The real combat history of the Ki-43 (1 Viewer)

MiTasol said:

Too much guitar?

Or not enough?

Click to expand...

Too much scrollin', brotha. I got nine left for guitarin', and Tony plays without fingertips, who am I to complain? Plus, it's my right index, so I can still do barre chords, just change my pick-grip a little.

The dog came and snapped it up before I could get it and head for the rapid-care. Little bastard's fat enough as it is.

Ah

I thought you were commenting on the post before yours - not actually missing the digit.

My commiserations and best wishes for a speedy recovery.

wrathofatlantis said:

In the 1940-43 period, all sides used dive and zoom tactics whenever possible

Click to expand...

Certainly, not all pilots in the VVS on the Eastern Front. And for the simple reason, VVS aircraft were less suited for dive, boom and zoom, especially in 1941-1942.

As for low-speed turns, I can't cite the manuals, but such turns were part of the tactic of the successful I-16 pilots in their fights against Bf 109s, according to some memoirs. Then those pilots (if they survived) transferred to P-39, La-5, etc., and they changed their tactics. Probably, they knew something.

Dimlee said:

Certainly, not all pilots in the VVS on the Eastern Front. And for the simple reason, VVS aircraft were less suited for dive, boom and zoom, especially in 1941-1942.

As for low-speed turns, I can't cite the manuals, but such turns were part of the tactic of the successful I-16 pilots in their fights against Bf 109s, according to some memoirs. Then those pilots (if they survived) transferred to P-39, La-5, etc., and they changed their tactics. Probably, they knew something.

Click to expand...

The VVS and the Japanese Army were two of the rare exceptions that did not wholly embrace hit and run early in the War.

Note how the Russians tried to keep biplanes relevant by testing them with foldable bottom wings, and also through using biplanes with retractable landing gears (the only ones to see service I think)... They are also the only major service to not introduce a twin engine heavy day fighter. The interesting thing with the Russians is they split air combat into two types of tactics: Vertical combat (essentially Hit and Run) and Horizontal combat (turning at low speeds).

It seems in practice they considered the La-5 as mostly a "horizontal fighter", often flown at reduced throttle and always with the canopy open, and the Yak-9 (and Spitfires) as mostly a "vertical fighters". I remember reading one Russian pilot who praised the P-39 because it could do "both the vertical and the horizontal".

This nomenclature made perfect sense, but I only ever heard it used by the Soviets.

I think the one heavy fighter the Japanese Army introduced, the Ki-45, was intended mainly as an anti-ship aircraft from the start, which is why the fuselage was built around this semi-auto 37 mm cannon tunnel. It was never intended as a day fighter.

The US Navy also seemed to have been more open to prolonged low speed turns right from the start, while for the USAAF it was more of a "learning on the job" thing.

MiTasol said:

Ah

I thought you were commenting on the post before yours - not actually missing the digit.

My commiserations and best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Click to expand...

I was commenting on the preceding post, I still have all ten fingers, I was in a puckish mood last night.

wrathofatlantis said:

[...] and also through using biplanes with retractable landing gears (the only ones to see service I think)...

Click to expand...

Small niggle: the US Navy had a couple of biplanes with retractable gear in service in the 30s as well.

Actually 3 Grumman Fighter types FF, F2F, & F3F. And don't forget the Curtis Helldiver Biplane Dive bomber. There are probably a few others, but those are the ones that come to mind Along with the I-153.

wrathofatlantis said:

They are also the only major service to not introduce a twin engine heavy day fighter

Click to expand...

The VVS had the Pe-3, Tu-2S "aircraft 104" variant and the Tairov Ta-3.
The Ta-3 held a great deal of potential, but the project was stopped when Tairov was killed in a plane wreck in 1941.

wrathofatlantis said:

the Ki-45, was intended mainly as an anti-ship aircraft from the start,

Click to expand...

No, the KI-45 was originally intended to be a long range escort fighter for their bombers.
Later variants were armed to attack naval, ground or airborne targets with various cannon arrangements.
The KI-102 and KI-96 were intended to be the KI-45's replacement.

The IJN's heavy fighter was the J1N, which also had several variants.

The Japanese had other heavy fighter projects, like the J5N, KI-93, KI-83, etc.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I was commenting on the preceding post, I still have all ten fingers, I was in a puckish mood last night.

Click to expand...

and I was obviously to tired to see that

Bugga

wrathofatlantis said:

Note how the Russians tried to keep biplanes relevant by testing them with foldable bottom wings, and also through using biplanes with retractable landing gears (the only ones to see service I think)... They are also the only major service to not introduce a twin engine heavy day fighter.

Click to expand...

207 Pe-3 + 134 Pe-3bis were built. The OKO-6 by Tairov was ready for serial production (one of the Soviets' missed opportunities). Polikarpov's TIS and Mikoyan/Gurevich's DIS-200 were tested. The absence of a heavy fighter in mass production was a consequence of the weakness of the Soviet industry (primarily engine building) and the lack of aluminum.

wrathofatlantis said:

The interesting thing with the Russians is they split air combat into two types of tactics: Vertical combat (essentially Hit and Run) and Horizontal combat (turning at low speeds).

Click to expand...

Soviet air combat instructions indicated the possibility of using both vertical and horizontal maneuvers, but ONLY vertical maneuvers were considered offensive tactics, and horizontal maneuvers were exclusively defensive. Moreover, the instruction considered turn fighting as "absolutely unacceptable" when the fighter had sufficient vertical maneuverability. I am too lazy to translate the Soviet instructions, I can post the Russian text, you can use automatic translators.

wrathofatlantis said:

It seems in practice they considered the La-5 as mostly a "horizontal fighter", often flown at reduced throttle and always with the canopy open

Click to expand...

They simply considered the La-5 as inferior to the Bf109G in all kinds of maneuver. But already the La-5FN was nearly equal to the Bf109G-2 in vertical maneuver, and superior to the FW 190A-4 in climb rate - this was reflected in tactics. The La-5 of the first production batches was little better than the LaGG (if better at all). "Horizontal" fighters were those that were vastly inferior to enemy fighters in vertical maneuver. Don't laud the necessity as a virtue.

wrathofatlantis said:

and the Yak-9 (and Spitfires) as mostly a "vertical fighters". I remember reading one Russian pilot who praised the P-39 because it could do "both the vertical and the horizontal".

Click to expand...

As soon as engine power was increased or the airframe lightened, the fighter immediately became "vertical" - regardless of the designer.
The Soviet pilots on the Spitfires first used turn fighting just because they did not know any other, as they flown planes that were too inferior in vertical maneuvering to the enemy previously.

wrathofatlantis said:

This nomenclature made perfect sense, but I only ever heard it used by the Soviets.

Click to expand...

The nomenclature reflects only insufficient performance of Soviet fighters in vertical maneuver until late 1943 or even early 1944 as well as the use of obsolete tactics due to insufficient training.

bf109xxl said:

207 Pe-3 + 134 Pe-3bis were built. The OKO-6 by Tairov was ready for serial production (one of the Soviets' missed opportunities). Polikarpov's TIS and Mikoyan/Gurevich's DIS-200 were tested. The absence of a heavy fighter in mass production was a consequence of the weakness of the Soviet industry (primarily engine building) and the lack of aluminum.

Soviet air combat instructions indicated the possibility of using both vertical and horizontal maneuvers, but ONLY vertical maneuvers were considered offensive tactics, and horizontal maneuvers were exclusively defensive. Moreover, the instruction considered turn fighting as "absolutely unacceptable" when the fighter had sufficient vertical maneuverability. I am too lazy to translate the Soviet instructions, I can post the Russian text, you can use automatic translators.
View attachment 841207

They simply considered the La-5 as inferior to the Bf109G in all kinds of maneuver. But already the La-5FN was nearly equal to the Bf109G-2 in vertical maneuver, and superior to the FW 190A-4 in climb rate - this was reflected in tactics. The La-5 of the first production batches was little better than the LaGG (if better at all). "Horizontal" fighters were those that were vastly inferior to enemy fighters in vertical maneuver. Don't laud the necessity as a virtue.

As soon as engine power was increased or the airframe lightened, the fighter immediately became "vertical" - regardless of the designer.
The Soviet pilots on the Spitfires first used turn fighting just because they did not know any other, as they flown planes that were too inferior in vertical maneuvering to the enemy previously.

The nomenclature reflects only insufficient performance of Soviet fighters in vertical maneuver until late 1943 or even early 1944 as well as the use of obsolete tactics due to insufficient training.

Click to expand...

They did say horizontal tactics were "obsolete", but they also said that the Spitfire failed in those tactics, which is interesting on its own.

As an aside, it is funny that vertical and "Hit and Run" tactics are so praised as "modern", when they hardly ever happened by 1944...

I would say throughout the thousands of Encounter Reports I have read of the entire War, only about 10-20% of the overall total could qualify as "hit and run" or vertical maneuvering, or dive and zoom. And this is being extremely generous... (For the 8th Air Force P-47s and P-51s in 1944, we are talking closer to 1%...)

The real overall Hit and Run/vertical figure is closer to 5-10% in 1944 (much more than that in 1940: Probably 30-40%, when they really believed in it), though for Spitfires and Zeros it could still be above 20-30% even in 1944.

By late 1944 Hit and Run had virtually disappeared from Western Europe (except for Spitfires), in part because the combat heights were generally lower. Turning broke diving attacks, remember?

What did happen a lot between FW-190s and P-51s (and it is notable for its consistency) were repeated head-on passes, as the P-51 could not follow the 190A in low speed right turns (but it could match it in left turns, so it extended and went around in a left turn while the 190 came back in a right or left turn). Between Me-109Gs, P-47s and P-51s it was pretty much circles near-100% of the time, if not sneaking up under the tail (which was about 10-20%).

70-80% of all WWII air to air combat involves at least one full circle (except for the Zero and Spitfire, less prone to prolonged turns), the vast majority of those at least 2-3 consecutive circles, with a good 25-30% 4 consecutive circles or more (I would say 2 to 6 consecutive circles is the most common form of air combat in WWII). There are a few P-51D vs Me-109G-6 encounters that go on for 20 straight minutes to one side, which means 40-50 consecutive circles. 6-10 circles was less common, but not rare, and included even fast aircrafts like the Tempest V.

The Soviet advice when flying the La-5FN in 1944 was thus: "Never hesitate to engage the German in low speed turning combat, as the German lacks the nervous stamina to endure tense turning battles of any duration."

So apparently not so defensive after all...

And is it not notable how well this advice also fits with the German Western Front impatience with turns?:

-Maj. Robert Elder, 24 March 1945 (P-51D): "With this top cover to encourage me, I managed
to out-turn another FW-190, and, just as I was about 30 degrees angle off, this Jerry reversed
his turn (they are stupid that way) and I latched on to his tail at about 100 yards range. I got
strikes all over the plane and he caught fire in the air and crashed."

-Capt. Glendon V. Davis, March 8 1944 (P-51B): "I turned into him and he (lone FW-190A)
swung around, almost getting on the tail of Lt. Smith, following me. I called to him to put down
flaps and turn with him, as I had 20 degrees myself. We went around five or six times with the
issue very much in doubt. I could not quite get enough deflection to nail him, though I was
firing short bursts trying to get him to roll out, which he was too smart to do."

Osprey "VIII Fighter Command at War, -Long Reach-", P. 31 (On the tactical significance
of using the roll rate in combat, Lt. Col. H. C. Craig):

"Once a turn is started in an engagement, it is of the most importance, and safety, to remember
to never reverse your turn. It has been my observation that a great majority of the
victories of my unit were made good when the Hun reversed the turn."

By late 1944, even the German Me-109 pilots were finally starting to learn (at least on the Western Front), and all you see them do is circles...


As a conclusion I would say, if you think of late WWII combat, with ALL the later types (excepts jets or Spitfires) and the first word that comes to your mind is not "circles", then let me tell you you are off at sea without a paddle.

MiTasol said:

and I was obviously to tired to see that

Bugga

Click to expand...

'tsall good, brotha, no vocal tones or visual cues to help, and me on a little medication, it washes out.

Since the idea that the Fw-190A series were good turn fighters keeps being peddled out in different threads in this forum I think it could be good to put this misconception at rest by concluding that if this were to happen then this would break the laws of physics:

The Fw-190 A8 has a poor power loading (power/weight), a high wing loading (weight/wing area) and a high span loading (weight/wing span). And an aircraft like the P-51D Mustang which is better than the Fw-190A8 on all these points will inevitably turn better with a smaller turn radius. Anything else would be impossible. It would break the laws of physics.

Now, this only tells us what the aircraft as such are capable of. Not how they performed in combat because that would be determined by the training, experience and aggressiveness of the pilot. So there will of course be combat accounts that go against the grain. This is inevitable.

Compounding this problem is if combat accounts are read as augury and tea leaves are being interpreted with preconceived eyes because then combat accounts can of course be divined to tell us anything we would like to believe.

But to return to science, below is a chart which captures the actual physics of these planes.

It's done with a C++ simulation program which is described on my website here. However, you can calculate all this by hand with pen and paper if you want to, and depending on the assumptions used the absolute values may vary somewhat. But even so, this will not change how the Fw-190 A8 and P-51D Mustang stack up against each other: The Mustang will always win.

So in summary, if two pilots of equal skill face each other in turn combat with these machines, then there is no way that a Fw-190 A8 would out-turn a P-51D Mustang.

Hell will freeze over before that happens.

You just don't grasp the power of Atlantean physics.

I am just Imagining how all the P-38 aces in the PTO must have slowed way down to out turn the A6M's and Ki-43's to score all those victories.

The Yak-4 was a twin engine fighter.

Greg Boeser said:

You just don't grasp the power of Atlantean physics.

Click to expand...

Or maybe quantum suspension effects? Fw-190 A8's actually turn better but once an observer is introduced, the turn rate collapses?

cammerjeff said:

I am just Imagining how all the P-38 aces in the PTO must have slowed way down to out turn the A6M's and Ki-43's to score all those victories.

Click to expand...

Yes, and this why we never read about Ki-43 pilots being outturned by P-38s: Simply because all Ki-43 who slowed down and tried to turn with a P-38 were shot down!

Holtzauge said:

Yes, and this why we never read about Ki-43 pilots being outturned by P-38s: Simply because all Ki-43 who slowed down and tried to turn with a P-38 were shot down!

Click to expand...

Either that, or they just went in circles until someone ran out of fuel.

Sometimes they stopped, had lunch and a cigarette, then went back at it 'til the bitter end.

Never turn with a Zero was drummed into the heads of every allied pilot sent to the PTO. And for good reason. The lighter Japanese planes had better horsepower to wieght ratios and lower stall speeds due to lower wing loading, (enhanced on planes like the Ki-43 with automatic "butterfly" flaps). They could get slow to turn tighter, and had sufficient power to sustain those turns longer. The heavier allied planes could not turn as tight or they risked a turn stall. (P-39s were very susceptible.)They were warned to never follow a Japanese fighter through more than a 90 degree turn, lest they bleed off too much speed and leave themselves vulnerable.

Greg Boeser said:

Never turn with a Zero was drummed into the heads of every allied pilot sent to the PTO. And for good reason. The lighter Japanese planes had better horsepower to wieght ratios and lower stall speeds due to lower wing loading, (enhanced on planes like the Ki-43 with automatic "butterfly" flaps). They could get slow to turn tighter, and had sufficient power to sustain those turns longer. The heavier allied planes could not turn as tight or they risked a turn stall. (P-39s were very susceptible.)They were warned to never follow a Japanese fighter through more than a 90 degree turn, lest they bleed off too much speed and leave themselves vulnerable.

Click to expand...

Now you know better than to let facts get in the way of a good story.