Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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.

Where the tool comes in here is how much potential does it have to be so adapted, arguably.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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.

From Rand Corp "Aircraft Vulnerability in World War II"

"Figure 3 compares the vulnerability of Navy carrier based fighters to hits by 0.30 calibre machine gun, 0.50 calibre machine gun and 20 mm cannon shells. Wheras hits by
0.50 calibre machine gun are about twice as lethal as those by 0.30 calibre machine gun, 20 mm cannon hits are nearly twice as lethal as those by 0.30 calibre machine gun."

Also the report notes that the German attacks were much more lethal than the Japanese.

 

[MikeMeech]

Hi
Francillon in 'Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War' has the following production details for the earlier Japanese fighters:

To compare technology levels of the initial designed aircraft we need to look at when they first flew (William Green 'Fighters' dates):
Gloster Gladiator - September 1934.
Mitsubishi A5M - February 1935.
Bf 109 - September 1935.
Hawker Hurricane - November 1935.
Spitfire - March 1936.
Nakajima Ki-27 - October 1936.
Ki-43 - January 1939.
Zero - April 1939.
FW-190 - June 1939.
Fairey Fulmar - January 1940, however, this was also first production aircraft as the prototypes were classed as the two P.4/34 aircraft, first flight January 1937.
Hawker Typhoon - February 1940.
Ki-44 - August 1940.

All had various amounts of 'up-dating' in their careers. Simplistic groupings could be put forward, eg. a 1934-36 group or 1939-40 group of designs compared together.

Mike

 

[GregP]

it's not so that work, if take a fiat A.74 engine and i use 150 octane fuel i don't get more power

You do if you run more manifold pressure. And you'd do that because you CAN with higher-grade fuel.

 

[Shortround6]

You do if you run more manifold pressure. And you'd do that because you CAN with higher-grade fuel.

That assumes at least two things.
1. You can cool the engine while burning more fuel in the same amount of time.
2. The higher cylinder pressures don't break something on the engine, like connecting rods or pistons.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

The Ki-43 may not have been crap but it was rather limited.
We have a mediocre fighter shooting down fighter bombers?
What were the positions and speeds of the planes?
Like were the Ki-43s bouncing the P-51A and A-36s from above just before a bomb run or just after?
The old trope about fighter bombers being able to defend themselves needs looking at. They can, if they see the enemy fighters soon enough and jettison the bombs and have time to accelerate to combat speed. Or bounced on return flight.

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

1st is ball, Aluminum filler in front of lead core
2nd is API, incendiary is the white stuff a head of the AP core
3rd is APIT, A bit of incendiary in the nose, a light weight AP core, and tracer in the back.
4th is the HEIT. the sizable fuse in the front. a bit of HE/incendiary in the middle and bit of tracer in the back.

There were other versions. It sometimes appears they were trying to be too clever.

In this chart the weight of the shell is the weight of the projectile. About 33-37 grams. also note the weight of the propellent.
US .50 cal bullets were 41-46 grams and and the propellent weight was about 240 grains.
HE content of these 'shells' might be 0.8 to 1.2 grams.
Japanese 20mm type 99 HE shell held 10 grams.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Biggest problem that A-36 and P-51s had in the CBI was they were flying over the Hump (Himalayas). The Ki-43 wasn't a high altitude fighter, but it did better over the Hump with the two speed Sakae engines vs the single speed single stage Allisons. The P-51B/D with the two stage Merlins would've been better over the Hump. Of course, that's from the Wikipedia article cited previously, so that may be a case of mileage may vary.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Biggest problem that A-36 and P-51s had in the CBI was they were flying over the Hump (Himalayas). The Ki-43 wasn't a high altitude fighter, but it did better over the Hump with the two speed Sakae engines vs the single speed single stage Allisons. The P-51B/D with the two stage Merlins would've been better over the Hump. Of course, that's from the Wikipedia article cited previously, so that may be a case of mileage may vary.

Thing is P-40s flying in the same area, with pretty much* the same engines, didn't have this problem. Also I think some of the P-51A were operated from China. In fact contrary to what the Wiki says I don't remember that flying over the Hump had anything to do with these particular missions. It was a relatively small sample though, probably half a dozen missions before they decided to use the P-51A for other things.

P-40E and K did, the M and N had the higher critical altitude which probably helped.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Ki-43 may not have been crap but it was rather limited.
We have a mediocre fighter shooting down fighter bombers?

I'm not so sure it was mediocre, and as shown in a post up above (not by me) it seems to have been surprisingly lethal against B-24s as well. Interesting to see that A6M (3? 5?) were going about one for one with Corsairs too.

What were the positions and speeds of the planes?
Like were the Ki-43s bouncing the P-51A and A-36s from above just before a bomb run or just after?
The old trope about fighter bombers being able to defend themselves needs looking at. They can, if they see the enemy fighters soon enough and jettison the bombs and have time to accelerate to combat speed. Or bounced on return flight.

Fighter bombers can be vulnerable, especially before they release their bombs (I think the defend themselves part is usually after the bombs are dropped) but these planes weren't just flying with bombs on, some of those were fighter sorties. Admittedly, not that many of them.

View attachment 727946
1st is ball, Aluminum filler in front of lead core
2nd is API, incendiary is the white stuff a head of the AP core
3rd is APIT, A bit of incendiary in the nose, a light weight AP core, and tracer in the back.
4th is the HEIT. the sizable fuse in the front. a bit of HE/incendiary in the middle and bit of tracer in the back.

There were other versions. It sometimes appears they were trying to be too clever.
View attachment 727948

In this chart the weight of the shell is the weight of the projectile. About 33-37 grams. also note the weight of the propellent.
US .50 cal bullets were 41-46 grams and and the propellent weight was about 240 grains.
HE content of these 'shells' might be 0.8 to 1.2 grams.
Japanese 20mm type 99 HE shell held 10 grams.

All this is very interesting and useful information, but the thing is, if you for example shoot right into the cockpit from the front on a B-24, as described above, it doesn't matter nearly as much how efficient the shell is because all of those are much more than enough to kill a man.

 

[RCAFson]

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

One thing we have to look at is the sortie loss rate; for example how many sorties were flown by the B-24s and the Oscars to produce the resulting kill/loss figures? Was the B-24 loss rate higher than the non-combat operational loss rate?

Ditto for other opposing Allied aircraft.

 

[eagledad]

Gentlemen

Attached are some test reports of the Ki-43 Mk I Oscar against a P-38, P-40 and a P-47 (my summary).

Thanks to the late Jim Long and J-aircraft for the first 2 reports.

FWIW and enjoy....

Eagledad

 

[mack8]

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.



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?



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

The A6M vs F4U numbers are from this Osprey book here:

F4U Corsair versus A6M Zero-sen

The aerial clashes between the iconic Corsair and Zero-sen translated into a contest of speed and altitude for the former, versus the latter's outstanding agili…

ospreypublishing.com

I think there's another one Ki-43 vs P-40 in late war China theater, but can't remember now if it's any good and if it contains interesting numbers/statistics. The quality of these Osprey books varies widely, some are really good, some are useless.

I haven't seen any Ki-43 vs Hurricane or F4F titles, BUT theres another Osprey book on Ki-43 aces, that is quite interesting, covering the whole war. Also one on Ki-44 aces too, that is very interesting as well. The Shoki was a very tough opponent over China, iirc the gist being it had amazing climb and dive performance (according to US pilots). Pretty sure they thrashed some P-51As too iirc, like the Ki-43 example earlier.

PS: Having seen the figures for F4U vs A6M, it would be so interesting to see some well researched data on the real ratio of F6F vs A6M. Imo he 19 to 1 overall is just hype, i would halve that (and the overall for the F4U, claimed to be 11 to 1 or whatever), and probably halve it again vs Zeros, maybe even lower. Still a massive advatage for the F6F at 3, 4 or 5 to 1, but nowhere near what it is claimed.

 

[EwenS]

B-24 formations in the CBI were not on the scale of those in the ETO/MTO.

There was a single B-24 bomb group in the 10th AF in India from late 1942 (7thBG) and a single B-24 bomb group with the 14th AF in China from March 1943 (308th BG). Add to that RAF Liberator units from late 1942.

 

[PAT303]

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.

And it flies directly in the face of the P47 being less vulnerable because it's powered by a radial, or the Spitfire and Hurricane having weak armament in the BoB.

 

[Juha3]

One thing we have to look at is the sortie loss rate; for example how many sorties were flown by the B-24s and the Oscars to produce the resulting kill/loss figures? Was the B-24 loss rate higher than the non-combat operational loss rate?

Ditto for other opposing Allied aircraft.

I read the booklet 11 years ago and it does not have nice table on sorties/aborts/operational losses, But the formations were small, weather sometimes poor . I do not have time to re-read it. A quick look only revealed that there are a couple of diagrams of the formations used by the Liberators, the evasive maneuvers used by the 7th BG's 6 to 7 bomber formation is described, as well as a diagram of the head-on attack used by the Japanese. And from the loss table one can see that either the 7th or the 308th BG were involved in all air battles, i.e. they did not work together.

 

[Juha3]

...I think there's another one Ki-43 vs P-40 in late war China theater, but can't remember now if it's any good and if it contains interesting numbers/statistics. The quality of these Osprey books varies widely, some are really good, some are useless...

I gave a very quick browsing to Molesworth's P-40 Warhack vs Ki-43 Oscar China 1944-45 (Duel 8, 2008) seems to have several long quotes from USAAF After Action Reports and gives claims and real losses, at least at least from the few combats I glanced at but no tables on real losses, only Aces lists and those of Japanese aces gives only Total scores, the USAAF table gives both Ki-43 kills and Total scores but no tables on real scores or losses in air-combats.

I read the booklet 15 years ago and IIRC I thought that it was a fairly good but not excellent. But as I said, I read it 15 years ago but it was not a bad one, I recall that I was positively surprised by its quality. The quality of Osprey booklets vary widely.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The A6M vs F4U numbers are from this Osprey book here:

F4U Corsair versus A6M Zero-sen

The aerial clashes between the iconic Corsair and Zero-sen translated into a contest of speed and altitude for the former, versus the latter's outstanding agili…

ospreypublishing.com

I think there's another one Ki-43 vs P-40 in late war China theater, but can't remember now if it's any good and if it contains interesting numbers/statistics. The quality of these Osprey books varies widely, some are really good, some are useless.

I haven't seen any Ki-43 vs Hurricane or F4F titles, BUT theres another Osprey book on Ki-43 aces, that is quite interesting, covering the whole war. Also one on Ki-44 aces too, that is very interesting as well. The Shoki was a very tough opponent over China, iirc the gist being it had amazing climb and dive performance (according to US pilots). Pretty sure they thrashed some P-51As too iirc, like the Ki-43 example earlier.

PS: Having seen the figures for F4U vs A6M, it would be so interesting to see some well researched data on the real ratio of F6F vs A6M. Imo he 19 to 1 overall is just hype, i would halve that (and the overall for the F4U, claimed to be 11 to 1 or whatever), and probably halve it again vs Zeros, maybe even lower. Still a massive advatage for the F6F at 3, 4 or 5 to 1, but nowhere near what it is claimed.

Pretty sure both those kill-ratios are not only based on American pilot-claims but also against all aircraft types, not just A6Ms. So yeah, the mileage varies.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Biggest problem that A-36 and P-51s had in the CBI was they were flying over the Hump (Himalayas). The Ki-43 wasn't a high altitude fighter, but it did better over the Hump with the two speed Sakae engines vs the single speed single stage Allisons. The P-51B/D with the two stage Merlins would've been better over the Hump. Of course, that's from the Wikipedia article cited previously, so that may be a case of mileage may var

Thing is P-40s flying in the same area, with pretty much* the same engines, didn't have this problem. Also I think some of the P-51A were operated from China. In fact contrary to what the Wiki says I don't remember that flying over the Hump had anything to do with these particular missions. It was a relatively small sample though, probably half a dozen missions before they decided to use the P-51A for other things.

P-40E and K did, the M and N had the higher critical altitude which probably helped.

P-51s weer based in China and Burma they didn't fly combat missions over the hump.

 

[RCAFson]

I read the booklet 11 years ago and it does not have nice table on sorties/aborts/operational losses, But the formations were small, weather sometimes poor . I do not have time to re-read it. A quick look only revealed that there are a couple of diagrams of the formations used by the Liberators, the evasive maneuvers used by the 7th BG's 6 to 7 bomber formation is described, as well as a diagram of the head-on attack used by the Japanese. And from the loss table one can see that either the 7th or the 308th BG were involved in all air battles, i.e. they did not work together.

I used Bloody Shambles V3 to look at Hurricane vs Ki43 combats some years back, and if all one does is make a tally of the kill/loss ratio between them, then it doesn't look that good for the Hurricane. When you look at the number of sorties flown vs the number of kills, you realize that the number of Hurricanes lost to KI-43s was so small (a very low sortie loss rate) and over such a long time frame that it wasn't really an issue for the Hurricanes, which were typically flying low altitude strike missions, and were constantly at a disadvantage in terms of situational awareness and altitude. I expect that the same was true for the B-24s.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

And if we're going to be fair, as the USAAF and other allies got improved aircraft, the IJA did bring in Ki-84s in some point in 1944 I think, to try and regain at least a form of parity with the Allies. Those Ki-84s, intended to be competitive with the likes of the P-47D, later P-38s and P-51Bs and Ds, got thrashed reportedly by later P-40s and Allison P-51s in dogfights.

Granted, by this stage, the IJA had lost a lot of their better pilots and the strength of the Allied pilots also improved. But I think we're seeing the same thing here when the P-40s and early Mustangs held their own against the Ki-84, which was supposedly superior.

I believe that pilot skill and tactics matter a lot here. You can be in a great plane, but if you're a mediocre pilot, the better pilot will usually be favored unless the plane he's in is so bad that even the best pilot can't overcome that deficiency. If you have two pilots of near equal skill, then the one with the better plane will be favored. Of course, if you have a mediocre pilot in a mediocre plane against a good pilot in a good fighter, well, we can guess what'll probably happen then.