The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

CHen10 said:
16 April 1945
N1K2 shot down an F6F-5 flown by Richard Stephansky of VF-47
N1K2 shot down an F6F-5 flown by Victor Rink of VF-47
Click to expand...
Hi again,

After comparing your list with mine I noticed that I missed the Hellcat lost from VF-82 on 12 April 1945. Good catch. I also apparently swapped my info for 13 May which should have shown one F6F-5P shotdown without loss to the Shiden-Kais.

The only other difference that I see was with 16 April. Page 86 of "Genda's Blade " which states:

"VF-47 sustained minor bullet damage on two Hellcats and one aircraft made a barrier crash landing. Another aircraft was hit by fire from a Japanese fighter and by friendly anti-aircraft fite from a battleship. It was forced to ditch, but the pilot was rescued."

To me there are no losses that can be fully attributed to the 343rd, being that three of the aircraft listed made it back aboard ship and the one hit by a Japanese fighter might have made it back as well if it weren't for it getting caught in the path of friendly fire.

I did have a look at the website you mentioned (great find by the way - thanks!). How did you positively connect both the VF-47 Hellcats shot down that day to the scrap with the 343rd? The narrative in Genda's Blade only talks of one F6F-5 of VF-47 truly lost that day (either to enemy or friendly fire, which is up for debate). Couldn't one of the Hellcats listed on the website have gone down during another action which occurred during the same day? Just speculating here...

Thanks again by the way for the website link...it is outstanding!
 
Last edited:
You made some very good points here. Given a George in good working order the F6F Hellcat was by all accounts still a bit faster in level flight and decidingly faster in the dive (especially when you weigh in landing gear malfunctions with the Japanese fighter...a point you raised earlier). This speed deficit only got worse if the Shiden was in poor repair, which seems to have been the case in most instances

I don't know much about Kawanishi but i do remember reading that the company was considered to be subpar by Saburo Sakai so maybe what you suspect is all true to some measure...

Let me see what I can dig up concerning Hellcat vs Shiden clashes in 1944 and get back to you!
 
Last edited:
The two VF-47 F6F-5s I mentioned were lost to the 343 Kokutai N1K2s because this was the only encounter VF-47 had with enemy aircraft on 16 April. Other F6Fs did engage with fighters with two Ki-84s being lost to F6Fs but the F6Fs suffered no losses in the encounter.

When it says about VF-47 that "One made a barrier crash landing" and "Another was hit by a Japanese fighter and forced to ditch" The only Japanese unit to face VF-47 was 343 Kokutai N1K2s so the two aircraft were lost to 343 Kokutai.

Since Genda's Blade doesn't mention the names of the VF-47 pilots lost, I used that website to find their names.
 
I understand your reasoning here and respect your opinion but I don't exactly see the events the way you do which is fine of course. A barrier crash landing can be attributed to a multitude of reasons such as a malfunctioning tailhook or flap issues. And while these types of issues COULD have been caused by enemy fire, they have been known to occur during sorties where no enemy action was encountered. Aircraft do tend to break on their own of course.

Secondly, the story behind the loss of the F6F which sustained both enemy and friendly fire is clearly debatable. I reason that the aircraft was in good enough condition to be capable of almost returning to it's home carrier before being hit by friendly shipboard AAA, telling me the damage inflicted by enemy aircraft was negligible at best. But again your hypothesis has merit as well. We just don't have enough details of this loss to draw concrete conclusions.

By the way, there were also thirty A6Ms and eleven Shidens from the 201st and 601st Kokutais involved in a second skirmish with VF-47 that day. The damage to the Hellcat which was forced to ditch could have come from one of these units too, which complicates matters even further. In the end the 343rd lost 9 Shiden-Kais making it a lopsided battle at best (Genda's Blade pgs 85-86).

I do appreciate your input however. Cheers.
 
That's interesting! I never knew that VF-47 engaged in another air battle that day. I tried looking for it but couldn't find anything so I just assumed there was no extra battle. Do you know if the thirty A6Ms and eleven Shidens made any victory claims? If they made no victory claims then the losses can be attributed to the 343 Kokutai since the 343 Kokutai made claims whereas the other Kokutais didn't. Of course if the A6Ms and Shidens did make victory claims then there is no way of knowing who the victories belong to.

As for the barrier crash landing, I think when it says in Genda's Blade that VF-47 suffered minor bullet damage to two Hellcats, I assumed it was saying that the Hellcat that made the barrier crash landing was one of those that suffered the bullet damage.

As for the other that was hit by a Japanese fighter and friendly AAA and ditched, the fact that it was hit by a Japanese fighter is enough for me in my opinion to give it as a kill.

So the 343 Kokutai claimed three Hellcats meaning that if the thirty A6Ms and eleven Shidens made no victory claims, we can give the 343 Kokutai a victory over the Hellcat that was hit by a Japanese fighter, since the 343 Kokutai would be the only Kokutai to make a victory claim. As for the Hellcat that made the barrier crash landing, if it made the crash landing and was written off because of the bullet damage, then this would be another victory, but it could also have been non combat related (I just assumed that Genda's Blade was saying it crash landed because of bullet damage)
 
Unfortunately I don't have any information concerning whether or not the 201st or 601st made any claims that day.There may be war diaries somewhere which might help spread some light on the topic. I hope so anyway.

I really don't see the circumstances surrounding the 16 April fight to be so cut and dry. And even though the 343rd made claims that alone isn't enough for me because we all are aware of the overclaiming which occurred by all sides during the war. That's why IMHO the 343rd should not be given credit for two F6Fs destroyed that day. Your opinion differs and I accept that . I've thoroughly enjoyed discussing this with you and I've learned a little more from our dialog. Thanks.

Having differing views on such a subjective topic as aerial victories should be expected. As you probably already know there are people out there who STILL argue over whom exactly shot down the Red Baron!

Cheers
 
I see the word assumed too much.
I know earlier in this thread CHen10 reported it was stated that 343 pursued some Hellcats, that means they chased them, that doesn't necessarily mean they got close enough to fire at them. You assumed they fired at them.
Pursue means chased, engaged is one word that could have been used that meant that they fired at them.

You assumed the 343 did a lot of things, you don't consider the possibility of flak, or other units, being engaged.
 

- In Genda's Blade it says: "Four Japanese pilots pursued Capt William Loflin, but his element leader, 1/Lt Stanley J. Lustic went to his aid and scattered the Japanese who then dived for the deck."

Do you mean this part? This is where it says they pursued a P-47. The N1K2s claimed four P-47s shot down and so that's why I thought the P-47 they chased here was one of the ones that they claimed. This is backed up by the fact that the very same P-47 was later seen with oil on the windshield and had damaged instruments. Since the 343 Kokutai claimed four P-47s, they chased Loflin's P-47, Loflin's P-47 suffered damage to instruments and oil sprayed on the windshield, and the fact that the 343 kokutai were the only ones to make claims for P-47s on this day, it is extremely likely that they damaged Loflin's P-47. There is no way to prove 100%, but it is the most likely scenario for this encounter.
 
On 28 May over Kanoya only the 343rd made victory claims so they can't be related to another Kokutai. They could be flak related but since we have 343 Kokutai claims the most likely outcome is a 343 kokutai victory. This is supported by the fact that the damaged P-47 was seen being chased by the 343 Kokutai. So we only have 343 Kokutai claims, no other claims by other units, and the 343 was seen chasing the damaged P-47. The damaged P-47 could be flak related but being damaged by the 343 Kokutai N1K2s is much more likely.

As for 8 August, the lost P-47s could be flak related but we have 343 Kokutai pilots stating that they shot at P-47s (misidentified as P-51s) and were credited with shooting them down. There were no other units involved in this battle. So we have 343 Kokutai victory claims and no other units active. The losses could be flak related but since we have accounts of 343 Kokutai pilots hitting P-47s, the conclusion that the 343 Kokutai N1K2s shot them down is the most likely
 
GrauGeist said:
Bear in mind that official military records take priority over your opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but part of doing historical research involves taking official and unofficial records, comparing them, and analyzing differences between them. CHen10 is doing just this. He has taken two sources and compared to them to each other and come away with a different interpretation. I can understand disagreeing with the interpretation but very few sources can be accepted as canon. The big reason is that official records can be wrong, either through error or through deliberate obfuscation.

In Vietnam it was normal for units to overreport how many of the enemy they had killed. I also remember during the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, the Bush administration would emergency evacuate fatally wounded troops in order to reduce the official death count in Iraq. Because of events like this, official records can't fully be trusted, although they have a high degree of credibility.
 
There is a huge difference between offering a conclusion from research and putting forth an opinion.

Research shows that the RLM dismissed the early German jet program as a novelty, then became entangled by infighting during later years, causing delays in development.

My opinion is that the RLM should have embraced the technology and made it a priority.

Which do you suppose actually happened?
 
I'm not calling you out. My point is that official records can be false sometimes and it's a legitimate avenue within the field of historical research to reinterpret official records.

Regarding the RLM, I'm not sure where this is going but the analysis is that the damage to the P-47s could have been misinterpreted as flak. IIRC, the Shiden Kai had a time-delay fuse on their 20mm shells (I need to look this up) so if a 343rd pilot was firing at extreme range, the exploding shells would likely seem like flak.

UPDATE: The only source that I found on the time-delay fuse was on the Oerlikon FF shells having a 1.5 m fuse.
 
Last edited:
A time delay fuse, and a self-destruct fuse is two different fuses,
My understanding of a time delay fuse is that it doesn't set off the internal charge until a few milli-seconds after initial contact.
It gives the shell time to penetrate the outside skin and explode inside the aircraft.
Now a 20mm with a self destruct would be pretty rare in that era, but I'm willing to learn.
 
I must have misunderstood how firing a 20mm shell works and misused time-delay fuse, but I thought once a 20mm was percussed, they became armed and eventually exploded. I don't know if Japan had proximity fuse technology.
 
No, Japan didn't have proximity fuse technology during WW2.
The low caliber cannon shells armed with different systems, some by setback as they were fired, slow enough that the shell was out of the barrel before it was armed. 20mm had to have a simple fuse, or you've got all fuse, and leave little room for explosive. but you didn't want them to arm too quick, or the could explode as soon as they leave the barrel, or sooner. Like some JAAF .50 cal, did early in WW2.
They had to hit something to explode, most shell makers didn't want a super sensitive fuse that went off as soon as it hit the aircraft metal, but a mille-second or less after initial impact so that the shell would be inside the aircraft when it exploded.
If the shell traveling 2000fps, has a .001 second delay, after impact it still might travel 2 feet before it explodes ,
High explosives explode to the speed of 27,000 fps, and more depending on the particular explosive.
My math and memory might be weak, but setting up the delay in fuses is a science in itself.
 
A lot of 20mm aircraft shells used self destruct fuses. That means there a lot of types, actual use may have been much more restricted. It was considered less dangerous to the people on the ground to have bits of shell falling on them rather than 20mm shells hitting them or near them and then going off.
Sometimes (a lot?) this was done by setting up the tracer to burn though one or more elements. Sometimes a delay element (disc/pellet) that burned with little flame (compared to tracer material) and then a booster pellet/primer/detonator pellet to set off the main charge. May depend on the tracer and the main charge explosive. Some shells were set up to self destruct at around 2000yds/meters. There may have been fuses used that worked on the rate of spin. If the rate of spin decayed enough there was a plate that moved across the firing pin blocking it from hitting the detonator (makes the shell inert but having a 80-130gram hit you after falling several thousand meters is still going to leave a mark).
Some of this depended on who was doing the shooting and where. Germans didn't like firing 10s of thousands of little HE shells all over Germany every day/night. British didn't much care once their 20mm armed aircraft were not operating over England. Sometimes shell effectiveness took priority. German mine shells could not be built with tracers and couldn't use that self destruct system.
Japanese had some HE shells with the tracer method. But this method also meant the shell had 1/3 to 1/2 the HE content of a pure (non tracer) HE shell so actual use may have been limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
927
Ivan1GFP
I
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
994
Snautzer01
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
S
Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Holtzauge
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register