The real combat history of the Ki-43

[J.A.W.]

Typically that would be nothing, I think


It's a tough bird, no doubt

Well, yeah, but for some extra chance of survival in A2G post D-day, the Typhoon received a kit, 'Mod 347: additional armour, removable parts'
(496lb!), something Hurricane pilots would've loved to have had, but hated to tote, with just a 'pissy' Merlin.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Case of too much Merlin, not enough Sabre production - a typically sad British industrial 'cock-up' - if there ever was one.

Napier engineered to pass the type tests, not for a reliable production engine, Napier quality control meant defective engines, when irrevocable decisions were made about resource allocation Napier had little to offer. English Electric helped solve the quality issues.

Ministry figures End May 1944, 331 Typhoon in Air Storage Units, including 90 deficient in equipment, another 275 airframes, total Sabre I and II stocks 1,051 of which 274 with aircraft manufacturers 52 with home commands and 738 with repairers, given the figures below most with repairers and some elsewhere would be unserviceable.

End April 1945, before the RAF in Europe began to really wind down. Typhoon 179 in Air Storage Units, including 51 deficient in equipment, plus another 134 airframes (Total airframes in store 484, including 102 Auster IV/V, 78 Whitley, 65 Master III and 30 Welkin). To date 4,506 production Sabre, including 4,366 I and II of which 17 I/II shipped overseas. There had been 914 conversions II to IIa, 1 conversion IIa to IIb, 5 conversions from III to IIIa. Stocks were Sabre I/II 92 at aircraft manufacturers, 90 at home commands, 824 at engine repairers, total 1,006 of which 136 serviceable and 870 unserviceable. (Merlin 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 stocks were 2,217 serviceable, 293 unserviceable).

29 November 1945, Bomber Command all Lancaster and Mosquito with a few Lincoln, Fighter Command Spitfire, Mosquito, Mustang, Tempest, Meteor, Auster, there was also 1 unserviceable Typhoon. RAF in Germany, Mitchell, Mosquito, Spitfire, Tempest, Auster, there were also 3 serviceable and 8 unserviceable Typhoon, There were 6 Tempest squadrons in Germany, while 222 squadron in Britain was converting from Tempest to Meteor. Coastal Command Liberator, Warwick, Sunderland, Beaufighter (and 1 Buckmaster), Mosquito, Spitfire, Lancaster, Halifax, Wellington plus various types, Walrus, Sea Otter, Hurricane, Meteor, Fortress. The Typhoons had been rapidly removed, last operational service in September. So end November 1945 there were 783 Typhoons in storage, 27 deficient, plus 48 airframes, Sabre I/II stocks down to 155 serviceable and 678 unserviceable, plus 17 and 4 Sabre V. It solved the Sabre numbers problem.

AVIA 15/2389 covers the sale of RAF aircraft to France in 1945/6, Spare engine prices, Merlin from 1,460 to 1,900 pounds, 2,300 Griffon, 3,180 Hercules XVII, 3,830 Hercules 100, 5,550 Sabre II, meaning 3 to 5 Merlin per Sabre, 2 to 3 Griffon. For 2 Sabre you could buy a complete Spitfire XIV with 1,400 pounds left over to put towards a spare Griffon. The engine meant a Typhoon cost 13,650 pounds.

Avia 15/950
400 Tornado built by Avro plus spare engines budgeted to cost 5,760,000 pounds "Unit cost" 14,400 pounds
300 Typhoon (I wrote Tornado originally) built by Hawker plus spare engines budgeted to cost 5,010,000 pounds "Unit cost" 16,700 pounds

Given the small physical impact Fighter Command offensive operations had in the 1941 into 1943 period beyond confirming things like the pairs system and looser formations, ditching the Sabre entirely would be a win for the RAF, given how much more it cost to buy and maintain, developing or importing by 1943 another engine that could develop around 2,000 HP., while doing a Typhoon redesign to thin wings. After all maybe up to a quarter of Typhoon production to mid 1943 was reduced to spares due to a lack of engines anyway.

The USAAF noted the Merlin was more expensive, including maintenance, compared to the Allison but the Merlin's advantages were worth it, not so the Sabre.

Hurricanes were a death trap in the ETO, by 1942, & Spitfire Vs were not far behind. Clostermann correctly stated these facts,

I can assure you though Biggles did not fly many Hurricanes, he did fly Spitfires while noting the Bf109 could have better or worse performance depending on the models chosen. Clostermann invents Hurricane losses. The Hurricanes as of 1941 were not air superiority fighters in Western Europe, they were bomber destroyers and fighter bombers, more survivable than the light bombers available. Far from death traps.

In the period 1941 to around end 1942 the Luftwaffe fighters in the west generally had better performance aircraft, better tactics and more experienced pilots, while fighting over friendly territory, a reversion to much of WWI air fighting. In addition they had no reason to engage, there were few targets the Germans cared about in the area and in any case not enough bomb lift to hurt those targets. The Luftwaffe fighters engaged when things looked favourable. Hence stories of Bf109 putting on aerobatics displays alongside RAF formations to lure the RAF fighters to where they could be hit by the Fw190 waiting up sun. In mid 1942 the Germans had to account for the fact some Spitfires were much better than others but no way to tell them apart in the air, then towards the end of 1942 a viable bomber force began to appear. That forced engagements.

In 1942 the Spitfire V was in trouble as it was the main target, in 1943 it did better as the bombers were the main target.

by 1944, even the best performing Merlin Spitfires were being relegated to unsuitable fighter-bomber roles in the 2nd TAF.

The Typhoon was "relegated" from air superiority to fighter bomber just about from the start thanks to the Sabre's poor altitude performance. The Spitfire "relegation" idea would be a surprise to the RAF as June and July 1944 come in 4 and 5 in terms of kill claims for WWII after the 3 months in 1940. And that is with the Tempest, Spitfire XIV and Mustang units mostly stopping V-1 over Britain, leaving the mark IX to do most of the air superiority work over Normandy. Overlord was the European Theatre 1944 make or break operation, even the heavy bomber forces found that out. Leigh-Mallory was right about Overlord provoking big air battles, but no one was willing to assume the Luftwaffe would be mainly ineffective. Converting Merlin Spitfires to fighter bombers was inevitable and the usual progression as better performance types like the mark XIV and Mustang came along.

Britain began receiving Merlin Mustangs in September 1943, with 276 imported by the end of 1943 and another 174 January to May 1944 inclusive.

Realistically, only the Mustang & Mosquito were making good use of the Merlin (plus the Lancaster, technically if not tactically).

Realistically think of the near immunity from air attack allied airfields in Britain enjoyed, the inability of Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft to monitor Overlord preparations, and the bombing created isolation of the Normandy area. On another front note the Sabre VII was a post war engine, also skimming the production reports it looks like the RAF never bought one.

Edit; According to D.N. James, in his book 'Hawker An Aircraft Album' on page 73, late production Hurricanes did indeed have a
"...universal wing" & yes, they were sent to Burma.

The question was about internal armament, changing Hurricane II armament between A, B, C and D required a wing change, unlike the Spitfire "C" wing idea, though of course the Hurricane B wing could and did have the outboard machine guns deleted. The detailed mark IIC weights quoted by Francis Mason use 364 cannon rounds.

Hurricane mark IV, Merlin XX, special low attack wing. These wings contained basic armament of 2 x 0.303 inch Browning machine guns and catered for the following alternative installations, which were carried under the wings, two "S" type guns (40mm) or two B.H. type guns, (40mm) or eight Rockets (25 or 60 pound warheads) or two 250 or 500 pound bombs or two SBC (small bomb containers) or SCI (smoke curtain installation) or two 45 or 90 gallon drop tanks, without needing to make changes in the wings or cockpit. Mark IV built December 1942 to March 1944, IIC production continued until July, 1 mark IV built in March, 395 IIC March onwards. So what is late production? If you read messages you would see I note the mark IV arrival in India.

The Hurricane IV, and additional Hurricane production in general, was needed thanks to the Sabre situation, the proposed Hurricane V if the Sabre situation continued.

Well, yeah, but for some extra chance of survival in A2G post D-day, the Typhoon received a kit, 'Mod 347: additional armour, removable parts' (496lb!), something Hurricane pilots would've loved to have had, but hated to tote, with just a 'pissy' Merlin.

That sort of protection was in the up armoured Hurricane V, using the higher powered Merlin 27, providing around 1,640 HP for take off, the 141 engines built starting in November 1943 were converted to Merlin 25 for Mosquitoes. The extra armour would push the Hurricane loaded weight to about the empty weight of the Typhoon, possibly giving the loaded Hurricane V a slightly better power to weight ratio.

 

[J.A.W.]

Can you relate what happened with the Spitfire Mk XXI (a Spitfire that finally matched the Typhoon's 4 x 20mm & 520mph Vne from 1941),
Weren't they rejected & reduced back to spares from brand new, once contract compliance had been signed off?

No way known was a Hurricane going to carry a Typhoon's armour weight, & have any useful war-load. (late Mk IV with 1,640hp* evenso)
They, as P. Clostermann so succinctly put it - 'Struggled along at 250mph with a mere 4 rockets worth of weight & drag penalty'.

The Typhoon was adapted to the JaBo role after seeing off the FW 190 raiders doing it to England, & did it better in return...
(Including shooting down an Me 109 escort at 26,000ft during that famous daylight penetration to London in early 1943).

Case in point: Compare the two NZ fighter squadrons in Blighty, 485 & 486; 485 started earlier, & kept Spitfires throughout,
whereas 486 transitioned - Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest, & handily outscored their countrymen, (plus bagging scores of V1s).

& what kind of 'trade' was available at high altitude for the RAF anyway, the Welkin did nothing useful, & ADGB saw few
German aircraft in their zone at height, with 2nd TAF needing low-level tactical air-support types (def' not Hurricanes post D-day).

Don't forget the Tempest Mk I had reached 470mph in the mid-20,000ft range, ~mid-war, but Air Min/RAF wanted low-level Sabres.

* Merlin had an extremely brief period (mere minutes) allowable at that power-setting, of course

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Until you compare that with the effect of 4 x 20mm cannon via FW 190, Beaufighter, Mosquito, Typhoon/Tempest.

Got any numbers showing the difference in deadliness of the two guns?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hurricane, Spitfire, P-51A, P-51B/C/D, P-38. In New Guinea and the Solomons you also had P-39s.

One advantage that the P-40 had was that all the radiator plumbing was in the nose, whereas in most inline-engined aircraft there were coolers in the wings or fuselage under the cockpit.

In reality, that was nose armor.

 

[PAT303]

Case of too much Merlin, not enough Sabre production - a typically sad British industrial 'cock-up' - if there ever was one.

Okay I'll say it, this is indeed one of the stupidest comments I've ever read on here, too much Merlin?, well without it we have no Spitfire Seafire Hurricane Lancaster Mozzie Mustang as well as numerous PT MTB's sea rescue boats and later tanks, are you trying to loose WW2?.

 

[Shortround6]

Got any numbers showing the difference in deadliness of the two guns?

Anthony Williams has got some information in some of his books.

Is the best bet.

Trouble with 20mm guns is that the ammo is really the important part.
The worst 20mm gun is about 40% as powerful as the best 20mm gun.
In part because the worst 20mm (Japanese type 99-1) fires 8 rounds per second while the best 20mm (Hispano MK V) fires at 12 rounds per second.
They actually use very similar projectiles (weight and HE content) but the Hispano fires them over 40% faster and since kinetic energy goes up the square of the speed................

And a lot times the effectiveness is an average,

German 151/20 belts often carried 3 different types of ammo.
HEI (M-Geschoss)
HE/T
AP/API
in ratios of 1 : 1 : 1, 3 : 1 : 1 and 2 : 1 : 1 at different times or for different missions or theaters.

British Hispano cannon generally mixed HEI and SAPI (the earlier mentioned HE body filled with incendiary and a hardened nose cap instead of a fuse) in about a 50:50 ratio.

The German HE/T round only held about 3.7 g of HE due to the fact that the rear 25% (roughly) of the shell was taken up by the tracer. The M-Geschoss shell could not hold tracer due to the construction of the shell.

 

[Shortround6]

well without it we have no Spitfire Seafire Hurricane Lancaster Mozzie Mustang as well as numerous PT MTB's sea rescue boats and later tanks, are you trying to loose WW2?

Fixed it.
The Merlin powered very few boats. Probably under a few dozen? The Packard Marine engines had absolutely nothing to do with the Merlin aside from the fact that they were both V-12s.

I do find the argument about how long the Sabre could last at high power rather amusing.
Maybe it could last more minutes at high power, but since they had to swap the engines out in 1/5 to 1/10 the time that a Merlin could last it seems to be counter productive.
And since the Merlin required less time for spark plug changes and valve adjustments could be done in frame instead of swapping out engines (general overhaul of of the Sabre) the readiness of the Merlin equipped aircraft is much higher.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Anthony Williams has got some information in some of his books.

View attachment 759709
Is the best bet.

Trouble with 20mm guns is that the ammo is really the important part.
The worst 20mm gun is about 40% as powerful as the best 20mm gun.
In part because the worst 20mm (Japanese type 99-1) fires 8 rounds per second while the best 20mm (Hispano MK V) fires at 12 rounds per second.
They actually use very similar projectiles (weight and HE content) but the Hispano fires them over 40% faster and since kinetic energy goes up the square of the speed................

And a lot times the effectiveness is an average,

German 151/20 belts often carried 3 different types of ammo.
HEI (M-Geschoss)
HE/T
AP/API
in ratios of 1 : 1 : 1, 3 : 1 : 1 and 2 : 1 : 1 at different times or for different missions or theaters.

British Hispano cannon generally mixed HEI and SAPI (the earlier mentioned HE body filled with incendiary and a hardened nose cap instead of a fuse) in about a 50:50 ratio.

The German HE/T round only held about 3.7 g of HE due to the fact that the rear 25% (roughly) of the shell was taken up by the tracer. The M-Geschoss shell could not hold tracer due to the construction of the shell.

Right. What I was contesting when I linked the video above was the alleged impotence of the .50. Of course compared to a good 20mm a .50 won't do as much damage, but the notion that Germans didn't worry themselves about .50s is a bit far-fetched to me.

 

[EwenS]

Can you relate what happened with the Spitfire Mk XXI (a Spitfire that finally matched the Typhoon's 4 x 20mm & 520mph Vne from 1941),
Weren't they rejected & reduced back to spares from brand new, once contract compliance had been signed off?

Spitfire F.21 - 120 produced. Entered squadron service with 91 sqn (April 1945-Oct 1946) and 1 sqn (May 1945-Oct 1946)

Post war they replaced Tempest V in 41 Sqn (April 1946 - Aug 1947) and 122 (Feb -Apr 1946). 122 had been a Mustang squadron until Aug 1945, then temporarily got Spitfire IX. They also served with 3 RAuxAF squadrons Post war through to 1950/51.

Spitfire F.22 - 287 produced. Flew with 73 sqn Nov 1947- Oct 1948 and 13 RAuxAF sqns 1947-1951

Spitfire F.24 - 54 built. 80 sqn June 1948-Jan 1952 as replacement for Tempest V. Moved from West Germany to Hong Kong July 1949.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Fixed it.
The Merlin powered very few boats. Probably under a few dozen? The Packard Marine engines had absolutely nothing to do with the Merlin aside from the fact that they were both V-12s.

I do find the argument about how long the Sabre could last at high power rather amusing.
Maybe it could last more minutes at high power, but since they had to swap the engines out in 1/5 to 1/10 the time that a Merlin could last it seems to be counter productive.
And since the Merlin required less time for spark plug changes and valve adjustments could be done in frame instead of swapping out engines (general overhaul of of the Sabre) the readiness of the Merlin equipped aircraft is much higher.

it's a safe bet that Merlin, 60 series in particular, was one of the best, most effective in-line aircraft engines ever made, and one of the most important things produced anywhere during the war.

 

[Shortround6]

Right. What I was contesting when I linked the video above was the alleged impotence of the .50. Of course compared to a good 20mm a .50 won't do as much damage, but the notion that Germans didn't worry themselves about .50s is a bit far-fetched to me.

The .50 is sort of an odd duck.
And it has several different generations.
any arguments about use in Korea will be filled in the circular bin

A .50 cal makes a hole about 40% of the area of a 20mm so it is rather good at punching holes. If there is nothing more than sheet metal for the .50 to hit a lot of power goes out the other side of the target. If the .50 hits something substantial (engine, structural members, etc) it hits with around 60% of the energy of an inert German 151/20 round and is trying to make a smaller dia but deeper hole.

The Hispano is trying to apply 70% more energy to the same size hole as the German 20mm.

Trying to fly with several extra 12.7mm holes in your wing spar than you took off with may not work well

The Germans could absorb 12.7mm rounds and keep them from wounding/killing the pilot. They could not keep them for wrecking the structure, fuel storage, powerplant etc.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The .50 is sort of an odd duck.
And it has several different generations.
any arguments about use in Korea will be filled in the circular bin

A .50 cal makes a hole about 40% of the area of a 20mm so it is rather good at punching holes. If there is nothing more than sheet metal for the .50 to hit a lot of power goes out the other side of the target. If the .50 hits something substantial (engine, structural members, etc) it hits with around 60% of the energy of an inert German 151/20 round and is trying to make a smaller dia but deeper hole.

The Hispano is trying to apply 70% more energy to the same size hole as the German 20mm.

Engine, structural members... or armor

Trying to fly with several extra 12.7mm holes in your wing spar than you took off with may not work well

The Germans could absorb 12.7mm rounds and keep them from wounding/killing the pilot. They could not keep them for wrecking the structure, fuel storage, powerplant etc.

I think 12.7mm AP could defeat most aircraft armor, depending on the range and angle that it hits.

From the wiki:

"penetrating 0.9 inches (23 mm) of face-hardened armor steel plate at 200 meters (220 yd),[6] 1 inch (25 mm) of rolled homogeneous armor at the same range,[7] and 0.75 inches (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m).[8]"

From what I've read I think Shortround6 gives a good description. It punches holes well, and it tends to fly pretty strait for a long distance. Hits to structure can disable, hits to armor may or may not bounce off. One tactic used by P-51 and P-40 pilots against Fw 190s was when the latter tried to extend, they would get into a long chase and, taking advantage of a relatively stationary target, shoot from further away than they normally would. Sometimes a few rounds seemed to do the trick, as they would often punch through even at 600 -700 - 800 yards.

Most 20mm are generally better because they tear apart the sheet metal (or wood, cloth), and the shrapnel can puncture things a meter or more away from the detonation, which often creates a baseball to basketball sized hole (depending on the specific round). Cannon of any type was also better at cutting control wires, hydraulic lines and so on.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Totally understand against armor but the skin?, don't think so.

yes but from a distance, you'll just see rounds (probably tracers) hitting the aircraft and bouncing off, you won't notice that it punched through and went in a foot or two before hitting the armor and then bouncing off...

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

When I was going through the MTO / North African air war in great detail, there were several accounts of German Bf 109 pilots being killed, apparently through their armor, by .50 caliber bullets. Whether it could get through their seat armor would depend on the angle and range. Armor for Bf 109 went from 8mm in Bf 109E to 10mm in F and then 14mm.

8mm generally is not going to cut it against US .50 cal AP rounds especially. 10mm probably not either. 14mm will work depending on the angle and distance. Not at say, 200 yards or less and directly behind.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Fw 190 had 12.7 - 19mm armor plate around the pilot, plus additional armor in many other areas. So that is a harder nut to crack, so to speak.

 

[Shortround6]

The American (and soviet) 12.7mm used very pointy bullets which helped retain velocity very well, however they also carried their weight further back in proportion to the projectiles length. The pointed nose also made them more likely to hit on the ogive rather than the point on angled impacts.
This meant that straight on impacts against Pilot seat armor were actually somewhat rare. Plop a hunk of 8-10mm armor down on a test range and the .50 is going punch holes in it rather well. however put a few MM worth of duralumin a meter or so in front of the armor and give it a substantial slope and things change a lot. The .50s go right through the duralumin but they tend to go sideways or at least adopt a substantial tilt. .50 cal bullet trying to make a 1.5in by .5in hole in the plate has a much tougher job than trying to punch a .5 in hole or slightly larger. Also the rear of the 109 was not empty, the L shaped fuel tank, 3-4 radio boxes and battery, air cylinders, oxygen bottle, remote compass, etc.

Odds against few hits was pretty good. But but enough bullets in there from different angles and something was going to get through.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

yes, a relatively slight angle can change things, though .50 cal to my experience has an ominous tendency to just keep going through.

There is also, as you keep noting, the type of ammunition. Japanese 12.7mm and I think(?) some Russian and Italian had small HE charges in them. These would make a bit bigger hole though they didn't have much explosive charge.

They made a very effective AP round for the Hispano 20mm and some of the German 20mm too.

The AP round for the .50 BMG was also pretty effective. I remember the British did a test on Fw 190 armor vs .303, .50 cal and 20mm Hispano, and they did not include the AP for the .50 cal, and concluded that only the 20mm Hispano could destroy them when attacking from astern.

But the .50 cal API round (the I was just a 'flash', really to mark hits as an alternative / or in addition to tracers, but it did sometimes start fires) became standard for US fighters some time in 1944. The P-51 in fact was arguably the single most effective Fw 190 killer, and the P-47 was pretty close behind. So the armor piercing round obviously did work.

Mustang pilots routinely got into long chases with the Fw especially, as I noted previously. That was often how they got them. The standard Fw 190 tactic against Spitfires etc. was to disengage and tear off at high speed. But that didn't work against a P-51B. And even with four 12.7mm guns, they were apparently shooting them down quite a bit.

 

[Shortround6]

# 3 is the Japanese 12.7mm ammo, #4 is the German 13mm ammo.
The shorter, blunter bullets make them a bit less prone to tip.
But being lighter and going slower they also don't penetrate as well.

 

[J.A.W.]

Fixed it.
The Merlin powered very few boats. Probably under a few dozen? The Packard Marine engines had absolutely nothing to do with the Merlin aside from the fact that they were both V-12s.

I do find the argument about how long the Sabre could last at high power rather amusing.
Maybe it could last more minutes at high power, but since they had to swap the engines out in 1/5 to 1/10 the time that a Merlin could last it seems to be counter productive.
And since the Merlin required less time for spark plug changes and valve adjustments could be done in frame instead of swapping out engines (general overhaul of of the Sabre) the readiness of the Merlin equipped aircraft is much higher.

"Less time for spark plug changes"?
You should know the Sabre had all 24 on each side literally 'in your face' & readily to hand, as opposed to the awkward
side-of-combustion-chamber (esp' the inner set) location of the Merlin, which also suffered more from lead-fouling,
& reduced spark plug 'life' to boot.

For your amusement re: Sabre power-setting endurance, you could check some combat reports, such as one recorded on 23 Jan `45,
when a pair of 56 Squadron pilots pursued an Me 262 on max boost ("400mph IAS @ 0ft") for more than 10mins, & duly bagged it.

Hit the link below, & scroll down the combat reports to the noted date, if you're interested.

Tempest V Performance

Tempest Performance Data, wartime flight trials and reports of Tempest aircraft. Tempest Performance Testing. Pilot Combat Reports.

www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org