P-39 vs P-40

[Greg Boeser]

I mean the Imperial Japanese Army - and there were Ki-43 units based in New Guinea as I already mentioned though I'm not sure when.



Yes, and other places too without a doubt.

First IJA flying units arrived at Rabaul in December 1942. 11th Sentai, flying Ki-43 Is.
These had been picked up second hand from the 64th and 59th Sentais, but were a big step up for the 11th, which had been flying Ki-27s for most of 1942.

 

[Kevin J]

I mean the Imperial Japanese Army - and there were Ki-43 units based in New Guinea as I already mentioned though I'm not sure when.



Yes, and other places too without a doubt.

December 1942 well used hand me down Ki-43-I's arrived.

 

[Schweik]

Ok definitely long after Coral Sea so no Vindicators of Devastators in their victim tally.

I'd guess Ki43 victims included mostly Hurricanes, Blenheims, Buffalos, P-36s, I-15 / 153 and I-16s, then later F4Fs, P-40s, SBDs, Avengers, SB2C, Hudsons, Havocs, Mitchels, Catalinas, OS2Us and various other float and seaplanes, and a few B-24s. No doubt later in the war more than a few of the more modern Hellcats, Corsairs, Seafires, P-38s, P-51s and P-47s though I'm not sure the precise contacts of each types.

I'm tempted to say Fulmar but they only faced Zeros I think in the Indian Ocean. Not sure about any other earlier British bomber types or naval aircraft like the Skua or the Roc, the Swordfish etc. though I think they would have all been dead meat against a Ki43.

I'm sure overclaiming was an issue and probably worse in the Japanese Army than the Navy, most of the Army pilots were NCO's and the Army seemed to be less tightly disciplined than the Navy in many respects. But overclaiming was a major issue all over the world in 1941-1942, and I don't think all those claims were bogus by any stretch. I have no doubt the Ki43 had a deadly bite.

 

[Kevin J]

Ok definitely long after Coral Sea so no Vindicators of Devastators in their victim tally.

I'd guess Ki43 victims included mostly Hurricanes, Blenheims, Buffalos, P-36s, I-15 / 153 and I-16s, then later F4Fs, P-40s, SBDs, Avengers, SB2C, Hudsons, Havocs, Mitchels, Catalinas, OS2Us and various other float and seaplanes, and a few B-24s. No doubt later in the war more than a few of the more modern Hellcats, Corsairs, Seafires, P-38s, P-51s and P-47s though I'm not sure the precise contacts of each types.

I'm tempted to say Fulmar but they only faced Zeros I think in the Indian Ocean. Not sure about any other earlier British bomber types or naval aircraft like the Skua or the Roc, the Swordfish etc. though I think they would have all been dead meat against a Ki43.

I'm sure overclaiming was an issue and probably worse in the Japanese Army than the Navy, most of the Army pilots were NCO's and the Army seemed to be less tightly disciplined than the Navy in many respects. But overclaiming was a major issue all over the world in 1941-1942, and I don't think all those claims were bogus by any stretch. I have no doubt the Ki43 had a deadly bite.

I find it difficult to believe that a fighter armed with one LMG and one HMG scored many victories at all.

 

[Schweik]

I find it difficult to believe that a fighter armed with one LMG and one HMG scored many victories at all.

That is a lack of imagination my friend.

Consider how many kills a Bf 109F2 scored in the Middle East and Russia - certainly hundreds. And all it had was a single 15mm "cannon" and two light machine guns.




it's funny, underestimating the Japanese was one of the major Strategic mistakes of WW2 and it's something we seem to still do in retrospect even knowing what we know.

During the war they went from contempt and derision, to awe, to fear to terror through 1943 and gradually back to contempt again (but still tinged with terror) in 1944 and 45, contributing to the horrific terror bombing campaign the Americans indulged in with their B-29 fire raids.

There is no denying the huge number of Allied airmen, soldiers, and sailors who died fighting the Japanese from 1941-43, and the lesser but still substantial numbers who died in 1944 and 1945.

 

[Kevin J]

That is a lack of imagination my friend.

Consider how many kills a Bf 109F2 scored in the Middle East and Russia - certainly hundreds. And all it had was a single 15mm "cannon" and two light machine guns.




it's funny, underestimating the Japanese was one of the major Strategic mistakes of WW2 and it's something we seem to still do in retrospect even knowing what we know.

During the war they went from contempt and derision, to awe, to fear to terror through 1943 and gradually back to contempt again (but still tinged with terror) in 1944 and 45, contributing to the horrific terror bombing campaign the Americans indulged in with their B-29 fire raids.

There is no denying the huge number of Allied airmen, soldiers, and sailors who died fighting the Japanese from 1941-43, and the lesser but still substantial numbers who died in 1944 and 1945.

Tell you something else, I find some of those Bf 109F victories scores a bit dubious too, but the claims are for almost one aerial victory for every K-43 built. I'm not sure the Bf 109 victory claims to aircraft produced was that high.

 

[Schweik]

Everybody overclaimed. But 109Fs were dangerous fighters. So were Ki 43s.

 

[Shortround6]

Consider how many kills a Bf 109F2 scored in the Middle East and Russia - certainly hundreds. And all it had was a single 15mm "cannon" and two light machine guns.

Hmmmmm, one 7.7mm mg firing at 900rpm before you figure in the sychonizer vs two 7.9mm mgs firing at 1100rpm or better before sychronization.
one 12.7mm mg firing 33-35 gram "shells" at no more than 500rpm after sychronization vs a 15mm cannon firing 57 gram HE shells at 700rpm with no sychronization problem.
not hard to see that the 109F had over double the firepower per second.
German guns had higher velocity so deflection shooting was a bit easier.

Japanese pilots in the early part of the war were often highly skilled and may have been able to get into a good firing position but there is only so much light firepower can do.
unless people think the British made a mistake in changing from the eight gun .303 armament which was in fact, much heavier firepower than the one small, one large gun Ki-43s.

proper firepower was a very hard thing to get right and still is.
Too little and it is hard to convert a firing opportunity into a kill or high damage situation.
Too much firepower carried and you get fewer firing opportunities.
Obviously what kind of targets you are dealing with also has something to do with it.

 

[Schweik]

More of this 'weight of fire' BS - counter arguments are

1. The use of one heavy and one light machine gun was only in the first year or so of the war, during which time they were mostly against flimsy and hapless opposition like Blenheims, Buffalos and Hurricanes. Initially there was a problem with the Ho-103 machine guns as you probably know (along with a whole host of other fairly serious teething issues with the Ki-43) but these were fixed and the more normal armament became two 12.7mm machine guns. They did not by the way only shoot HE shells and to imply that is disingenuous, as it is to show the pre-synchronization rate of fire of the German LMGs but the post synchronization rate for the Japanese, and lowball the synchronized ROF.
2. Like it or not, and I know you and some others here don't, there are a host of fighters in WW2 that were very successful - at least against other fighters- with two or three guns in the nose armament. Ki43 is definitely one of them. Even a Corsair or P-38 pilot had to be very careful against these planes and fight just the right way if they didn't want to die. Hurricanes were dead meat. Yak 1/7/9 series and the Yak 3 were also good examples of this. As was the Bf 109F2 and later F and early G series. And the Macchi 202 as many of them had their wing guns removed by the pilots in the field.
3. Guns in the nose ARE more accurate than guns out on the wings. Every pilot familiar with both configurations said so. I know you already know this but refuse to believe it anyway because you think your own back of the envelope calculations trump what every war veterans says. But that doesn't change it from being a fact.

 

[Schweik]

Bf 109F2 had light armament by WW2 standards and yet was one of the most deadly fighters that ever flew - FACT.
Ki-43 had fairly light armament by WW2 standards and yet was also one of the most deadly fighters that ever flew - ALSO A FACT.
Yak -1 / 7 / 9 was one of the most successful fighters of the war in spite of also being 'lightly armed' again, FACT.

 

[Kevin J]

Bf 109F2 had light armament by WW2 standards and yet was one of the most deadly fighters that ever flew - FACT.
Ki-43 had fairly light armament by WW2 standards and yet was also one of the most deadly fighters that ever flew - ALSO A FACT.
Yak -1 / 7 / 9 was one of the most successful fighters of the war in spite of also being 'lightly armed' again, FACT.

The Bf 109F-1/2 had a cannon and two LMG's in the fuselage and was very successful. Its performance outclassed all the fighters by which it was opposed unless you compare it against the Spitfire Vb which arrived at the same time as the Bf 109F-4. Unlike the K-43 it had a cannon. Yes, lots of victories by pilots flying it, it was most successful when operated in dive, shoot and climb to escape mode, but claiming a victory because you and your wing man saw the victim diving and trailing smoke isn't the same as shooting it down.
The standard armament of the Ki-43-1 was one HMG and one LMG, the armament being increased to two HMG in the Ki-43-II once the HMG problems had been sorted out. Both m/c guns were on the centre line, excellent. It may even be the best fighter available in the first year of the Asia-Pacific war. Do you have the allied figures of losses to compare against?
The Yak was designed as an escort fighter for attack aircraft, its purpose to drive off, shoot down intercepting fighters. Yak's accounted for half the fighters operated by the USSR, but it was the Cobra's and La-5's that produced the top scoring fighter pilots. Do you have the axis figures of losses to compare against? Again, unlike the Ki-43 it had a cannon.
The obsolescent Hurricane was being produced in greater numbers in 1941 than our wonder plane the Spitfire. Ever asked yourself why?

 

[Schweik]

I'm not so sure that is true that the 109F outperformed all of its opponents. The MiG 3 was faster at altitude (though less maneuverable and had a lousy rate of roll). I believe the Spit V depending on subtype outclimbed it and was faster at some altitudes. The P 38 was certainly 20 or 30 mph faster (but less maneuverable) than the F2 or F4.

The F2 and F in general were considered the best in the series by most German pilots, certainly much better than the faster and more heavily armed G6

 

[Schweik]

As to why they still made so many Hurricanes for so long, I can't think of a logical reason. Great fighter iin 1938, one of the best in the world. Still good in 1940. Declining rapidly in value in 1941 and clearly obsolete by 42. Lot of good pilots died flying them in 42, 43 and 44. Quite a few to Hayabusa.

 

[Shortround6]

What started this line of posts

I find it difficult to believe that a fighter armed with one LMG and one HMG scored many victories at all.

The use of one heavy and one light machine gun was only in the first year or so of the war, during which time they were mostly against flimsy and hapless opposition like Blenheims, Buffalos and Hurricanes. Initially there was a problem with the Ho-103 machine guns as you probably know (along with a whole host of other fairly serious teething issues with the Ki-43) but these were fixed and the more normal armament became two 12.7mm machine guns.

Hey if YOU want to change the goal post fine. But don't call BS when I give the facts on the original position.

They did not by the way only shoot HE shells and to imply that is disingenuous, as it is to show the pre-synchronization rate of fire of the German LMGs but the post synchronization rate for the Japanese, and lowball the synchronized ROF.

Well I did put the word shells in quotation marks and I did give a range of weights, the HE projectile weighed 33 grams and the AP weighed 35.4 grams according to one source.
Now as to over rating the German guns. did I or didn't I??? Wiki says the German MG 17 was good for 1200rpm. Anthony WIlliams in "Flying Guns of WW II ) says 1000rpm (although the MG 15 is rated at 1200rpm) perhaps the 1000rpm is after synchronization? Some sources say the MG 17 was good for 1200rpm when used as a ground gun near the end of the war.

Japanese 7.7 fixed aircraft machine gun (both army and Navy although they had different type numbers) were developed from the Vickers type E mg and I haven't seen any source that says the type E or any of it's offspring exceed 900rpm unsynchronized. So tell me how I under rated the Japanese 7.7mm machine gun?

The German MG 151/15 was not synchronized, I also only gave the weight of the HE shell in this comparison The AP projectile weighed 72 grams and will really skew the 'weight of fire'

Mr Williams book (and co author Dr Emmanuel Gustin) says 800-900 rpm for the Japanese 12.7 machine gun in the tables. In the text it says the gun was criticized for it's rate of fire, which was seriously reduced by synchronization. Going back to wiki we have;

Rate of fire 900 RPM 400 RPM (synchronized)

So I rated it almost 25% higher than wiki but that is not good enough for you and you call me disingenuous.

If you can find a decent source that says the gun fired much faster than 500rpm when synchronized please list it.

Like it or not, and I know you and some others here don't, there are a host of fighters in WW2 that were very successful - at least against other fighters- with two or three guns in the nose armament. Ki43 is definitely one of them. Even a Corsair or P-38 pilot had to be very careful against these planes and fight just the right way if they didn't want to die. Hurricanes were dead meat. Yak 1/7/9 series and the Yak 3 were also good examples of this. As was the Bf 109F2 and later F and early G series. And the Macchi 202 as many of them had their wing guns removed by the pilots in the field.

No plane was bullet proof and nobody adopted a tatic (on purpose ) of giving the enemy first shot and then turning the tables, so yes it was possible to shoot down aircraft using light armament. However your argument can also be looked at in a different light. The YAK series needed to save all the weight it could for flight performance and a much heavier armament would have seriously degraded flight performance, The Russians sure didn't use light armament because they like to use finesse. And they added guns just as soon as more powerful engines or lighter guns became available. The 109s had a bit of trouble getting the intended engines up to power (both the DB 601E and the DB 605) and there were a number of German pilots who were not happy with light armament. As for the MC 202?? If you are pulling 55kg of guns AND ammo out of plane are you really happy with the fuselage mounted guns or like P-40 pilots who pulled guns out, are you really unhappy with the engine power and flight performance?

Guns in the nose ARE more accurate than guns out on the wings. Every pilot familiar with both configurations said so.

Really, every pilot? Just how many were familiar with both configurations?
No British( and Commonwealth) pilots unless they flew Gloster Gladiators or Tomahawks.
For US it was pretty much P-38, P-39 and very early P-40s. for fuselage guns so please come up with some quoted of US pilots that flew them and then flew Warhawks, P-47s or P-51s With something like 200 US pilots flying the long nosed P-40s out of tens of thousands of US fighter pilots during the war that means what?
Few Russian pilots unless they flew both Russian and Lend lease aircraft. OK I-16 pilots maybe but the i-16 was known to snake and was a lousy gun platform.
Ah yes, a few German pilots, but how did they know? were they comparing like to like when it came to guns and ammo?
two slow firing low velocity 20mm MG/FFs vs a faster firing higher velocity fuselage cannon with more ammo than both wing guns put together. Yeah, a really fair comparison.

And the 109 gun pods aren't quite the same thing as guns in the wing.

And if you had a mixed battery (some in the fuselage and some in the wings) how did the pilot know which guns scored the hits?

I know you already know this but refuse to believe it anyway because you think your own back of the envelope calculations trump what every war veterans says. But that doesn't change it from being a fact.

Really???? EVERY war veteran? You talked to them ALL?

Sorry, it is far from a fact. It is a best an unproven. bu tit is not helped but BS such as this.

From Defence of the realm
"It's name may have been "Spitfire" but in the early marks, Supermarine's legendary fighter was barely an adequate gun platform. It's eight .303 machine guns were spaced out across the wing making it difficult to train them to a point ahead of the aircraft where their collective firepower could inflict heavy enough damage on an enemy aircraft equipped with self sealing fuel tanks. This was why the Hawker Hurricane, with its eight .303 machine guns coupled closely together, was the superior gun platform in the Battle of Britain.

Now for some strange reason the british government say fit to publish diagrams like this

For the Spitfire. Now please note that convergence was later changed to 250yds or so it is claimed. But that must be impossible as that web site said "it difficult to train them to a point ahead of the aircraft"

Maybe the harmonization charts were fakes intended to give the pilots confidence?
Or since you can get all eight guns to hit in a small area in front of the aircraft (although 200-250 yrds ahead that website (and many others) is wrong.

Now the Hurricane may very well have been a better gun platform but there is more to being a good gun platform than just how close the guns are grouped together. Like steadiness, an absence of snaking or yawing or pitching as the aircraft flies. being sensitive to the controls but not too sensitive so as to have the line of sight to the target disturbed by over corrections or a slightly jittery hand on the stick.


SO you can call my back of the envelope calculations BS but I have seen an awful lot of BS on the other side of the question.

 

[Schweik]

Plenty of RAF pilots flew one of the 800 or so Tomahawks they had, then later Kittyhawks or other fighters. Plenty of Soviet pilots flew one of the thousands of Lend Lease fighters and later also their own fighters. Golodnikov flew I 16, Hurricane, P 40 P 39 and Yak. Don't throw tantrums because their observations don't match your theories.

 

[Schweik]

Two HMG or a cannon in the nose is better than 8 LMG in the wings

 

[Shortround6]

Plenty of RAF pilots flew one of the 800 or so Tomahawks they had, then later Kittyhawks or other fighters.

SO quote some who say the fuselage guns were better?

Plenty of Soviet pilots flew one of the thousands of Lend Lease fighters and later also their own fighters.

so quote some who say the fuselage guns were better?

Golodnikov flew I 16, Hurricane, P 40 P 39 and Yak.

One man out of tens of thousands?
And lets see his actual quotes or translations.
Lets also remember that many Russian guns sights were crap and required a different technique to get hits

Don't throw tantrums because their observations don't match your theories.

Have I called you out about your behavior or treated you unfairly or insulted you personally?

I think we know who is throwing a tantrum[/QUOTE]

 

[Greyman]

Generally when I read about RAF pilots speak of the wing vs. fuselage armament they expressed a desire for fuselage weapons - and were most envious of the Fw 190's two fuselage machine guns and wing root cannon.

It's eight .303 machine guns were spaced out across the wing making it difficult to train them to a point ahead of the aircraft ...

I think what they meant to say is that it was difficult to always have the enemy aircraft at the correct range (250 yards) in order to achieve maximum theoretical damage.

Here's a diagram I made based on 'building' the Spitfire's firing cones in a 3D program.

100 yards - 200 yards - 250 yards - 300 yards - 400 yards

 

[Schweik]

It's a really blatantly obvious historical fact gentleman that the P-38 was both faster and much more heavily armed than a BF 109 F4 early G, and yet the latter aircraft is the one that usually came out on top when they clashed. Not always but usually.

P-39 was much faster and much more heavily armed than a Ki 43 but the k43 won three out of four times at least when they clashed.

The hurricane was more heavily armed in terms of weight of bullets for sure had equivalent performance to the ki-43 and yet almost always came out to loser when they clashed.

I don't really care if anybody doesn't understand that Ki43 shot down thousands ot of Allied planes because they certainly did it's a historical fact.

I don't have the loss numbers for all the Allied units conveniently to hand I wish they were more easily available) but I've read enough about all those battles to know what they were generally like and the numbers were pretty grim.

I have recently seen some of the last numbers for the Germans on the Russian front in the early years and they are pretty high in spite of the Soviet losses being even higher.

 

[Schweik]

SO quote some who say the fuselage guns were better?




so quote some who say the fuselage guns were better?

I have some I can transcribe tomorrow