The real combat history of the Ki-43 (3 Viewers)

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

Totally meaningless extracts!!!!

Because surely the idea that propeller/gun tactics were identical to jet/missile tactics cannot be wrong!

Let me remind you that this is exactly what has been peddled for 80 years: Jet age tactics are fundamentally the same as prop era tactics... Literally.

High yoyos! Low yoyos! Scissors! Energy Management!

I will eventually do a YT video about it. The provisional title is: "Greg Airplanes and the curse of boomer historians"
 
Attack, extend, and return if useful were useful tactics in many a fighter-pilot's mind, in all theaters. Diving into a fight is not the same as committing to a turn-fight. That whole trading-speed-for-altitude thing.

Dive away and out, separate and return for another pass, or zoom back up to reconvert kinetic to potential, depending on how your plane flies and what you're trained for.
 
Something to remember is the reduction in effective range of Luftwaffe fighters in 1945 imposed by the amount of allied air activity, the aircraft needed to keep more fuel reserves to cope with diversions or loitering waiting for the allied airfield attack to stop. Also the Jumo 004 fuel consumption was poor, more so at high speed, so like the piston types most of the flight was at cruise speeds, throwing a Jumo 004 powered aircraft around the sky was not a good idea, even before talking about the slower throttle response of jets versus piston engines.

When it comes to the Me262 Hitler's 1944 decision meant the bomber units received more of the early production. The bomber units were mostly deployed in north west Germany where the RAF found its fighter top speeds were just good enough to intercept, but like the Luftwaffe trying for Mosquitoes it tended to require a favourable initial situation or the target not noticing the interceptor, as a result the RAF did rat catching sorties, Tempests held at cockpit readiness which when an Me262 was detected by radar would scramble to patrol the probable Me262 base. Luftwaffe deployments meant the RAF largely dealt with Me262 bombers, the USAAF the fighters, and it is important to remember the bomber units when counting Me262 operations and losses.

Operational units, 10 January 1945, II/NJG 11 had some Me262 alongside its Bf110, while stab/KG51, I/KG51 and Kdo Braunegg had 57 between them as of 9 April that became a total of 180 Me262 in operational units,

5 in stab/JG7
41 in I/JG7
30 in II/JG7
37 in I/KG(J)54
30 in Jvb 44
15 in I/KG51
6 in II/KG51
9 in 10. NJG11
7 in Naufl 6

We have two ideas colliding "Me-262 getting properly slaughtered with few results until it got R4M rockets," and "(and it also shows that kill claims are drastically unreliable, particularly from US pilots: I rate them level with IJN in claim credibility, which is also low.)"

We are not given an idea of how low, just a belief. Let us assume it is a 5 to 1 overclaim, like the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain or the RAF over France in 1941. We now turn our attention to the maths is fun section of your educational survival guide, right beside the panicking with dignity insert.

Thanks to Ultra and fitting gun cameras in early 1943 the RAF had tightened its criteria so Fighter Command was close to 1 to 1 claims to actual shoot downs, while in 1944 the use of G suits and gyroscopic gunsights further increased the average allied fighter lethality.

According to the Luftwaffe quartermaster January to November 1944 Luftflottes Reich and 3 lost 1,730 aircraft MIA on operations plus 4,535 to enemy aircraft, total 6,265, out of 8,102 lost to enemy action and 12,122 total losses. In the same time period RAF Fighter Command made 1,589 and Bomber Command 486 claims, total 2,075, the USAAF in the ETO listed 7,096 claims in the air, bringing the allied total to 9,171 against the 6,265 available Luftwaffe losses.

Now comes the fun part, dividing the 4,735 USAAF fighter claims by 5 means we are down to 5,383, so those USAAF bomber gunners were shooting down at least 3 times more aircraft than the fighters, while underclaiming and would have been doing much better in 1943 when the average Luftwaffe fighter had less firepower. Heading back to reality in early 1944 the heavy bomber to interceptor loss ratio was about 2 to 1 in favour of the interceptors, apply that and the allied figure drops to 7,578 against 6,265 or around 83%

The above must remain broad, there were other allied formations encountering the western and central Luftwaffe, notably the 15th Air Force, but it does show claims about systematic major allied overclaiming in the time period to be junk.

Gaston's turn fighter idea requires ignoring lots of data.

During 1944 the USAAF ETO fighters were awarded 4.33 claims per reported loss to enemy fighters, in 1945 that climbed to 6 to 1, in raw terms the USAAF fighters claimed 158 Me262 shot down while JG 7 claimed 6 P-38, 9 P-47 and 31 P-51 then add JV 44 etc. About half the Me262 claims appear to be correct and assume 80% of the USAAF ones and you have 127 USAAF to 23 JG 7 plus others. The Me262 were there as bomber destroyers, trying to avoid combat with escorts.

Next on the Gaston missing data is the reality JG 7 flew 5 to 10 times the number of sorties in March 1945 versus February with a corresponding jump in claims and losses, April was similar versus February, if you throw away the big jump in sorties you can claim the R4M to be a wonder weapon and throw in yet more wonder turn fighter ideas. As noted earlier JG 7 was shooting down around 1.3 to 1.4 allied aircraft per combat loss and overall losing 1 Me262 per shoot down, which was significantly better than the piston engine types were achieving at the time. By the way in 1944/45 German aero engine quality made fighter pilots wary about actually using full power.

There are not a lot of allied fighter claims for Me262, it is simple enough to see where the combats occurred. According to John Foreman, RAF claims look something like this, in the air, not around jet airfields unless noted.

1944

27 September, Me262 damaged in air, it pulled away from the Spitfire (A mark IX)
30 September, Me262 damaged by a Spitfire, again a mark IX
2 October, Me262 damaged by a Spitfire, again a mark IX

5 October Me262 destroyed by a patrol of Spitfires, the combat started at 13,000 feet, the jet dived, with some of the Spitfires following it, then it climbed back into the others. Wreck fell into allied territory.

13 October, Me262 destroyed by a Tempest, even though the Tempest was doing 480 mph the jet pulled away but them slowed down and was caught. Again the wreck fell in allied territory. Also on this day another Tempest damaged an Me262 that finally outran the attacker.

21 October Tempests claimed 2 damaged Me262s
28 October Tempest claim for a damaged Me262.
2 November Tempests claimed 3 damaged Me262s.

3 November a Tempest on a test flight spotted 2 Me262s, closed at full power and was spotted too late by the jets, the Tempest was doing 500 mph when it opened fire as the jets began to accelerate, the claim was for one probable kill, later post war research showed the jet was shot down.

4 November, Tempest claimed one damaged Me262 on the ground while Rat Catching, the Tempest returned home.
19 November, Tempests claimed 1 damaged and 1 probable Me262 on the ground while Rat Catching, the Tempests all returned home.
21 November 2 Tempests chased an Me262 from Volkel to the Rheine jet airfield area, claimed it as damaged.

26 November, Tempest Rat Catching, 1st combat 1 Me262 claimed damaged and 1 destroyed on the ground for 1 Tempest shot down by flak and another damaged, 2nd combat 1 Me262 damaged for no Tempest casualties.

3 December, Me262 shot down at zero feet by Tempests, near its airbase. Pilot killed.
4 December, Tempest claim of an Me262 damaged north of its airbase.

10 December, Tempest claim of an Me262 damaged, after diving from 14,000 feet on a pair of the jets at 8,000 feet. It looks like the damaged jet actually crashed, killing the pilot.

17 December, Tempest pursued an Me262 from Helmond to Wesel, finally shooting it down, killing the pilot. The RAF pilot involved was John Wray, who had made the claim for a probable jet on 3 November, making him the only RAF pilot to shoot down 2 Me262s.

23 December a Spitfire IX chased an Me262 from Antwerp to Eindhoven claiming it damaged.

25 December, a Spitfire IXs sent back to escort a fellow aircraft with a failing engine, listened to his squadron mates shooting down Bf109s, decided to work off frustration by doing a power dive near Heesch and pulled out behind an Me262, which was shot down, later a Spitfire IX shot down another Me262, southwest of Aachen and in the same area some Tempests engaged 2 more Me262s shooting down 1. Also some Tempests spotted 5 Ar234s and claimed 1 damaged. Looks like all 3 kill claims were correct.

26 December Spitfire IXs claimed an Me262 damaged near Julich and another near Stavelot.
27 December Spitfire IX claimed an Me262 damaged near Aachen.

1945

1 January, Spitfires claimed 1 damaged Me262 near the Rheine jet airbase 14 January, Spitfire IXs caught an Me262 in the landing pattern at Rheine and shot it down, the pilot parachuting. Also a pair of Spitfire PR.XIs encountered 2 Me163s, with one Spitfire being shot down and 1 Me163 claimed to have crashed, the claim being "by evasion"

23 January Spitfire IXs spotted a group of Ar324s (initially identified as Me262s) in the Bramsche landing circuit and made claims of 3 destroyed and 4 damaged for no losses. At Rheine a Spitfire IX claimed 1 Me262 destroyed on the ground and 1 in the airfield circuit. (As an example of the Luftwaffe cover of the jet airfields 2 groups of Tempests hit the top (11,000 feet) and lower cover (8,000 feet) at Rheine claiming 5 Bf109s and Fw190s destroyed and 1 damaged for no losses, 3 Luftwaffe pilots were killed in this combat)

24 January Spitfires claimed an Me262 damaged near Munster but lost a pilot to flak.
1 February, to reverse things, a Typhoon was shot down, probably by an Me262.
11 February A Tempest chased an Me262 or Ar234 20 miles to Rheine airfield and shot it down near the base.

14 February Spitfire XIVs attacked the Rheine airfield cover claiming 1 Fw190 destroyed, 1 probable and 2 damaged and actually shooting down all 4, covering for 2 of their number who claimed 2 Me262s damaged in the airfield circuit. Meantime 2 Typhoons just reforming after completing a bomb run found 2 Me262s appearing out of the clouds just below them on a parallel course, they shot down both, killing the pilots. Later another Typhoon claimed an Me262 damaged near Emmerich. Also a Spitfire IX stalked 3 Me262s, keeping all but the canopy and the tail in cloud, finally shooting down one and killing the pilot. A Tempest claimed 1 damaged Me262 as it was taking off at Rheine.

21 February an Me262 claimed damaged by a Spitfire near Emmerich and an Allison engined Mustang (Tactical reconnaissance unit) pilot seems to have claimed an Me262 damaged. One of these might be Werke 170099.

23 February Mustang pilot claimed 1 Me262 damaged.

25 February Spitfires operating around Rheine airfield claimed 2 Me262s damaged in the air, along with 9 piston engined fighters shot down, for 1 Spitfire shot down by flak and another lost to engine failure. The German fighter units in the combat lost 10 aircraft and 7 pilots.

2 March a Spitfire XIV spotted an Ar234, dived to attack and shot it down, but over stressed the Spitfire and it was written off on return to base. Tempests found Bf109s and Ar234s at Lingen, claiming 4 Bf109s and 1 Ar234 destroyed plus 1 Ar234 damaged and, after that fight, another Ar234 was claimed damaged near Rheine. The Ar234 unit, 9./KG76 reported 2 losses.

12 March, a lone Spitfire IX sent to "chase away" an Me262 harassing British troops near Wesel saw the jet appear out of cloud just ahead and above, and shot it down in full view of the ground troops.

14 March Tempests claimed an Ar234 destroyed near Quackenbruck.
15 March A Tempest claimed an Ar234 damaged near Rheine.
23 March Mustang pilots claimed 1 Me262 destroyed and 5 damaged mainly while protecting RAF bombers.
24 March, Tempest airfield strikes lost 1 to flak and another possibly to an Me262.
31 March Mustangs claimed 1 Me262 damaged.
9 April Mustangs claimed 5 Me262s destroyed and 2 damaged when protecting RAF bombers.
10 April a Mustang claimed an Me163 over Halle.
11 April Tempests destroyed an unidentified jet aircraft, possibly a He162.
12 April Spitfire XIVs claimed an Ar234 shot down west of Bremen.
14 April a Spitfire saw an Me110 towing an Me163, the Me163 was released but the Spitfire claimed both as shot down.
15 April Tempests shot down an Ar234 taking off from Kaltenkirchen.
16 April 2 Ar234s strafed and claimed damaged at Ludwigshurst

20 April An Me262 claimed destroyed, along with 20 Fw190s and 14 Bf109s in air combat over Germany. An Ar234 claimed destroyed in an airfield strafe.

22 April Night time Airfield strafes claimed 1 Me262 destroyed and another damaged
24 April the first Meteor claim, a Ju88 damaged on the ground.

25 April Tempests claimed an Me262 destroyed over Blankensee airfield, a Spitfire XIV chased 2 Me262s at low level, gaining while doing 400 mph, the pilot assumed the jets were trying to lure him over a flak area, he broke off and waited until the jets were in the airfield circuit, hitting one as it was landing, and watching the other, when trying to land in the opposite direction, lose its starboard undercarriage "Final results of the fire in the first Me262 were not observed owing to intense light flak from the airfield defences."

26 April Typhoons claimed 1 of 2 Me262s that attacked them.

2 May Tempests claimed an Me262 damaged at 50 feet. A Spitfire XIV claimed an Ar234 shot down in the Hohn airfield landing circuit, and another Spitfire an Me262 damaged in the air.

All this assuming I have not missed any in my quick run through.

As a minor aside, stern chase closing speed 180 mph, opening fire at half a mile, 10 seconds of shooting before collision, if you allow 440 or so yards as a limit after which most WWII fighter pilot missed, the 30 mph faster target staring beside you will be out of effective range in 30 seconds, one moving at 60 mph faster who only approaches within 220 yards, 7.5 seconds.

Also complex systems tend to be harder to predict, and the smaller the sample size the higher the level of uncertainty, recent political opinion polling is showing that the most, as people have more diverse backgrounds along with communication and lifestyle options it makes it much harder to find a decent representative sample.

What people know around here is the way those with a predetermined outcome select the evidence to fit.
 
IIRC the R4M was only used for a period of about 1-2 months at the end of the war?

The R4M (like most rockets) produced very visible smoke trails at launch, so even if the individual bomber(s) targeted did not notice the smoke trail, other bombers/bomber formations and the escorting fighters would be likely to.

Also, although the R4M had a very short operational period, the Luftwaffe had been using other rocket types (including the Werfer-Granate 21) since the summer(?) of 1943, so the Allies were aware of the possibility.
 
Last edited:
W wrathofatlantis I think you are onto something regarding the low-speed handling of WW2 fighter aircraft. But I also genuinely enjoy reading someone who has a different but reasonably well-supported argument in favor of a fringe hypothesis.

The only morsel of knowledge that I have on the subject is how games like Warthunder use a point system for aircraft. The higher the points, the "better" it is. Because points are assigned based on how an aircraft performs against other fighters of its class, this is not a purely arbitrary number.

Aircraft also get faster and faster as points increase. But there's something odd that happens at the lower tiers, particularly WW2-generation aircraft: low-speed turn rate dramatically outperforms faster aircraft. This impact is so pronounced that the N1K2-J Shiden-Kai with a top speed of 380 MPH has a tier of around 6, which has it fighting against Jets. The P-51 Mustang can have a battle rating as low as 4 or 3.7, which has it facing off against some pretty early aircraft.

For whatever reason, turn rate is highly prized in many simulators and other kinds of video games.
 
There were several types that were fantastic turn-fighters, like the A6M, Fw190 and KI-43. Their tactic was to drawn an opponent into a low speed engagement where their aircraft were at their best. Early in the Pacific war, many American pilots learned the hard way that engaging the Japanese on their terms was a fatal mistake.

The same can be said for the British when the Fw190 made it's debut.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Me262 was at a disadvantage if it dropped it's airspeed to match a turning fight with Allied pilots. The jet pilots did, however, exploit the Me262s excellent high-speed turning abilities against Allied types when they engaged in a turning fight, which put the Allied pilots at a disadvantage and many paid dearly for that mistake.

So yes, there are.some advantages to low speed fighting, but must be put into proper context.
 
Air combat is almost 4 dimensional. We understand 3 dimensions pretty easy but a lot of air fighting involved time. Good pilots were trying to figure out where the enemy would be several seconds ahead of where they are . Or they were trying to get into a position that they enemy could not follow or at least into a space in the air the enemy could not shoot into.
Constantly turning makes a plane a difficult target. The Pursuer is constantly having to figure out deflection shots (aiming ahead of the turning plane) instead of just firing from the 6 o'clock position. This makes a more difficult target than just diving or climbing away.
Climbing away without turning is gift to the attacker. The steeper the plane climbs the slower the plane flies making it real easy for the pursuer to catch up. There are exceptions so we can look at these. The Zero was "known" to be fast climber but it wasn't quite as good as some people think. However in 1942 the allied planes truly sucked at climbing so things were relative. The other thing was that the Zero had a steep climbing gradient. It's best climb speed was 20-40mph slower than the allied aircraft so it climbed at a steep angle, which really made it 'look' like it had a even faster climb. Assuming you had a Stripped P-40 and over boosted the engine you might have the same climb in fpm, but the stripped P-40 was moving 20-40mph faster and would take a longer distance horizontally to climb the same amount of attitude. Zero is now behind you, but flying slower. This is an extreme example.
Turning fights involve a lot of things happening at the same time. Very few of which are recorded in action reports or memoirs. Flying anything but straight and level (or diving) increases in drag and more a plane banks the higher the drag, the more "G"s a plane pulls the higher the drag (increase angle of attack) and flying around at part throttle while pulling Gs for very long means you run out of air speed and get introduced to the ground very hard. Somewhere around a 20 second 360 turn was considered good in WW II. But there were a number of ways to do a 20 second turn, you could do a small diameter, low speed turn or you could do a larger diameter higher speed turn or several variations in-between. The wide high speed turn will not allow you to put the bead on the slower tighter tuning plane but the tighter turning plan also cannot shoot at the faster plane unless the faster plane actually passes the slower plane by a good margin (is turning more degrees a second which might not be the case while turning a larger circumference circle.

But both planes are constantly loosing speed while turning UNLESS one plane can balance it's engine power against the drag of turning.

Just of interest the US NACA did a study of of some 1930s race planes and put recording G meters in few and had them do low level pylon turns. Some of these planes used 6 cylinder air cooled engines but they were tiny planes and the engines were not stock. At any rate it took 10 seconds to do a 180 degree turn averaging 2 Gs on the G meter and the planes that started the turn at 220mph finished the turn at 180mph. One wonders if the plane would have stayed in the air doing a 360 degree turn?

the real problem with using the tight turn as a defense is if the enemy has any friends hanging around or showing up a few minutes late to the party. Not getting shot down by #1 attacking is certainly important but running out of air speed and altitude about the time # 2 and # 3 show up ended badly for many pilots. A lot pilots that got shot down were unaware of their attacker. Many not because they flying around admiring the clouds and didn't know there were enemy around (there were some cases) but because they either chasing one enemy and got shot down by another or because while evading #1 they got hit by the unseen #2.

Going back to the beginning, not very many pilots got good training in deflection shooting (USN prewar was pretty good but it was often taught by squadron commanders and not schools). Some pilots figured it out on their own.
Not using the engine's power to good advantage may well be an indication in lack of trust of the engine. Not saying to fly around at max war emergency power for 5-15minutes at a time but using more power than 2/3s power to allow for slightly tighter turn (higher) without loosing altitude might be a good thing. Or to improve acceleration for 10-20 seconds after a maneuver that really bled off some speed.
 
One of the books on the AVG has a story of fighting the Ki-27, the best IJA plane at the time deployed. The AVG pilots were cautioned not to follow the Ki-27 in turning maneuvers, especially a loop. One who did not believe his instructor, jumped a Ki-27 by surprise, and saw his quarry immediately pull straight up, out of sight. As he followed upward, he found the Ki-27 had completed his loop and was putting holes into the P-40. The AVG pilot remembered to dive away and survived, lesson taught.
 
special ed said:
...the Ki-27, the best IJA plane at the time deployed.
Click to expand...

Huh? The best IJA deployed at the time of the AVG's first combat was the Ki-43, successor to the Ki-27. The Ki-43 was first operational over China in Oct 41 and was also in combat from 8 Dec (Malaya time) onwards, both well ahead of the AVG's first combat on 20 Dec 1941.
 
The AVG still battled the KI-27, like over Rangoon on 20 December 1941.

Also, during the opening phases of Japan's Burma campaign, the AVG (and RAF) encountered KI-27s in January '42.

The KI-27 could out maneuver the P-40, but lacked speed and firepower to justify it remaining in theater any longer than it took for the KI-43 to arrive in strength.

In a bit of irony, the last day of the AVG's operation before disbanding, they shot down four KI-27s over Hengyang on 4 July 1942.
 

I'm not denying any of that. I'm simply observing that the Ki-27 was not the best fighter deployed by the IJA in Dec 1941.
 
AerialTorpedoDude69 said:
For whatever reason, turn rate is highly prized in many simulators and other kinds of video games.
Click to expand...

That's because the virtual pilots do not feel the fatigue induced by high G turning combat.

Something like 20 years ago, some russian wwII pilot , after seeing How air combats were executed in il-2 sturmovik said something like this:.
i see you doing hard turns of more than 3G's, in real life , after less than 3 minutes, you're so exhausted, you can only fly your plane straight.
 
Some combat Sims will offer +G blackout and -G redout, but most often, that feature is switched off, because it's "annoying".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Similar threads

Regarding the true combat performance of the P-38 (and other advanced US fighters) in the PTO from 1942-44
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
12K
beers
N
How capable was the Ki-44?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
10K
Irregualr23
I
The last dogfight of WWII
Replies
5
Views
2K
Gnomey
A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
4K
Airborne2001
A
C
B-29 Deployments to the Marianas - and the limits of AI
Replies
19
Views
1K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register