Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.

[MikeMeech]

Pretty good guess, but looks like not quite. According to William Green Fighters Volume two, "An improved model, the Ki-27 - KAI, was proposed in 1940, and three aircraft were actually built, but by that time preparations were in hand for the production of the Ki-43 Hayabusa, and the last Ki.27 fighters were delivered in July of that year. A total of 3,386 Ki.27 fighters was (sic) built, including prototypes."

But it looks like I was partly wrong too as the Sea Gladiator production ended in 1940 as well. According to William Green, Fighters volume three:

"The last Gladiator II was delivered to the R.A.F. in April 1940, bringing total production, apart from export machines, to 311 aircraft. Of 311 aircraft. Of these, thirty-eight were modified as interim Sea Gladiators for the Fleet Air Arm, and a further sixty were built from the outset as Sea Gladiators."

So that does make the Gladiator and Sea Gladiator peers of the Ki 27, which looks to me like a better fighter. However, the picture is a bit more nuanced of course since the British were also making plenty of Hurricanes and Spitfires by then, whereas the Ki 27 was built in such large numbers because they didn't have another major fighter type until the Hayabusa which wasn't really ready for full scale production until March of 1941.

We know the Ki-27 was fairly evenly matched with the Hurricane in Malaya etc., but I don't think Ki-27 can hold up to a Spitfire. Ki-43 on the other hand, I would take that bet.

Hi
For Gloster production a table in 'Gloster Aircraft since 1917' by Derek N James, supplies details:

Also deliveries to RAF/FAA and exports including ex-RAF aircraft:

Mike

 

[mack8]

I don't know when they stopped making Ki-27s, I kind of doubt they were still making them in 1941 because by then they were making Ki-43. Maybe Sr6 will tell us, or maybe I can find it in one of my new (old) fighter books. I believe the Gladiator was being made until 1940, but then some were being converted to Sea Gladiators after that.

According to the USSBS Nakajima report, the Ki-27 was produced at Nakajima until November 1942! Seems they were built ALONGSIDE Ki-43 and Ki-44 for all that time.

 

[mack8]

PS: Here is what i have re Nakajima aircraft production in 1941-42, this is from the USSBS report.

 

[SaparotRob]

According to the USSBS Nakajima report, the Ki-27 was produced at Nakajima until November 1942! Seems they were built ALONGSIDE Ki-43 and Ki-44 for all that time.

SCORE!

I've always had faith in Professor Propwash!

 

[ThomasP]

I may be mistaken, but I think the later production Ki-27 in the USSBS list would be the trainer variant conversions - in effect the last couple of hundred came off the production line as trainers.

Although, of note, the Ki-79 trainer (a significantly detail modified Ki-27 airframe) was built at the Manchuko plant beginning in January 1943 to meet the need for training aircraft for the IJAAF. Over 1300 airframes built.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Ok I see what you are saying. But I would counter by noting that the Ki-27 was roughly contemporaneous with the Gloster Gladiator right? And yet, I'd say it's a bit better as a fighter wouldn't you?

Ki-43 does come a bit late compared to Spitfire V etc., but that is maybe explainable by the Japanese not yet being in direct combat with a first line power. I think everyone was lagging until they got into the fight 'for realz'

Once Ki-43 is out, it seems to retain quite a bite for longer than you might think it would do. Certainly in 1943 it's still causing some problems for Allied pilots, even in 1944 though it's clearly outclassed by then.

From the USSBS data the Ki-27 is Japans primary fighter in production right up the end of 1941. That cannot be said for the Gladiator. Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire first flights were before the Ki-27. They are the Ki-27 contemporaries.

 

[Shortround6]

The difference between the Gladiator and the Ki-27 was that the Gladiator was intended to be an interim aircraft when ordered. They wanted Hurricanes and Spitfires but could not build them fast enough to equip the rapidly expanding RAF so they ordered the Gladiators as a temporary substitute. No more than 8 RAF squadrons flew Gladiators at the same time. As Hurricanes and Spitfires became available the existing Gladiator squadrons were re-equipped and the Gladiators were transferred to a new squadron that was forming up.
Also note the tables in MikeMeech's post. 165 of the Gladiators were direct export and 137 more were EX RAF aircraft. The RAF didn't want the Gladiator, it was what they could get.

The Japanese were having trouble with the newer I-16s in the Nomonhan incident. There are several things here that bear on the later war. One is that the Japanese did well because of training/experience and not due to superior equipment. Many soviet pilots only flew 30-50 hours per year.
Another aspect was the number of experienced Japanese pilots lost during the "incident".
Two Sentai commanders and 10 Chutai commanders being killed and three Sentai commanders and 2 Chutai commanders being seriously wounded.

They had lost 95 pilots total for the loss of 96 (?) fighters shot down or damaged beyond repair, number seems to be out of line but that is what the book says.

The Soviets were introducing I-16s with back armor and with rudimentary fuel tank protection which reduced the effectiveness of the 7.7mm machine guns.

 

[Shortround6]

Once Ki-43 is out, it seems to retain quite a bite for longer than you might think it would do. Certainly in 1943 it's still causing some problems for Allied pilots, even in 1944 though it's clearly outclassed by then.

I am going to try a American baseball analogy.
The major league season is 162 games (since 1962) and in most seasons every team wins 60 games and every team loses 60 games, the difference between 1st and last place in the league is the 42 games in-between. Last place team can still win a few games in the last week or two, they still end in last place.
To carry it a bit further, keeping an 40 something year old pitcher on roster is probably not the smartest thing for the team, fan favorite or contract obligations or lack of money for new hire or?????

In combat you want to be playing over .600 not under .400

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well, ok, but I guess the assumption is that the Ki-43 was super backward, because it was relatively slow and in the earlier versions had no armor (Ki-43-II had armor and ss tanks). But it seems to have been very successful in the Operational History. And I don't think the Japanese Army pilots were as well trained as the Japanese Navy.

But even the fixed undercarriage Ki-27 seemed to be on not only notably superior to the Gladiator, but on par with the F2A and Hurricane as well. The Ki-43, as we know, dominated the Hurricane including the later marks of it. Also did quite well against F4F and P-39, and held it's own against P-40s. They also apparently encountered Spitfires in 1944 (I don't know what mark, or where) and were able to shoot some down.

Wikipedia notes that between Oct and Dec 1944, 17 x Ki-43s were shot down, in exchange for 26 claims. Claims included 7 x C-47s, 5x B-24s, 2 x Spitfires, 2x Beaufighters, 2x Mosquitos, 2x F4Us, an F6F, a P-38, a B-25 and two B-29s. They give their source as: "Ichimura, Hiroshi. Ki-43 'Oscar' Aces of World War II. Oxford, UK: Osprey, 2009"


Even if we assume that is heavily overclaimed, which I assume it is, it seems like the Ki-43 still had some bite to it even that late in the game. So it seems kind of like the Ki-43 was a fairly successful design, one of those which continued to take a toll late into it's career.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I may be mistaken, but I think the later production Ki-27 in the USSBS list would be the trainer variant conversions - in effect the last couple of hundred came off the production line as trainers.

Although, of note, the Ki-79 trainer (a significantly detail modified Ki-27 airframe) was built at the Manchuko plant beginning in January 1943 to meet the need for training aircraft for the IJAAF. Over 1300 airframes built.

Ah that may explain the discrepancy

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I get the baseball analogy, and I do see some 'delay' with the more advanced designs. But I think the Ki-43 was clearly superior to the Hurricane which was still being produced in large numbers in 1941 and 1942 (I think into 1944 right?). As a fighter the KI-43-II was certainly as good as the F4F-4 which was the main US Navy fighter until the end of 1943, and clearly superior to the Fulmar which was the main native designed FAA fighter. The later mark Spitfire (by the time of the Mk IX and VIII) was probably better than any Ki-43, but maybe not better enough to be decisive. By 1942 the Japanese Army had the more competitive Ki-61 and Ki-44 coming online.

And the late arrival of the Ki-43 was down to some teething problems with the design and acceptance by the customer (JAAF) as the design was fairly early. It was substantially improved with the maneuvering flaps and later armor and ss tanks, plus two stage supercharger isn't exactly crude (I don't think the Soviets ever made a major fighter type with this feature in WW2, neither did the Italians. Did the Germans have a two stage engine?).

Overall, I see the Japanese as being a bit behind more in production than in design. The shocking thing I see in the production numbers is more just how slowly Ki-43 production ramped up and Ki-44 etc. even more so.

The JAAF had some problems with the P-40 already in 1942, but the real challenge for the Japanese came from the (very gradually arriving) P-38 starting in late 1942 and the F4U, trickling in mostly during 1943, and the hammer blow for the Japanese in the Pacific was the F6F but that was in 1944. P-51s and P-47s, later model Spitfires etc. never made a huge dent in China though the P-47 did somewhat in the later war in the Pacific.

The assumption that the A6M or Ki-43 were inherently backward seems to be to be almost purely based on top speed at altitude, which maybe isn't a proper way to look at it. That goes back to the other discussion this grew out of.

 

[mack8]

Just a small comment on Ki-43 superchargers, there was no Ki-43 with a two-STAGE supercharger, nor for that matter any operational japanese fighter i can think of. Rather, it was a one stage two-SPEED supercharger on the Ha-115 engine (Ki-43-II).

And regarding Ki-43 and A6M performance, two recent Osprey books in the Duel series say that P-47 vs Ki-43 in New Guinea was 19 kills to 10 losses. Even if losing almost 2 Ki-43 for every P-47, that in itself i find amazing that the Ki-43 can do so well against the huge brute that was the P-47. If you are looking at the paper specs, 2000-2300 even 2500 HP vs 1150 HP, 8 HMG vs 2, 100 mph extra speed for the P-47, one wouldn't give the Ki-43 a chance in hell, but it didn't went that way.

Similarily, A6M vs F4U in the Solomons was esentially parity, 129 to 129. That in itself shows how good the Zero was and the pilots flying it.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

One item of importance that typically gets ignored in this threads is that fighters exist largely because bombers exist. In this regard the Ki -43 fails. Two .30 cals is pathetic by 1942 standards and even the upgrade to .50 was still inadequate to say the least.
Even the Zero with 2x 20 mm had problems shooting down B—17s.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Just a small comment on Ki-43 superchargers, there was no Ki-43 with a two-STAGE supercharger, nor for that matter any operational japanese fighter i can think of. Rather, it was a one stage two-SPEED supercharger on the Ha-115 engine (Ki-43-II).

Ah, my bad, that's what I get for reading a Wikipedia article... I'm gonna put my glasses back on and double check William Green.

And regarding Ki-43 and A6M performance, two recent Osprey books in the Duel series say that P-47 vs Ki-43 in New Guinea was 19 kills to 10 losses. Even if losing almost 2 Ki-43 for every P-47, that in itself i find amazing that the Ki-43 can do so well against the huge brute that was the P-47. If you are looking at the paper specs, 2000-2300 even 2500 HP vs 1150 HP, 8 HMG vs 2, 100 mph extra speed for the P-47, one wouldn't give the Ki-43 a chance in hell, but it didn't went that way.

Yep that is the thing i keep noticing in the operational histories. P-51A and A-36 seemed to be pretty much owned by Ki-43, even on the basis of claims vs. losses. Which (to me) emphasizes the notion that speed does not always trump 'maneuverability', and that the Ki-43 was a pretty advanced design.

One thing about the Ki-43 in particular that differentiates it from the Zero is that it did not have the control problems when diving. So diving away as an escape was not as reliable of a tactic for Allied pilots (this was exascerbated by the fact that they had trouble distinguishing A6M from Ki-43 so they didn't always know what they were up against).

The Osprey books on the Oscar get into actual losses on both sides? That's kind of new and welcome. I may need to pick those up.

Do those Osprey books give the actual numbers on P-40 vs Ki-43? Hurricane? F4F?

Similarily, A6M vs F4U in the Solomons was esentially parity, 129 to 129. That in itself shows how good the Zero was and the pilots flying it.

Very interesting. Where do you get the hard numbers from that on?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

One item of importance that typically gets ignored in this threads is that fighters exist largely because bombers exist. In this regard the Ki -43 fails. Two .30 cals is pathetic by 1942 standards and even the upgrade to .50 was still inadequate to say the least.
Even the Zero with 2x 20 mm had problems shooting down B—17s.

That is a fair point, but when you look at the bombers that were doing the most damage in China and the Pacific Theater up to early 1944, it wasn't so much the big bad B-17, it was fighters like P-40s and Hurricanes, in the Pacific it was dive bombers like SBDs (and the Army verison, A-24) and torpedo bombers like TBFs, it was light bombers like Hudsons and A-20s, Blenheims and Beuaforts, Beaufighters (as strafers), medium bombers like B-25s and B-26s. Once more of the latter were in Theater, and later B-24s and B-29s, then yep, I agree, the Ki-43 was way behind in firepower (and I think the Japanese realized that and started rushing to put more guns on their later model fighters, but always half a step behind / too late).

Early B-25s and A-20s weren't so well defended though. The early B-25s which remained in use I think into 1943 (?) didn't even have tail guns.

 

[Shinpachi]

Interesting.
I heard Ki-43 fighters were generally more Samurais than Zero fighters as they approached to the target, whichever fighter or bomber, far closer to shoot the pilot than Zeros.

 

[MikeMeech]

Pretty good guess, but looks like not quite. According to William Green Fighters Volume two, "An improved model, the Ki-27 - KAI, was proposed in 1940, and three aircraft were actually built, but by that time preparations were in hand for the production of the Ki-43 Hayabusa, and the last Ki.27 fighters were delivered in July of that year. A total of 3,386 Ki.27 fighters was (sic) built, including prototypes."

But it looks like I was partly wrong too as the Sea Gladiator production ended in 1940 as well. According to William Green, Fighters volume three:

"The last Gladiator II was delivered to the R.A.F. in April 1940, bringing total production, apart from export machines, to 311 aircraft. Of 311 aircraft. Of these, thirty-eight were modified as interim Sea Gladiators for the Fleet Air Arm, and a further sixty were built from the outset as Sea Gladiators."

So that does make the Gladiator and Sea Gladiator peers of the Ki 27, which looks to me like a better fighter. However, the picture is a bit more nuanced of course since the British were also making plenty of Hurricanes and Spitfires by then, whereas the Ki 27 was built in such large numbers because they didn't have another major fighter type until the Hayabusa which wasn't really ready for full scale production until March of 1941.

We know the Ki-27 was fairly evenly matched with the Hurricane in Malaya etc., but I don't think Ki-27 can hold up to a Spitfire. Ki-43 on the other hand, I would take that bet.

Hi
For Gloster production a table in 'Gloster Aircraft since 1917' by Derek N James, supplies details:
View attachment 727865
Also deliveries to RAF/FAA and exports including ex-RAF aircraft:
View attachment 727866
Mike

 

[Juha3]

Hello Wild Bill
I recommend Osprey's B-24 Liberator vs Ki-43 Oscar China and Burma 1943 by Young, Duel 41. I think it's a good booklet. According to it, in 1943 the Ki-43s shot down 31 B-24s, losing 29 a/c themselves, these are real losses, not claims. I was surprised at how effective the Oscars were against heavy bombers. The Japanese developed a working tactic that took into account the weak armament, i.e. repeated head-on attacks. One of the reasons for the efficiency was that, as I recall, the Japanese copied the Italian 12.7 mm ammunition, that is, they had efficient incendiary, HE and AP ammo

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Hello Wild Bill
I recommend Osprey's B-24 Liberator vs Ki-43 Oscar China and Burma 1943 by Young, Duel 41. I think it's a good booklet. According to it, in 1943 the Ki-43s shot down 31 B-24s, losing 29 a/c themselves, these are real losses, not claims. I was surprised at how effective the Oscars were against heavy bombers. The Japanese developed a working tactic that took into account the weak armament, i.e. repeated head-on attacks. One of the reasons for the efficiency was that, as I recall, the Japanese copied the Italian 12.7 mm ammunition, that is, they had efficient incendiary, HE and AP ammo

Yeah again, I've seen that kind of thing (in smaller snippets) in various sources on the Air War in China. The Ki-43s seem to be dangerous as hell. More than you would expect based on just numbers of guns and top speed.

 

[Juha3]

As often, it is not the tool that is decisive, but the professionalism and the correct way of using it. So good pilots and right tactics helped much. Play on one's strenghts and enemy's weaknesses. And don't underestimate your opponent.