you don't use it properly, you can be just as screwed as your enemy if you do use it correctly.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

It in someways doesn't matter if planes have a 5-6:1 kill loss ratio, or a 10-11:1. The :1 implies that someone had some success in shooting down some of them. And underestimating opponents or forgetting the tactics you were taught (especially by those with experience) can be fatal even against obsolescent aircraft.

It's also proven to be the case that the 6-1 and 10-1 kill ratios much vaunted and much lauded in the history of our air wars, notably by the US in the Pacific, turn out not to be real. Which is really my point here. During 1943 the ratio was closer to 1-1 between US / Allied vs Japanese fighters, in spite of the alleged obsolescence of the IJN and JAAF aircraft.

A lot of the time, it's not the tool that fails, but the "tool" who was using it. You can have the best fighter plane in the world, but if you don't use it properly, you can be just as screwed as your enemy if you do use it correctly.

I mean, that's true, but I don't think it fully accounts for the data.

 

[Shortround6]

The argument is not if the Ki-43 could still shoot down planes as the war went on. It could.
The argument is how effective they were. Late 1930s Italian fighter armament against 1943-44 4 engine bombers (or even B-25s) is not a recipe for overall success. That is to say shooting down the bombers (and escorting fighters) in enough numbers to stop or restrict allied offences.
And if the Japanese should have done something different later in the war with their resources.

A big problem I have with the Ki-43 is that out of 5750-5900 Ki-43s built 2750 were built in 1944 and another 748 built in 1945.
The Japanese were still going to lose, but a more effective fighter might have added a few weeks to the war.

The Ki-43 was not a recipe for success. Useful is one thing but given equal pilots the Ki-43's attributes did not make up for it's short comings.
Bombers don't care about the size of the turning circle of the attacking fighters.
Fast climb helps the interceptor get into firing position but that is relative. The bombers rarely climb to evade interceptors so once the interceptors are at intercept altitude fast climb is less important although very important for fighting escorts.
Very few fighters were good at everything. But low level speed, low diving speed, poor fire power are not made up for tight turning circle.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Setting aside the Allied fighters you mention, do you have numbers on Ki-43 vs A6M vs BF109, or to throw in another you didn't mention, FW-190s?

I did mention FW 190, read the sentence after the one you quoted. I think the FW 190 might indeed be a superior bomber killer. The Japanese did test a Bf109E I believe, and did not rate it compared to their own fighters. They could have license-built it if they wanted to. They did like the engine of course, but had trouble with it. It was the basis for the Ki-61 and some other aircraft.

As for rates of shoot-downs by one aircraft type or another, I do not have any statistics handy, but I know the operational history of the A6M vs B-17s and B-24s in New Guinea and Solomons area from the same kind of data I posted above, and the results are similar but I would say the A6Ms did a bit worse. This may be because they were fighting B-17s more often than B-24s, (I think B-17s were a little tougher) and it may be due to the wild weather in the South Pacific which often allowed aircraft to escape - a lot of recon B-17s ended up ducking into storm clouds. B-17s seemed to operate with some degree of relative impunity over the Solomons as recon, (long shot) anti-shipping strikes, and occasional low level raids on ports and airfields. I don't think you could say the losses were hugely different, but I suspect the Army did a little better against the US Heavy bombers- both in the Solomons and in Burma.

As for Bf 109s vs US Heavy bombers, i.e. without a lot of heavy fighters and special weapons, gun packs etc., I don't know about NW Europe 8th AF etc., but I do know the operational history in North Africa fairly well, and I can tell you that B-17s and B-24s did not get slaughtered there, though they were almost always escorted. Loss rates weren't much higher than they were in Burma, I'd guess (just a guess I haven't done a statistical sample).

FW 190s were present in North Africa intermittently, starting in early 1943 I think, (2 JG) and they wrought some havoc against Allied fighters, may have put a dent in the heavy bombers too I need to go back and check, but nothing as dramatic as we later saw in Schweinfurt / Regansburg etc. To really slaughter the US heavies the Germans definitely ramped up their efforts, including the heavy fighters and extra guns etc.

My reading indicates that cannon-armed fighters were more potent against Allied heavies, which is supported though not proven by the fact that Axis fighters increased cannon armament in both caliber, ammo storage, and barrel numbers.

This was clearly the approach the Germans took, I'm just pointing out there appeared to be more than one way to skin that proverbial cat, at least to a point.

If two machine guns were so deadly, why the trouble and expense of uparming/upammoing their fighters to cannons and stowage, as both the Germans and Japanese did?

All things being equal, having more and heavier guns is better. But we do certainly know that many aircraft suffered from the extra weight of heavier guns - notably the Bf 109G series, especially those with the gun pods, were less agile and more vulnerable to Allied fighters, right?

My point here is that aircraft design is to some extent a trade off along the lines of paper / scissors / rock. You want good handling, fast roll rate, turn rate, speed, acceleration, climb, dive, armor, self sealing tanks, heavy guns, more and heavier guns, long range (large fuel capacity and / or great fuel efficiency), altitude performance (high ceiling). You may not be able to have all of these things in the same aircraft.

Which elements were found in a given aircraft depended in part on the Theater.

We know that the early Spitfires (up to the VIII) did not do so well in the Pacific or CBI Theaters. I don't think that the Bf 109, MC 202, Yak 1, or La 5 would have either. FW 190 maybe to a point, but it was also limited by short range.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The argument is not if the Ki-43 could still shoot down planes as the war went on. It could.

I'd say it was still shooting down a lot of planes... and took a long time to overcome. Longer than most people assume.

The argument is how effective they were. Late 1930s Italian fighter armament against 1943-44 4 engine bombers (or even B-25s) is not a recipe for overall success. That is to say shooting down the bombers (and escorting fighters) in enough numbers to stop or restrict allied offences.

To some extent, I'd say it did manage this a few times in 1943. This started to slip in 1944 as better fighters finally began to arrive.

And if the Japanese should have done something different later in the war with their resources.

I agree they should have made a replacement, they should have also accelerated the improvements to the Ki-43 by 6-12 months.

A big problem I have with the Ki-43 is that out of 5750-5900 Ki-43s built 2750 were built in 1944 and another 748 built in 1945.
The Japanese were still going to lose, but a more effective fighter might have added a few weeks to the war.

I agree with that, certainly.

The Ki-43 was not a recipe for success. Useful is one thing but given equal pilots the Ki-43's attributes did not make up for it's short comings.

I really don't agree. It was a 1941 design which was still as good through 1943 as any other equivalent, and was slaughtering older types like the Hurricane, and holding it's own against the newer types (F4U, P-51, P-38, P-47) and even the improved versions (Spit VIII, P-51B/C, F4U-1D, P-38J etc.) to a greater extent than people generally assume.

Ki-43 was an excellent fighter. Yes it certainly should have been replaced by the second half of 1943, but the reason it wasn't is partly due to it's own success, much like the Bf 109 which was in a very similar situation at the same time.

Bombers don't care about the size of the turning circle of the attacking fighters.
Fast climb helps the interceptor get into firing position but that is relative. The bombers rarely climb to evade interceptors so once the interceptors are at intercept altitude fast climb is less important although very important for fighting escorts.
Very few fighters were good at everything. But low level speed, low diving speed, poor fire power are not made up for tight turning circle.

Bombers couldn't rely on their performance to avoid or escape Ki-43s. Without strong escorts they were in trouble, that much is clear. Maybe the B-29 could fight with impunity, but that came into the war pretty late.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I did mention FW 190, read the sentence after the one you quoted. I think the FW 190 might indeed be a superior bomber killer. The Japanese did test a Bf109E I believe, and did not rate it compared to their own fighters. They could have license-built it if they wanted to. They did like the engine of course, but had trouble with it. It was the basis for the Ki-61 and some other aircraft.

As for rates of shoot-downs by one aircraft type or another, I do not have any statistics handy, but I know the operational history of the A6M vs B-17s and B-24s in New Guinea and Solomons area from the same kind of data I posted above, and the results are similar but I would say the A6Ms did a bit worse. This may be because they were fighting B-17s more often than B-24s, (I think B-17s were a little tougher) and it may be due to the wild weather in the South Pacific which often allowed aircraft to escape - a lot of recon B-17s ended up ducking into storm clouds. B-17s seemed to operate with some degree of relative impunity over the Solomons as recon, (long shot) anti-shipping strikes, and occasional low level raids on ports and airfields. I don't think you could say the losses were hugely different, but I suspect the Army did a little better against the US Heavy bombers- both in the Solomons and in Burma.

As for Bf 109s vs US Heavy bombers, i.e. without a lot of heavy fighters and special weapons, gun packs etc., I don't know about NW Europe 8th AF etc., but I do know the operational history in North Africa fairly well, and I can tell you that B-17s and B-24s did not get slaughtered there, though they were almost always escorted. Loss rates weren't much higher than they were in Burma, I'd guess (just a guess I haven't done a statistical sample).

FW 190s were present in North Africa intermittently, starting in early 1943 I think, (2 JG) and they wrought some havoc against Allied fighters, may have put a dent in the heavy bombers too I need to go back and check, but nothing as dramatic as we later saw in Schweinfurt / Regansburg etc. To really slaughter the US heavies the Germans definitely ramped up their efforts, including the heavy fighters and extra guns etc.



This was clearly the approach the Germans took, I'm just pointing out there appeared to be more than one way to skin that proverbial cat, at least to a point.



All things being equal, having more and heavier guns is better. But we do certainly know that many aircraft suffered from the extra weight of heavier guns - notably the Bf 109G series, especially those with the gun pods, were less agile and more vulnerable to Allied fighters, right?

My point here is that aircraft design is to some extent a trade off along the lines of paper / scissors / rock. You want good handling, fast roll rate, turn rate, speed, acceleration, climb, dive, armor, self sealing tanks, heavy guns, more and heavier guns, long range (large fuel capacity and / or great fuel efficiency), altitude performance (high ceiling). You may not be able to have all of these things in the same aircraft.

Which elements were found in a given aircraft depended in part on the Theater.

We know that the early Spitfires (up to the VIII) did not do so well in the Pacific or CBI Theaters. I don't think that the Bf 109, MC 202, Yak 1, or La 5 would have either. FW 190 maybe to a point, but it was also limited by short range.

So no specific numbers, then. Carry on.