The real combat history of the Ki-43

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

Not good enough against the JaBo attacks.
Or the Typhoon/Sabre program would've been cancelled - which the 'Spitfire Mafia' were dead set - on doing...

Edit:
Ok the vaunted Griffon Spit, eh? What's the saying now - oh yeah: 'a day late & a $ short'.

I should dig out a book with the account of the oh-so-proud-of-his-new-Spit Mk XII Squadron Leader who
foolishly wagered an open bar on winning a base-to-base low-level race with a Typhoon S/Ldr - to his cost.
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of the following from: Jeffrey Quill, Spitfire A Pilot's Story, (Crecy Publishing Ltd., 1996), p.234.:


For performance tests of DP.845 used is the above race see: Spitfire Mk XII DP.845 Report
 
Typhoon had a lot of problems. Tempest was the wild success story in that same particular (low level fighter and fighter-bomber) niche.

If they had put something like the Tempest wing on a Hurricane I suspect that would have done a lot better as well, and have been much more useful into 1943-44.

From reading the operational histories it seems like clipped wing LF Spitfires (even the Spit V versions) did pretty well at low levels. Roll rate was superb, and that mattered a lot for fighter vs fighter combat (especially for avoiding being shot down) and in particular against Fw 190s. Maybe not as ideal for bombing as Typhoon / Tempest but serviceable in that role and quite lethal as a low-level fighter.
 
In another thread on the Russian front, someone posted a very interesting academic analysis of the air war in WW2 in the context of the Russians, and their argument was that the Americans and British out competed the Germans in the air because the former made more engines of better quality than the latter. The DB 600 series and later BMW 800 series were very good engines IMO, but I guess the gist was that the Merlin, Griffin, and I guess the P&W 2800 had more potential for greater power and better altitude performance, and were produced in rather vast numbers.

I don't know enough about engines to evaluate that properly but it's an interesting theory.
 
This is the article https://www.ww2.dk/Dan Zamansky - The Study.pdf

This is part of the conclusion:

"As discussed in Section 2, the Allies were successful in developing and deploying aviation technology,
especially engines, of superior quality which overwhelmed German air power. It can be said
that Germany attempted to initiate a parallel qualitative and asymmetric race by producing
rocket and jet engine technologies which the Allies had not yet deployed, having had no
success in the symmetric competition over piston aircraft technology. "
 
yes that is a very good point, though even with the fuel they had, it seems like they could have made a good turbo or two stage supercharger. The hydromatic type they used was brilliant but it could only go so far.
 
J.A.W. said:
The Spitfire Mk 21 wasn't a success, the AFDU wrote a scathing report on it, esp' in relation to its flight control characteristics,
& by comparison to earlier marks,
Click to expand...
Scathing here means not as good as before.
J.A.W. said:
In fact, production was cancelled, & the following 20-series types received the larger Spiteful tail empennage to ameliorate the issue,
& 40 brand new Mk 21s were unceremoniously sent to Shoeburyness for use as research targets (grounded) -
Click to expand...
Lots of production was cancelled due to the war ending or obviously ending. Castle Bromwich was being cancelled as an aircraft production location, the F.21 and F.22 shared the same Supermarine type number, the former was high back and small tail, the latter had the bubble canopy and "Spiteful" tail F.21 produced from April 1944 to January 1946, F.22 from March 1945 to February 1946, 55 of the 122 F.21 were built by end March 1945, then the two types were being built in parallel. If things were that bad in the F.21 the fix was easy and obvious.

The original claim was none of the F.21 were used, now it is a third, both claims are wrong. In 1945/46 the RAF is supposed to send some of its latest production to be destroyed in armament tests when it literally had thousands of airframes to dispose of.
J.A.W. said:
the Spitfire V was thereby approved for a 450mph IAS at low level,
Click to expand...
The Typhoon dive speed reported was TAS, Spitfire given as IAS and at low level?
J.A.W. said:
(& why the RAF rushed the Typhoon in to service - while rejecting the Bell P-39 which had been bought on the promise of its low-level speed, but didn't deliver on test)
Click to expand...
Typhoon, 56 squadron "reformed" with Typhoon on 11 September 1941, first Typhoon operation 20 June 1942 by 2 squadrons, up to 3 operational squadrons on 19 July 1942. First P-39 imported in June 1941, 601 Squadron received its first in August 1941, first operation 6 October. The Russian delegation arrived on 8 December 1941, but 18 P-39 had already been exported in November followed by another 29 in December. 601 squadron went to Spitfires in March 1942. Assigning the P-39 to the USSR helped fill the British quota of fighters, removed a fighter type from the RAF that clearly needed some debugging and was in line with the RAF requirement in 1941 for altitude performance, then came the news the Red Air Force liked the type.

The urgent low level requirements were later, seen by the Spitfire XII starting production in October 1942.
J.A.W. said:
The Hurricane only carried 4 rockets,
Click to expand...
Not what the RAF raid reports say.
Sabre IV failed to pass the 50 hour test, the other engines largely succeeded. Earlier came the idea the RAF did not want altitude performance so the Sabre IV failure did not matter. Here apparently the IV sets up the success of the V, of which 5 were built in 1943, 22 in 1944 and 68 in 1945 (36 of these August onwards). The RAF converted II to V post war creating a sizeable amount of the total Sabre V stock but any Sabre/Typhoon failure really is a success it seems.
While a capability the Sabre did not have is expensive and unused, apparently even with the Spitfire XIV flying top cover for the Tempests. The RAF heavies flew around 20,000 feet in day raids, escorts needed to be higher.

So where are the lists of claimed victories by Spitfires by altitude? The Luftwaffe rarely flew high when doing ground support.

So where are the trials showing the average error when bombing was greater in Spitfires than Typhoons?

So where are the lists of claimed victories broken down by Spitfire mark, and are they corrected for the opportunities the type had versus other types? V-1 a well as regular Luftwaffe types. Noting for example Spitfire XIV providing top cover for Tempests.
J.A.W. said:
Likewise, the expensive turbo-optimised P-38 & P-47 were relegated by the P-51B/C/D from the 'glamour' 8th AAF 'strategic missions'
to TAF 'mud-moving' -
Click to expand...
Anyone else feel the desire to rewrite the above P-38/P-47 to Typhoon, P-51 to Spitfire?
The 9th AF noted a loss rate (Missing+Category E) of 1.2% for the P-38 and 0.74% for the P-47, the P-38 claimed a 1 kill per 124 credit sorties the P-47 1 kill per 175 sorties, indicating the P-38 probably saw more Luftwaffe fighters on average. Bombs were P-39 690.5 pounds per effective sortie P-47 591.5 pounds, the P-47 probably did more escorting plus used rockets. Total Droop Snoot bombing was 31 sorties airborne, 19 effective dropping 10 short tons of bombs. it would be interesting to see what the overall Typhoon loss rate was, given the usual anecdotal reports of heavy losses. John Foreman lists Typhoon losses as 87 in June and 67 in July 1944, the 9th AF says 52 and 47 P-38 along with 210 and 154 P-47.

J.A.W. said:
Again you repeat the mistake of conflating Sabre design/performance with poor British manufacturing/organisational effort.
Click to expand...
End 1942 Sabre Time Between Overhauls was 25 hours. Helps explain why there were so many Sabre in the repair system. I am impressed that someone who has been talking about so many low quality British aviation products decided to claim the above. It would be great to drop the attitude of the Sabre/Typhoon is the answer or it does not matter, now what was the question?
 
Gentlemen

While not Stats for the entire war, I have attached stats for 83 Group Sorties by type for the period June to August 1944 in Normandy show that 3 Mustang III squadrons averaged 1.03 losses per 100 sorties, 12 Spitfire Mk IX Squadrons averaged .57 losses per 100 sorties, and 10 Typhoon IB squadrons averaged 1.01 losses per 100 sorties. Note that the chart shows a dearth of Tanks damaged/destroyed versus the Typhoon.

Data for the 9th Air Force for May 22 through Sept 4 1944 shows P-51, 1.08 losses per 100 sorties, P-47 .93 losses per 100 sorties, and P-38 1.51 losses per 100 sorties. USAF losses include Cat E.

Data (derived)for 9th AF Stats from "IX Air Force Service Commandin Operation Overlord" pages 36, 37, and 38.

83rd Group Data in attached table.

FWIW

Eagledad
 

Attachments

  • 83 group Stats 6-44 8-44.png
    52.5 KB · Views: 23
I think one problem with the P-38, and to a lesser extent the P-47, Typhoon and Tempest, is that they were so big. They made bigger targets especially AA. Mainly for this reason P-38 wasn't generally ideal for CAS missions.
 
You can further parse this data by hours airborne (VLR escort) means longer over enemy territory. Or ground attack invites more opportunity for AAA strikes. My point being there is a bit more to those numbers (some missions being more dangerous than others).
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
By this time there seems to have been some US Navy assets in the Indian Ocean, as the 64th Sentai did encounter US Navy aircraft.
Click to expand...
Those were most likely FAA F6Fs and F4Us operating aboard British carriers. The US Navy mainly provided logistical support for the British Navy in this theater of operation. By this time of the war USN carriers were serving primarily in the Pacific Ocean.
 
As I noted earlier in this thread, the USS Saratoga and 3 escorting destroyers joined the British Eastern Fleet on 27th March 1944. In conjunction with HMS Illustrious she raided Sabang (just off north end of Sumatra) on 19th April and then Soerabaja, Java on 17th May. After that she took her leave off NW Australia to return to the USA to refit.

Saratoga V (CV-3)

On 17 October 1777, American troops commanded by General Horatio Gates compelled a British Army led by General John Burgoyne to surrender at Saratoga, N.Y. This victory ended a prolonged British effort to cut the colonies in two and induced France to enter the war as America's ally.
www.history.navy.mil


The first British Hellcats in the Indian Ocean arrived in southern India in April 1944. They only went aboard their parent carrier Indomitable, on 25th July, first seeing combat on 23rd Aug.

The fighter squadrons on Illustrios & Victorious in this period flew Corsairs.
 
Yes Ewen I read your post and believed I was supporting it. We were talking about late summer/early fall 1944 so just about the beginning phases of the push on the Philippine Islands.

Are you saying the US Navy had carrier groups in the Indian Ocean during this time? I'm interested to know because I have nothing in my library which gives me an indication that they were operating in this region this late in 1944.
 
Sorry if i misinterpreted your post. It didn't read to me that you were referring to a later period.

Saratoga was the only US carrier to serve operationally in the IO. Might have been some transport CVE making trips to India with aircraft though. I've not researched that aspect.

Also worth noting that FAA markings at the time were small blue/white roundels, distinct from large US stars & bars. The large blue/white roundels with US style bars weren't adopted by the BPF until after they arrived in Sydney in Feb 1945. So there really should not have been much doubt in Japanese minds as to which nationality they were fighting. But in the heat of combat ..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
fiatG.55 combat history
Replies
0
Views
661
Jerrybandit67
J
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Engineman
E
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
646
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
11K
EwenS
E
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register