Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.

Shortround6 said:

My own opinion of the Ki-43 was that while it wasn't bad in 1942 (included Dec 1941) it was pretty much past it's "use by" date in 1943.

Click to expand...

Depending on when in 1943, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that.

Shortround6 said:

The whole thing is in 1942 both sides, Japanese and Allies, were running on thin, worn out, knotted shoestrings compared to what they would be using in late 1943/1944 and in a whole different world that what was going on Europe and NA/Italy.

Click to expand...

Ok but I think you are showing a big blind spot here. This is very true from one perspective, but also extremely misleading at the same time.

It is in the nature of war that you never have exactly the perfect thing to fight with. If you have one good thing you probably have several others that are either not quite right or just bad. From an engineering and production point of view it's frustrating because you want to focus on the perfected designs, but the perfected designs often didn't make it into the field until after the worst of the fighting was already over.

Here is the major issue though. By 1944 the outcome of the war was basically decided. Stalingrad was in 1942. So was 2nd El Alamein. So was Midway. Guadalcanal was done by early 1943. The Japanese navy had basically been stopped in it's tracks and broken by early 1943. In late 1943 and 1944 the pendulum had already tipped the other way. There was still a lot of fighting to be done, but there was really no way the Axis could win by that point. Their pilot and aircrew training programs could not keep up with the intensive rates of attrition and they were no longer fielding highly trained pilots they had in the early war. The Allies were the opposite - their pilots were getting better and better training.

And as for North Africa, I find this a bit baffling. The same Allied aircraft types were used in both Theaters. The P-40 was the main land based fighter in both North Africa (for both US and UK) and the South Pacific. And it was also the main Allied fighter in China. Neither that aircraft nor the pilots who flew them were 'trash', even if we can say the aircraft was flawed and the pilots sometimes barely trained, especially in the early days. The same applies in Russia incidentally, especially by 1943. The F4F Wildcat as the main Naval fighter for the Americans in the Pacific, was also used by the British in the Med and North Sea, (albeit on a much smaller scale) and even though they had slightly older or less capable variants, did not prove to be dead meat against German fighter types.

Ultimately, for all it's flaws, it was really the Wildcat which broke the Japanese navy, when they still had their best pilots. Luckily the USN pilots were also very well trained. But in this sense, the F4F was a more important aircraft than the F4U or the P-38, or even the Hellcat. The Hellcat may have killed and buried the Japanese navy but the humble Wildcat (and the brave and very skilled pilots who flew it), along with the 'slow but deadly' and other imperfect types, had already mortally wounded it.

Shortround6 said:

Japanese fighter production till Dec 1942 in quarters.
plane..........................Ki-43......................Zero
1940............................0...............................98
1/41.............................0..............................76
2/41............................35............................83
3/41............................45............................88
4/41............................77..........................162
1/42...........................113.........................249
2/42..........................169..........................258
3/42...........................154.........................353
4/42...........................180........................ 496

Add in the few dozen Ki-44s and Ki-61 as you wish.
JAAF was responsible for SE Asia, China and India to start. Then got sucked into New Guinea etc.

For the Japanese they blew through the junk that the Allies had in Dec 1941 through Feb 1942, in part due to better pilots. There were other reasons.
Small numbers of planes lacking in reinforcements/repair parts were common on both sides.

Click to expand...

As I just said, I don't think most of these planes were 'junk'. They all had flaws, on both sides. So did every military aircraft in the world in 1941 and 1942, including British and German. Some types did prove unsuitable and were taken out of the line, but most more or less worked out.

WARSPITER said:

Plus the role played in the halting of FW190 raids across the channel in 1942, successful attacks on channel shipping, radar / warning sites,
supply dumps, and hundreds of trains in France and Belgium in 1943, the decimation of coastal radar sites, support for troops from D-day on,
attacks on headquarters, supply areas, transport - including a major role in the halting of the Mortain counter attack, destroying the equipment
of 7th Army and the Fifth Panzer Army plus the massive casualties caused at Falaise, all this in 1944, then the same support through to the end
of the war in 1945.

The role and the effect is what counts, not just enemy aircraft downed.

The Ki-43 was undoubtedly highly manoeuvrable but for what the Typhoon did you need a different aircraft to the Ki-43. Having more types of
different aircraft available sooner in numbers was a big advantage to the Allies.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of that. But the Japanese had varieties of planes too. Their Ki-45 for example didn't work out so great as a fighter but did prove effective in a bunch of other roles as well.

My overall point is that being different isn't the same as being worse. I really don't buy the idea that the Japanese were, per the OP.

The OP isn't saying Japanese aircraft were worse.

The premise is that Japanese aircraft took longer to get to the useful production stage compared to Allied aircraft and
even then could not keep up in the numbers game which is essentially totally correct.

As to the war and strategy, yes, the war in the Pacific was decided early on but that can also be linked to the 7th December 1941
since the initial Japanese strategy was not one they could have realistically expected would succeed.

The Ki-43 wasn't "just" freakishly maneuverable. It wasn't a stunt plane. It was a lethal, precision aircraft killer which proved extremely deadly for Allied pilots to contend with.

It's also notable that unlike the Zero or the Bf 109, the Ki-43 did not suffer from stiffening controls at high speeds, so it wasn't so safe to dive away from.

WARSPITER said:

The OP isn't saying Japanese aircraft were worse.

The premise is that Japanese aircraft took longer to get to the useful production stage compared to Allied aircraft and
even then could not keep up in the numbers game which is essentially totally correct.

As to the war and strategy, yes, the war in the Pacific was decided early on but that can also be linked to the 7th December 1941
since the initial Japanese strategy was not one they could have realistically expected would succeed.

Click to expand...

The initial Japanese strategy was virtually identical, in overall concept, to the initial German strategy: achieve a swift and crushing victory through advanced preparation and ruthlessness, before the larger nations among their enemies (especially USA and USSR) were able to get their greater industrial, resource, and manpower potential into gear. Which failed in both cases.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Here is the major issue though. By 1944 the outcome of the war was basically decided. Stalingrad was in 1942. So was 2nd El Alamein. So was Midway. Guadalcanal was done by early 1943. The Japanese navy had basically been stopped in it's tracks and broken by early 1943. In late 1943 and 1944 the pendulum had already tipped the other way. There was still a lot of fighting to be done, but there was really no way the Axis could win by that point. Their pilot and aircrew training programs could not keep up with the intensive rates of attrition and they were no longer fielding highly trained pilots they had in the early war. The Allies were the opposite - their pilots were getting better and better training.

Click to expand...

True, lets look at the dates again.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

As I just said, I don't think most of these planes were 'junk'. They all had flaws, on both sides. So did every military aircraft in the world in 1941 and 1942, including British and German. Some types did prove unsuitable and were taken out of the line, but most more or less worked out.

Click to expand...

Flying Tigers in China, using basically P-40B in Jan-Feb 1942, They got 100 airframes, I am not sure if they even assembled 80 of them. Used the rest as spare parts. They were the defense of most of China or more realistically Kunming (China end of the Burma road) and Rangoon. 3 squadrons total.
We all know of the Buffaloes. The Dutch had an assortment of aircraft. Buffaloes may have been the best?
Philippines had P-40Bs and P-40Es.
The first Kittihawks in NA go into action on Jan 1st 1942. P-40Es had gone into action in On Dec 7-8th. But by Dec 26th there were only 18 P-40s of all types left in the Philippines.
Huge losses at Pearl Harbor. And in Australia and area.

Many of these are from bomb raids but the Pacific and Far east was was not getting the planes that NA was getting let alone NW Europe (and there is no 8th air force at this time).
The Flying Tigers had the best trained Allied pilots but 3 squadrons are not enough. The Japanese were able, at times, to overwhelm the defenders.
And the kill to loss ratio or numbers do not tell the whole story.

"Christmas Day, two waves totaling 80 Jap bombers and 48 fighters hit Rangoon. The A.V.G. knocked down 23 of them, the biggest victory of the war, with six more Jap planes believed shot down over the Gulf of Martaban. The A.V.G. suffered not the loss of a single plane."

I am not going to argue over who shot down what.
What is often ignored is what the 80 bombers (or 60 left?) did. Were the bombs scattered on the outskirts and jungle or were airfields and docks hit? Warehouses? areas of the city burned?


Rangoon fell on March 7th (?)
Burma by the end of May.

The amount of territory that changed hands and the amount of lives lost was totally disproportional to the amount of equipment used on both sides in this theater of war.
A lot of claims made but the Japanese achieved a large part of their strategic aims.

The Ki-43 may have been usable in 1943 but the real crime of the JAAF was that they built over 3500 of them in 1944-45.

Firepower and speed may not be the only two parameters but build slow fighters with crap firepower when the enemy is building sturdy bombers (even B-25s) is not going to end well.

KI-43 II empty weight 4211lbs...........................two 12.7mm guns..........46kg + ammo
Ki-44 IIb empty weight 4643lbs........................four 12.7mm guns..........92kg + ammo
Ki-61 Ib empty weight 4872lbs.........................four 12.7mm guns..........92kg + ammo

I am seeing a very poor return on investment in raw materials & labor.

The 2 four gun planes may not shoot down twice as many planes but if they are 15-20% more effective you come out ahead.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

The Ki-43 wasn't "just" freakishly maneuverable. It wasn't a stunt plane. It was a lethal, precision aircraft killer which proved extremely deadly for Allied pilots to contend with.

It's also notable that unlike the Zero or the Bf 109, the Ki-43 did not suffer from stiffening controls at high speeds, so it wasn't so safe to dive away from.

Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, the control stiffening on the Ki-43 should have been even worse than on a Zero. The larger the wing area and the aileron, the greater the impact of air flowing over the aileron and wing.

On top of that, the lighter the aircraft, the worse its diving ability.

Even late-model Ki-43-III Kos were going to be escapable in dives and high-speed turns. As recorded by TAIC, the maximum dive performance of the Ki-43-II was 373 MPH, which was even less than the A6M3/A6M5. This is directly because of the tradeoffs between wing size/aileron size and dive/maximum speed.

You could be thinking of the robustness of the Ki-43 compared to the Zero. The Hayabusa had two or three-layer self-sealing fuel tanks in the dash-II model as well as decent pilot armor. The Zero only adopted some degree of pilot armor but it was never as protected as the Ki-43-II, Tojo, or any IJA aircraft. However, that robustness didn't extend to dive performance because of the low weight and large ailerons.

Regarding my stunt plane comment, any plane with that level of maneuverability is going to require a lot of pilot training to be used effectively. Whereas a Tojo just required teaching dive and zoom tactics. Sure, the Hayabusa was a killer in the right hands. But the problem is, it was oftentimes not in the right hands as the war drug on and pilot attrition devastated the pilot rosters. The Japanese brass gambled too much on having a continuous advantage in pilot skill. The Hayabusa needed a smaller wing and a stronger engine to simplify training and tactics.

This is all hindsight though as air combat up until ~1939 was defined by turn-fighting tactics.

Shortround6 said:

The Ki-43 may have been usable in 1943 but the real crime of the JAAF was that they built over 3500 of them in 1944-45.

Firepower and speed may not be the only two parameters but build slow fighters with crap firepower when the enemy is building sturdy bombers (even B-25s) is not going to end well.

KI-43 II empty weight 4211lbs...........................two 12.7mm guns..........46kg + ammo
Ki-44 IIb empty weight 4643lbs........................four 12.7mm guns..........92kg + ammo
Ki-61 Ib empty weight 4872lbs.........................four 12.7mm guns..........92kg + ammo

I am seeing a very poor return on investment in raw materials & labor.

The 2 four gun planes may not shoot down twice as many planes but if they are 15-20% more effective you come out ahead.

Click to expand...

The Ki-43-II's empty weight in all my sources is well under 4,000 lbs. I think you might be using the loaded/gross weight or the A6M5's weight. As far as I'm aware, the Ki-43 was by far the lightest fighter deployed in any serious numbers throughout the war. But it also had a problem with wing rip because Nakajima skimped on bulkheads and internal sparring in order to make such a lightweight fighter.

Shortround6 said:

True, lets look at the dates again.

Flying Tigers in China, using basically P-40B in Jan-Feb 1942, They got 100 airframes, I am not sure if they even assembled 80 of them. Used the rest as spare parts. They were the defense of most of China or more realistically Kunming (China end of the Burma road) and Rangoon. 3 squadrons total.
We all know of the Buffaloes. The Dutch had an assortment of aircraft. Buffaloes may have been the best?
Philippines had P-40Bs and P-40Es.
The first Kittihawks in NA go into action on Jan 1st 1942. P-40Es had gone into action in On Dec 7-8th. But by Dec 26th there were only 18 P-40s of all types left in the Philippines.
Huge losses at Pearl Harbor. And in Australia and area.

Many of these are from bomb raids but the Pacific and Far east was was not getting the planes that NA was getting let alone NW Europe (and there is no 8th air force at this time).
The Flying Tigers had the best trained Allied pilots but 3 squadrons are not enough. The Japanese were able, at times, to overwhelm the defenders.
And the kill to loss ratio or numbers do not tell the whole story.

"Christmas Day, two waves totaling 80 Jap bombers and 48 fighters hit Rangoon. The A.V.G. knocked down 23 of them, the biggest victory of the war, with six more Jap planes believed shot down over the Gulf of Martaban. The A.V.G. suffered not the loss of a single plane."

I am not going to argue over who shot down what.
What is often ignored is what the 80 bombers (or 60 left?) did. Were the bombs scattered on the outskirts and jungle or were airfields and docks hit? Warehouses? areas of the city burned?

View attachment 731759
Rangoon fell on March 7th (?)
Burma by the end of May.

The amount of territory that changed hands and the amount of lives lost was totally disproportional to the amount of equipment used on both sides in this theater of war.
A lot of claims made but the Japanese achieved a large part of their strategic aims.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is here precisely, but I believe the record of the AVG is at least a little bit exaggerated for reasons of wartime morale, and also due to fog of war. Clearly they did pose some problems for the IJA, but as you note, three squadrons were not enough and many of their victories were not so one-sided. They did about as well as many fighter groups do, initially, and has they improved tactics and kit they did a little better (if you continue the throughline to the 23rd FG).

They clearly at least held their own. But I don't believe they had 20-1 victory ratios or any of that kind of thing. As i noted previously, they took losses to not always super high tech enemy aircraft. For example on Dec 23 1941, an AVG squadron intercepted a flight of Ki-21s and some Ki-30s escorted by a few (fixed undercarriage) Ki-27 fighters. The AVG claimed 8 bombers and lost 3 fighters. Normally claims don't equal actual losses though I'm not sure in this case how many Japanese losses were real (some were confirmed by recovery of the wreckage by Chinese or Burmese troops). On Dec 25 14 P-40s from the AVG plus 15 RAF Buffaloes intercepted a large flight of Ki-21s escorted by Ki-43s, they claimed 35 combined but lost 5 P-40s. Again i don't know what the actual losses were, but AVG had to pull out of Burma pretty soon due to losses.

From the Wiki - "On 28 January, a fighter sweep of 37 Ki-27s was engaged by 16 AVG P-40s and two RAF fighters. Three "Nates" were shot down for the loss of two P-40s." That is claims again, probably. So not terrible necessarily but not stellar either. The real ratio for the AVG might be something like 1.5 or 1.2 to 1, which is again fairly typical for a decent fighter unit. It just stood out because so many Allied units in the same period were losing (for real) at a rate of 5-1 or worse.

Shortround6 said:

Flying Tigers in China, using basically P-40B in Jan-Feb 1942, They got 100 airframes, I am not sure if they even assembled 80 of them. Used the rest as spare parts. They were the defense of most of China or more realistically Kunming (China end of the Burma road) and Rangoon. 3 squadrons total.
We all know of the Buffaloes. The Dutch had an assortment of aircraft. Buffaloes may have been the best?
Philippines had P-40Bs and P-40Es.
The first Kittihawks in NA go into action on Jan 1st 1942. P-40Es had gone into action in On Dec 7-8th. But by Dec 26th there were only 18 P-40s of all types left in the Philippines.
Huge losses at Pearl Harbor. And in Australia and area.

Many of these are from bomb raids but the Pacific and Far east was was not getting the planes that NA was getting let alone NW Europe (and there is no 8th air force at this time).
The Flying Tigers had the best trained Allied pilots but 3 squadrons are not enough. The Japanese were able, at times, to overwhelm the defenders.
And the kill to loss ratio or numbers do not tell the whole story.

"Christmas Day, two waves totaling 80 Jap bombers and 48 fighters hit Rangoon. The A.V.G. knocked down 23 of them, the biggest victory of the war, with six more Jap planes believed shot down over the Gulf of Martaban. The A.V.G. suffered not the loss of a single plane."

I am not going to argue over who shot down what.
What is often ignored is what the 80 bombers (or 60 left?) did. Were the bombs scattered on the outskirts and jungle or were airfields and docks hit? Warehouses? areas of the city burned?

View attachment 731759
Rangoon fell on March 7th (?)
Burma by the end of May.

The amount of territory that changed hands and the amount of lives lost was totally disproportional to the amount of equipment used on both sides in this theater of war.
A lot of claims made but the Japanese achieved a large part of their strategic aims.

Click to expand...

The Wiki article on the AVG is well referenced with links to amongst others the Flying Tigers Assoc website and its history page.

By the outbreak of war with Japan 99 of the 100 P-40s had been assembled and passed to the AVG. But some had been lost in training accidents. On the outbreak of war the 1st and 2nd squadrons flew to China leaving the 3rd squadron with 25 pilots and 21 aircraft at Mingaladon outside Rangoon from the 10th Dec.

See Joe Baugher's site for details of the P-40 version flown by the AVG.

The first air raid on Rangoon was on Tuesday 23 Dec 1941 by 45 Ki 21 of 60th & 98th Sentais that targeted the docks and harbour. 15 more Ki 21 from 62nd Sentai and 27 Ki 30 from 31st Sentai targeted Mingaladon airfield. There were 30 escorting Ki 27 from 77th Sentai.

This raid was intercepted by 12-15 P-40 from the AVG and 15 Buffalo from 67 squadron.

Civilian casualties were high mostly amongst the Indian dockyard coolie workforce as there were no air raid shelters for them. Approx 1,000 dead and another 1,000 wounded. An exodus from the city began which paralysed the docks. Most importantly the ops room at Mingaladon was destroyed.

On Christmas Day 1941 Rangoon was hit again. 63 Ki 21 plus 25 escorting Ki 43 followed by 8 Ki 21 and 27 Ki 30 plus 32 escorting Ki 27. 4 surviving Ki 44 provided CAP over Don Muang as they took off. Despite having little warning of the incoming attack and complications from the loss of the ops room, 67 squadron put up at least a dozen Buffalo with the AVG putting up 6+ P-40.

Mingaladon was again targeted with much damage to buildings, runways and aircraft and AA gun positions. Surrounding villages were also hit and suffered heavy casualties. Civilian casualties in Rangoon were estimated at 5,000 killed and the exodus from the city grew to panic proportions, resulting in virtual paralysis of the city.

There was then some respite as the IJAAF turned its attention to Malaya. Claims of aircraft destroyed, as usual, far exceeded the losses actually suffered by the Japanese. That allowed time to reinforce Rangoon including the arrival of 17 AVG P-40 from the 2nd squadron in China.

As for the level of civilian casualties it needs to be remembered that this was not a European city. It was an overcrowded Asian city with virtually nothing in the way of a civilian defence structure, air raid shelters, medical facilities for the poor etc. What little did exist broke down with the panic caused. The population had virtually nowhere to hide, so left in vast numbers, heading for the safety of the jungle or town's further north.

Bloody Shambles Vol 1 is a good reference for the air action.

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:

As far as I'm aware, the control stiffening on the Ki-43 should have been even worse than on a Zero. The larger the wing area and the aileron, the greater the impact of air flowing over the aileron and wing.

Click to expand...

I can't say about 'should have been' but according to the pilots, the Ki-43 did not have this problem, and could still turn and roll at higher speeds.

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:

On top of that, the lighter the aircraft, the worse its diving ability.

Even late-model Ki-43-III Kos were going to be escapable in dives and high-speed turns. As recorded by TAIC, the maximum dive performance of the Ki-43-II was 373 MPH, which was even less than the A6M3/A6M5. This is directly because of the tradeoffs between wing size/aileron size and dive/maximum speed.

You could be thinking of the robustness of the Ki-43 compared to the Zero. The Hayabusa had two or three-layer self-sealing fuel tanks in the dash-II model as well as decent pilot armor. The Zero only adopted some degree of pilot armor but it was never as protected as the Ki-43-II, Tojo, or any IJA aircraft. However, that robustness didn't extend to dive performance because of the low weight and large ailerons.

Click to expand...

No I'm not thinking of the robustness, but rather specifically what I said.

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:

Regarding my stunt plane comment, any plane with that level of maneuverability is going to require a lot of pilot training to be used effectively. Whereas a Tojo just required teaching dive and zoom tactics. Sure, the Hayabusa was a killer in the right hands. But the problem is, it was oftentimes not in the right hands as the war drug on and pilot attrition devastated the pilot rosters. The Japanese brass gambled too much on having a continuous advantage in pilot skill. The Hayabusa needed a smaller wing and a stronger engine to simplify training and tactics.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but it clearly wasn't just a stunt plane.

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:

This is all hindsight though as air combat up until ~1939 was defined by turn-fighting tactics.

Click to expand...

It's also worth pointing out that the IJN tactics with Zeros were basically 'boom and zoom', and the maneuverability was there for dealing with situations in which they needed to escape, evade or turn the tables in a hurry (which they often did)

Just to add a bit to this very interesting discussion, the safe dive speed of the A6M2 and A6M3 Mod 22 is 630kph, A6M3 Mod 32 is 670kph, A6M5 is 660kph, A6M5a and later is 740kph.
For comparison Ki-43-I is limited to only 550kph (due to the weak wing roots), Ki-43-II is 600 kph later raised to 650kph, presumably the same for -III.
The Ki-61 was initially limited to 650 kph for safety (due to bad experiences with Ki-43), but as i understand it's strongly build wing allowed it to be dived safely up to 800 or i think even 850 kph.
Ki-44 could also be dived to 850kph.
PS: As to AVG, japanese wiki says 115 japanese losses in the air and on ground can be verified compared to AVG's 296 claims or whatever it is. How many planes did AVG lost in air combat?

EwenS said:

Bloody Shambles Vol 1 is a good reference for the air action.

Click to expand...

How accurate is it? I'm always trying to find a copy but it's out of print and $$$ expensive

mack8 said:

Just to add a bit to this very interesting discussion, the safe dive speed of the A6M2 and A6M3 Mod 22 is 630kph, A6M3 Mod 32 is 670kph, A6M5 is 660kph, A6M5a and later is 740kph.
For comparison Ki-43-I is limited to only 550kph (due to the weak wing roots), Ki-43-II is 600 kph later raised to 650kph, presumably the same for -III.
The Ki-61 was initially limited to 650 kph for safety (due to bad experiences with Ki-43), but as i understand it's strongly build wing allowed it to be dived safely up to 800 or i think even 850 kph.
Ki-44 could also be dived to 850kph.

Click to expand...

Interesting thanks for posting. I think the issue here was that the A6M quickly suffered from stiffened controls affecting roll (IIRC) over 250 mph. So by the time it hit ~300 mph it was possible to do escape maneuvers to quickly get away from a diving A6M. With the Ki-43, they did not have this stiffening effect and could follow you longer, shooting at you as you tried to dive away. If you survived long enough you could still outdive them but it took some time to accelerate to high enough speed. P-40 could dive to 480-500 mph but you would need to live through those first 90 seconds or so during an escape. Which sounds quick but when somebody is shooing at you with 12.7mm gun (even a supposedly terrible one with a low ROF shooting through the synchronizer) I think it's a looooooong time.

Add to this that pilots often couldn't tell a 'Zero' or 'Zeke' from an 'Oscar' so may try one thing that worked before only to discover it doesn't now...

Shortround6 said:

The Ki-43 may have been usable in 1943 but the real crime of the JAAF was that they built over 3500 of them in 1944-45.

Firepower and speed may not be the only two parameters but build slow fighters with crap firepower when the enemy is building sturdy bombers (even B-25s) is not going to end well.

KI-43 II empty weight 4211lbs...........................two 12.7mm guns..........46kg + ammo
Ki-44 IIb empty weight 4643lbs........................four 12.7mm guns..........92kg + ammo
Ki-61 Ib empty weight 4872lbs.........................four 12.7mm guns..........92kg + ammo

I am seeing a very poor return on investment in raw materials & labor.

The 2 four gun planes may not shoot down twice as many planes but if they are 15-20% more effective you come out ahead.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they should have installed 20mm cowl guns on the Ki-43-II when any were available (not until 1944 as i understand), at least that would have been a stronger punch. I've read that the weight increase was 46 kg when they fitted the guns on the Ki-43-IIIb in 1945 (no, it never had a Ha-33 engine, the engine was the same Ha-115-II). Aiui, they couldn't put guns in the wing because of it's 3 spar design.

OR if the Ki-61 has a radial from the start, have Tachikawa build radial Ki-61s from 1943. That would make this radial Ki-61 the main IJAAF fighter of the war.

Shortround6 said:

My own opinion of the Ki-43 was that while it wasn't bad in 1942 (included Dec 1941) it was pretty much past it's "use by" date in 1943.

The whole thing is in 1942 both sides, Japanese and Allies, were running on thin, worn out, knotted shoestrings compared to what they would be using in late 1943/1944 and in a whole different world that what was going on Europe and NA/Italy.

Japanese fighter production till Dec 1942 in quarters.
plane..........................Ki-43......................Zero
1940............................0...............................98
1/41.............................0..............................76
2/41............................35............................83
3/41............................45............................88
4/41............................77..........................162
1/42...........................113.........................249
2/42..........................169..........................258
3/42...........................154.........................353
4/42...........................180........................ 496

Add in the few dozen Ki-44s and Ki-61 as you wish.
JAAF was responsible for SE Asia, China and India to start. Then got sucked into New Guinea etc.

For the Japanese they blew through the junk that the Allies had in Dec 1941 through Feb 1942, in part due to better pilots. There were other reasons.
Small numbers of planes lacking in reinforcements/repair parts were common on both sides.

Click to expand...

That shows the folly of the IJAAF that kept rejecting the Ki-43 because it didn't turn tight enough, if they accepted it in 1940 after the redesign they could have had easily 2 or even 3 times more of them in late 1941/early 1942 when it mattered. Even the imperfect Ki-43-I was a more dangerous opponent than the old Ki-27.

And same goes with the twin engine Ki-45, first there was the stupid decision to use yet another engine rather than the already available Ha-25 or Ha-26 on the initial prototypes, the Ha-20, which never worked, and no it's not based on Mercury, it's a lot smaller at about 19 litres, but the rpm is iirc 3000, which is probably why it never worked. This led to huge delays trying to sort the engine (and nacelle stall), then eventually switched to Ha-25, but IJAAF said that was not good enough either. But if they were not so picky, the Ki-45/Ha-25 combo could have been in production in 1940 and a few units equipped with them by late 1941, at least it would have made a good fighter-bomber.

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:

The Ki-43-II's empty weight in all my sources is well under 4,000 lbs. I think you might be using the loaded/gross weight or the A6M5's weight. As far as I'm aware, the Ki-43 was by far the lightest fighter deployed in any serious numbers throughout the war. But it also had a problem with wing rip because Nakajima skimped on bulkheads and internal sparring in order to make such a lightweight fighter.

Click to expand...

I am using the weight given in "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Francillon.
Could be in error (typo) or confusion between empty weight and empty equipped weight?
This book does show a difference of 330kg between the Ki-43-Ia and the Ki-43-IIb but you have the different engines, the different prop, the head and back armor, the fuel tank protection and wing strengthening. Hopefully the use of the empty weight helps get rid of the armament weight.

Adjust as needed, the point is that building a two gun fighter doesn't save that much raw material and labor over building a 4 gun fighter (you can't leave 1/2 of the instruments out or the radio) so you don't get that many more actual fighters and you need more pilots.

The Ki-43 I did have a problem with wing failure and this was solved by heavier structure and/or shortening the wing span, it did allow for carrying two 250kg bombs instead of a a pair of 15kg bombs.

With Japanese planes especially we have to careful with the dive speeds. The Zero had problems with the both the max speed and the ability to roll at speed. The Ki-43 may have been able to roll but it didn't dive much faster. The A6M5 is supposed to have rolled better. Please remember that there were two/three different wings on the Zero and they finally put the ground adjustable tabs back on the ailerons. Now here is another possible point of confusion, the A6M5 may have been better at rolling than an A6M3 m32 but that doesn't mean it could out roll the P-40s. Different P-40s climbed a bit differently, they all sucked compared to most Zeros.

mack8 said:

I've read that the weight increase was 46 kg when they fitted the guns on the Ki-43-IIIb in 1945 (no, it never had a Ha-33 engine, the engine was the same Ha-115-II)

Click to expand...

And here we have problem with what the Japanese may have been doing. According to Francillon there were 10 Ki-43 IIIs and two Ki-43 IIIBs and the IIIa's had Ha-115 II engines and 12.7mm guns and the IIIb's had the Ha-33 engine and the 20mm guns. He could very well have been in error. One or more the aircraft may have been fitted with a different engine at some point. Who knows. In the Spring and Summer of 1945 it was pretty chaotic so I am certainly not going to say what some prototype did or did not have at given point point in time.

You also had Ki-43 IIs with and without ejector exhausts so that is no help.

GrauGeist said:

I'm still trying to figure out what they meant by "flashless powder"...

Click to expand...

EwenS said:

A brief study here about the gun propellants used by various nations.

History and Technology - Naval Propellants - A Brief Overview - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

It seems that there were limits on the size of weapons for which "flashless powder" was created.

Britain - 5.25" with reduced flash for 6" Mk.XIII
Japan - 5.5"
US - stopped work on such propellants in 1928 because they produced more smoke causing difficulties with visual rangefinding. Work began again in summer 1942 and a solution found and from Sept 1942 it was produced for 3-6" plus imports from Canada for 6-8" and reduced charges up to 16".

So I'm not clear about who had what and when and it's effect on various battles given references to it in various places.

Click to expand...

This is from The USN Bureau of Ordnance in WW2:

The establishment of production arrangements left many developmental
problems confronting the Bureau of Ordnance. The
firing of guns with smokeless powder was accompanied by a loud
report, a large flame, and a moderate quantity of red-brown gas.
The numerous night actions in the early days of the Pacific war
emphasized the need for a flashless powder. Curiously enough,
the demand arose not from a desire to conceal the position of the
guns but from the necessity of preventing the temporary blinding
of ships' crews during firing runs. According to the fleet
gunnery officer, the elimination of the flash in night firing would also improve fire control performance.
With the advent of radar in World War II, smoke became less objectionable and the fleet
was willing to accept considerably more smoke in order to obtain
a "good reduction of flash." (p.192-3)

Click to expand...

Basically, in a night action the intense gunfire flash blinded the Fire Control personal and made optical ranging and aiming extremely difficult, if not impossible. The RMI (Italian Navy) basically couldn't fight at night because they didn't have FC radar nor flashless powder and encounters between the RN and RMI at night were often one sided slaughters in favour of the RN despite the reliable RMI torpedoes.

The USN was in a worse position than the RMI in June 1940 when Italy entered the war, because they didn't have flashless powder, they didn't have surface FC radars, and their torpedoes were crap. Luckily for the USN the UK/RN quickly rectified the USN's lack of advanced radar technology (and access to UK/RN flashless powder tech), after Sept 1940 via the Tizard Mission but it still took time to get the new radars into the fleet. At 2nd Guadalcanal USS Washington was able to use her Mk 3 FC radar (built around the UK Cavity Magnetron) to deadly effect, but USS South Dakota proved "blind" when her FC radar failed due to a fault in her electrical power system. The four USN destroyers present were similarly handicapped.

The thing was, most of those night actions in the Pacific did not hinge on 5" or 6" guns, more like 8" and 10" and 12" and 14" and 16" guns, and for the Japanese in particular very effective torpedoes.