The real combat history of the Ki-43

Some sources say there were only about 10-12 of the Ki-43 IIIs built and that was over quite a number of months.
However some of the later Ki-43IIs got the same exhaust system as the Ki-III (or similar), so possible confusion?
Same sources say only 2 of the Ki-43 IIIs got 20mm guns. These are old sources and newer Japanese information may well have different numbers.
It is possible that the Japanese could have fitted practically anything with the Japanese 40mm cannon in the later years (desperation?)but it was a pretty terrible gun.


Basically you had a 10 shot gun that fired at about 2/3s the rate of a MK 108, using projectiles that were about 40% as fast (slower than a .45 automatic pistol) and held about 70% of the explosive as the MK 108 shell.
It might beat ramming a B-29 but only just.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Anyway to continue

BURMA

Dec 1943 starts with raids into India, with a mission on 5 Dec that combined IJAAF Ki-43s and IJN A6Ms escorting Ki-21 bombers against Calcutta. They were intercepted by Hurricane IIs (units not indicated) who lost 6 x Hurricanes for 1 x Ki-21 destroyed. On 10 Dec another 684 PR Mosquito was intercepted and shot up, and appeared to be surrendering (white cloth in window) when it crashed. Much of the fighting before the end of the year shifted to bomber strikes in northern China. 50th, 64th and 204th Sentai were active. By this time they had received Ki-43-IIc which had new external fuel tank braces that cost a loss in speed of 15 mph, which did not please the pilots. They also had poor radios. It was not until August that they got the new and improved Ki-43-III with 20mm cannon and improved exhaust stacks, and a more robust engine, among other boons. Other units would convert to the Ki-84 around the same time. It was at this time that some of the RAF fighter units finally started transitioning from the hapless Hurricane II to Spitfire Mk V and some of the much better Mk VIII. The IJAAF pilots were intimidated by the Spitfire, which showed much better climb performance than any other Allied fighters in the Theater, but they seem to have held their own after some initial problems.

Click to expand...

The 5 Dec 1943 raid was a very large scale attack that was heavily escorted by over 130 Ki-43 and A6Ms; in essence a fighter sweep. 3 of the Hurricanes lost were from 176 squadron which nominally flew Beaufighters but had a flight of 5 Hurricane IICs that traded all their armour for experimental AI radar, so they could intercept night raids. These 5 aircraft suffered degraded performance due to the radar and were bounced by A6Ms; 3 were shot down:

I think I misidentified the aircraft in miscellaneous pictures.
I thought it was a Ki-43-III.
so much of it is hidden by the men in front of it, but the cowling just does not look right for a Ki-43, and by the landing gear of the aircraft behind it, that is for sure that of a Ki-44, I think they're both Ki-44s.

tyrodtom said:

I think I misidentified the aircraft in miscellaneous pictures.
I thought it was a Ki-43-III.
so much of it is hidden by the men in front of it, but the cowling just does not look right for a Ki-43, and by the landing gear of the aircraft behind it, that is for sure that of a Ki-44, I think they're both Ki-44s.

Click to expand...

I don't have the book and cannot say. But it sure would not be the first time that a picture got into a book with misidentified pictures.
I once got book that was supposed to be about US aircraft armament and stopped counting a mistakes after about dozen in the first 1/2 of the book. Like calling an A-20 a B-25 (or the other way around?).

Shortround6 said:

I don't have the book and cannot say. But it sure would not be the first time that a picture got into a book with misidentified pictures.
I once got book that was supposed to be about US aircraft armament and stopped counting a mistakes after about dozen in the first 1/2 of the book. Like calling an A-20 a B-25 (or the other way around?).

Click to expand...

I was referring to the picture on this forum, Picture of the day, miscellaneous.

RCAFson said:

The 5 Dec 1943 raid was a very large scale attack that was heavily escorted by over 130 Ki-43 and A6Ms; in essence a fighter sweep. 3 of the Hurricanes lost were from 176 squadron which nominally flew Beaufighters but had a flight of 5 Hurricane IICs that traded all their armour for experimental AI radar, so they could intercept night raids. These 5 aircraft suffered degraded performance due to the radar and were bounced by A6Ms; 3 were shot down:

In the Skies of Calcutta : A tribute to Maurice Pring

by Joydeep Sircar War came to Calcutta on the night of the 20th December, 1942. The Japanese had overrun Burma by May 1942, chasing the tattered remnants of British-Indian and Chinese troops across the jungle-clad hills of the Indo-Burma border, but they were not strong enough to push on i

www.rafcommands.com

Click to expand...

That may be the case on that particular day, but the overall pattern is that all Hurricanes had a dismal record against the Ki-43, from the very beginning, regardless of the specific loadout or type. I'll repeat one list from the book on the top of page 34:

"All told the 64th Sentai had lost 19 x Ki-43s and 15 pilots in combat between 9 September and 29 May 1943, with the 50th Sentai losing 16 fighters and 11 pilots. Allied records show that Hurricane pilots claimed nine Ki-43s, P-40 pilots ten, P-36 pilots five, B-24 gunners five and Blenheim gunners two. Four Ki-43s fell to flak. In return, 36 Hurricanes were shot down by Ki-43s and 25 pilots killed. The Allies also lost five P-36s, five B-24s, five Blenheims, three P-40s, two B-25s, one Beaufighter, one Hudson, one Wellington, and one F-4 to Ki-43s."

So 35 (31 to fighters) Ki-43s in total, vs 59 Allied planes in that period. The ratio for Hurricanes was 36 lost for 9 claims, the ratio for P-40s was 3 lost for 10 claims, for Mohawk IV was five lost for five claims. Same for the B-24.

Sorry for the long delay in continuing this. I have been going through my first ever case of Covid, caught via the wife through her hospital job. Can't say I am enjoying it. But looks like I'll probably live (knock on wood).

Burma

So continuing, we are now in the end of the Monsoon season of 1944, in late summer / early fall. The 64th Sentai returned to the theater with the improved Ki-43-III. Some pilots would have preferred the new Ki-84 which the 50th Sentai was converting to, but the commander refused them. There are some more interesting quotes on this in the book.

Cpl Mashahiro Ikeda: "We all had our hopes pinned on the Ki-84, but our new Sentai commander, Maj Toyoki Eto, had told us we'd have to keep using the Ki-43-IIIs, since problems were being experienced with the Hayate's engine. The Ki-43 was a highly maneuverable fighter, and very reliable, but we wanted a faster one that could get us into action and out of trouble quickly. The slower Ki-43 was always at the mercy of the faster enemy aircraft, because we couldn't get away quickly enough."

Sgt Ikezawa: "I heard that Maj Eto had refused delivery of the Ki-84. The fighter had the speed to really scoot away if Spitfires attacked from above. A Hayate pilot would simply drop the nose and be off in a flash. They couldn't avoid an attack if it came from above, however, because of the Ki-84's poor rate of turn. This meant that the Hayates would routinely head for home while we were left to dogfight with the Spitfires. 50th Sentai pilots became notorious for firing a few cannon bursts at the enemy and then fleeing the scene. I think we owed our survival to the Ki-43, as the Ki-84 would have left you in a mighty tight spot if you were attacked from above by P-51s"

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. USAAF was now using some P-47D, P-51B had replaced the fairly hapless P-51A types, and the P-38J had replaced the earlier G and H. The Ki-43-III were being used for CAS, and loaded in some cases now with 250 kg bombs, of which which we will see more of in a moment. 50th Sentai, with their Ki-84s, was taking the lead somewhat in offensive fighter operations.

RAF Fighters: 17 Sqn Spitfires*, Hurricanes**, Beaufighter
RAF Bombers: Mosquito, 358 sqn Liberator III, Wellington
RAF Recon: Mosquito
IAF Fighters: Hurricanes
USAAF Fighters: 51 FG (P-40K), 80th FG (P-40N), (P-38), (P-47), (P-51B)
USAAF Bombers: B-29s, B-24s, B-25s
USAAF Recon: F5, O-48A Vigilant
USAAF and RAF Transport: C-46, C-47, C-87, 1st ACG UC-64 Norseman
USN: F4U, F6F

* I believe by this time most of the Spitfires were Mk VIII or Mk IX, or some later types. I'm not certain though.
** These seem to be mostly specialist Hurricane IIs by this point, like IIDs or the radar equipped ones RCAFSon mentioned.

Losses
From Oct-Dec 1944
17 x Ki-43, 1 x Ki-84 shot down
RAF Losses: 2 x Spitfire, 2 x Beaufighters, 2 x Mosquitos (unclear if bomber or recon types)
USAAF Losses: 1 x P-38, 7 x C-47, 1 x B-25, 2 x B-29, 5 x Liberators (these may have been RAF or USAAF)
USN losses: 2x F4U, 1 x F6F
[8 fighters, 25 aircraft total]

On 11 February 1945 there was a naval action as an Allied fleet had surrounded Ramree Island. 12 x Ki-43-III from 64th Sentai were loaded with 250 kg bobs. Taking fire from a destroyer they decided to attack it in a shallow-dive bombing attack. This turned out to be HMS Pathfinder, which was crippled though it managed to sail back to the UK on one engine, and was scrapped in 1948. The Japanese forces on Ramreee Island were not rescued however.

During CAS and bombing raids 64th Sentai was often clashing with Spitfires, (probably Mk VIII though I'm not certain of that yet).

Sgt Ikezawa "The Spitfire was an excellent fighter with a similar turning ability to the Ki-43. It's turning radius was actually wider, but much faster, so in the end its turning ability was the same as ours. What often saved us was the Spitfire's short operational range. If we could coax them down to lower altitudes, they'd eventually have to give up and go home."

This is an issue I've brought up before! But those are the WW2 pilot and combat veteran's words, not mine.

Same guy also described an enconuter with a P-47: "At first, we mistook it for a twin-engined aircraft - the bombs under its wings looked like engines. When it turned out to be a P-47, I appraoched it with my wingman, Ikeda. Thefighter turned to face us and then dived beneath us. If I'd also been in a P-47 I wouldn't have been able to attack him, but the Ki-43 could quickly stall-turn, and we caught him easily. A burst from my guns sent him spinning into the ground. He must have been a novice pilot. If he'd just dived away at the start, I wouldn't have been able to catch him."

Losses
In February 1945, 64th Sentai lost 2 x Ki-43s, but shot down 2x P-47 and 1 L-5.

In March they were forbidden from engaging enemy aircraft, because they were so low on equipment. Nevertheless their last victory in Burma (confirmed by Allied records) was a Spitfire from 17th Sqn RAF on March 24, Last victory of the war was a Liberator III of the 358 Sqn on 29 May, over Thailand.

After the Japanese surrender there was some surprisingly loose fraternization between RAF and 64th Sentai pilots. They even staged a 20 minute flying demonstration with a Ki-43 against a Spitfire over Kurakore. After that the surviving 64th Sentai pilots sang a song, and were given train tickets back to Japan, with a bag of rice and some ration coupons.

next is China, then Guadalcanal and Philippines, but I'm not going to do as much details on these, just high level overview and some lists of types and losses.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

That may be the case on that particular day, but the overall pattern is that all Hurricanes had a dismal record against the Ki-43, from the very beginning, regardless of the specific loadout or type. I'll repeat one list from the book on the top of page 34:

"All told the 64th Sentai had lost 19 x Ki-43s and 15 pilots in combat between 9 September and 29 May 1943, with the 50th Sentai losing 16 fighters and 11 pilots. Allied records show that Hurricane pilots claimed nine Ki-43s, P-40 pilots ten, P-36 pilots five, B-24 gunners five and Blenheim gunners two. Four Ki-43s fell to flak. In return, 36 Hurricanes were shot down by Ki-43s and 25 pilots killed. The Allies also lost five P-36s, five B-24s, five Blenheims, three P-40s, two B-25s, one Beaufighter, one Hudson, one Wellington, and one F-4 to Ki-43s."

So 35 (31 to fighters) Ki-43s in total, vs 59 Allied planes in that period. The ratio for Hurricanes was 36 lost for 9 claims, the ratio for P-40s was 3 lost for 10 claims, for Mohawk IV was five lost for five claims. Same for the B-24.

Click to expand...

There was nearly 15000 Hurricanes built and 36 were shot down by Ki-43s over a ~10 month period... The Hurricanes were mainly being used as low level ground attack aircraft and when the tactical situation is analysed the Ki-43s almost invariably had the advantage of altitude and/or surprise.

RCAFson said:

There was nearly 15000 Hurricanes built and 36 were shot down by Ki-43s over a ~10 month period... The Hurricanes were mainly being used as low level ground attack aircraft and when the tactical situation is analysed the Ki-43s almost invariably had the advantage of altitude and/or surprise.

Click to expand...

This was the explanation I kept getting on here. However, I think it's very misleading.

First, there certainly weren't 15000 Hurricanes in Burma or India. There were 5-6 squadrons active in combat, and they all took pretty heavy losses. Considerably worse even than the Mohawk IVs.

Second, this thing about their always being shot down while doing CAS is not supported by this book.

I only transcribed a handful of them, but all the incidents in fact where the Ki-43 units clashed with the Hurricane units were either when Hurricanes were escorting RAF bombers, usually Blenheim IVs, or (most often) when the Hurricanes were trying to intercept Japanese bombers escorted by Ki-43s. There were also one or two JAAF fighter sweeps.

Third, Hurricane pilots were suffering similar losses basically everywhere they were being used in 1942-1944. They shouldn't have made 15,000 of them.

The ratio of losses in each incident was appalling for the Hurricane pilots, and considering that Spitfire V and Kittyhawks were available. They were using Hurricanes as frontline fighters in the Burma combat zone into late 1943. That is at least a year too long.

But we'll revisit this when I'm done going through the operational history of the Ki-43. This is just one point that is highlighted by that history.

Juanita said:

"Ki-43 was poorly armed, poorly protected, slow, fragile, and maybe of shoddy construction."
I was around the Australian War Memorial's Oscar back in the 1970s, I don't recall seeing anthing that looked like 'shoddy construction' to me. The edges of the panels were all finished, no dodgy riveting, liberal use of the classic green or blue protective coating on internal parts (in this case the interior of the tailplane was in the blue). From memory with fuselage looked natural metal on the inside.
The wings had been cut off, so I can't comment on those.

Juanita

Click to expand...

Had it been "restored" by the museum prior to display? A lot of museums (I'm tempted to say "most") do such extensive disassembly and cleaning and repair that by the time they're done, the airplane is much better than it was when it came out of the factory. This is also the case for trains, cars, and all kinds of other things. There's a very active debate about when "restoration" becomes "reconstruction" or even "reproduction" among enthusiasts in many different areas.

Like a classic Chrysler or Oldsmobobile restored to Concourse D'Elegance? Those cars didn't leave the factory that nice.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

This was the explanation I kept getting on here. However, I think it's very misleading.

First, there certainly weren't 15000 Hurricanes in Burma or India. There were 5-6 squadrons active in combat, and they all took pretty heavy losses. Considerably worse even than the Mohawk IVs.

Second, this thing about their always being shot down while doing CAS is not supported by this book.

I only transcribed a handful of them, but all the incidents in fact where the Ki-43 units clashed with the Hurricane units were either when Hurricanes were escorting RAF bombers, usually Blenheim IVs, or (most often) when the Hurricanes were trying to intercept Japanese bombers escorted by Ki-43s. There were also one or two JAAF fighter sweeps.

Third, Hurricane pilots were suffering similar losses basically everywhere they were being used in 1942-1944. They shouldn't have made 15,000 of them.

The ratio of losses in each incident was appalling for the Hurricane pilots, and considering that Spitfire V and Kittyhawks were available. They were using Hurricanes as frontline fighters in the Burma combat zone into late 1943. That is at least a year too long.

But we'll revisit this when I'm done going through the operational history of the Ki-43. This is just one point that is highlighted by that history.

Click to expand...

5-6 squadrons = ~100 active aircraft losing 3.6% of their strength/month! This isn't a severe loss rate and is actually almost negligible. The 5-6 squadrons = monthly sortie rate of about 1000 sorties and a sortie loss rate of ~0.4%!

RCAFson said:

5-6 squadrons = ~100 active aircraft losing 3.6% of their strength/month! This isn't a severe loss rate and is actually almost negligible. The 5-6 squadrons = monthly sortie rate of about 1000 sorties and a sortie loss rate of ~0.4%!

Click to expand...

Again no. You can spin as hard as you want, there is no changing the facts.

That 36 aircraft was the losses specifically to two Sentai that were flying Ki-43s, of which only I think three of the Hurricane squadrons crossed paths in that period. These units had all kinds of other combat and operational losses. To the point that surviving a tour in one of those units - especially if they ever encountered other fighters, must have been really challenging. But I'll go through the whole history.

The loss rates were again, extreme, and far greater than for any other Allied fighter type in Theater except the Buffalo.

I'll compile all the Hurricane vs. Ki-43 encounters mentioned in the whole book, and then we can take a real look at this issue.

I noticed when I read the book that a lot of the Ki-43 pilots were already veteran pilots with victories in Ki-27s from fighting in China.
These men were not novices.

tyrodtom said:

I noticed when I read the book that a lot of the Ki-43 pilots were already veteran pilots with victories in Ki-27s from fighting in China.
These men were not novices.

Click to expand...

That's true, no doubt part of the whole story. They did suffer steady attrition though and were replaced with new trainees through the war.

Did

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

That's true, no doubt part of the whole story. They did suffer steady attrition though and were replaced with new trainees through the war.

Click to expand...

Did the quality of the replacements start to slip in the JAAAF late war, as it did in the Navy?
I also noticed several times that it mentions veteran pilots being returned to Japan to help train new pilots, though most tried to avoid this or do everything in their power to make sure their tour of training was as short as possible.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Same guy also described an enconuter with a P-47: "At first, we mistook it for a twin-engined aircraft - the bombs under its wings looked like engines. When it turned out to be a P-47, I appraoched it with my wingman, Ikeda. Thefighter turned to face us and then dived beneath us. If I'd also been in a P-47 I wouldn't have been able to attack him, but the Ki-43 could quickly stall-turn, and we caught him easily. A burst from my guns sent him spinning into the ground. He must have been a novice pilot. If he'd just dived away at the start, I wouldn't have been able to catch him."

Click to expand...

It sounds like he didn't drop his bombs and the added drag allowed the Ki-43s to hit him from behind.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Sorry for the long delay in continuing this. I have been going through my first ever case of Covid, caught via the wife through her hospital job. Can't say I am enjoying it. But looks like I'll probably live (knock on wood).

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear about your illness. The newest variant is known for being highly infectious and it's known to cause sleep disruption. Best wishes on your recovery.

By the way, your scholarship on this subject is extraordinary and must have involved a great deal of reading and analysis. Thank you for your outstanding contributions to understanding the actual combat performance of the Ki-43.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Third, Hurricane pilots were suffering similar losses basically everywhere they were being used in 1942-1944. They shouldn't have made 15,000 of them.

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment of the Hurricane. We all know the reason why they were continually used despite poor performance against Axis aircraft: the British production technique required a higher degree of skilled labor than Germany, the USSR, or the US so the alternatives to the Hurricane required even more man hours to produce. The Hurricane was their lowest-cost fighter so they essentially produced it in order to keep their various squadrons at full strength. But as other commentors have pointed out, its combat performance, while bad, wasn't unsustainable. It was more of a stop gap solution until better aircraft could be put into mass production.

OldGeezer said:

Had it been "restored" by the museum prior to display? A lot of museums (I'm tempted to say "most") do such extensive disassembly and cleaning and repair that by the time they're done, the airplane is much better than it was when it came out of the factory. This is also the case for trains, cars, and all kinds of other things. There's a very active debate about when "restoration" becomes "reconstruction" or even "reproduction" among enthusiasts in many different areas.

Click to expand...

My best guess is that the poor assessment of the Ki-43's build quality has more to do with the lower G-limit of the aircraft for rough handling. In general, with a few exceptions, Japanese aircraft could not handle steep dives and zoom climbs as well as Allied aircraft. This is partly because of their wing design, which led to sluggish turns at higher speeds, thanks to large control surfaces and large wings. We refer to this as control stiffening. Another factor could be that Japanese aircraft often had lighter construction standards, which led to lower dive limits. Planes that start coming apart at lower speeds probably feel like they're poorly built.

While it is true that late-production Axis aircraft were poorly built, many of the captured aircraft were rebuilt to spec and oftentimes did not reflect the poor quality standards common to late-war aircraft.

With the Ki-43, it seems to have been mainly the early Ki-43-1 models which had trouble with manufacturing and some design issues, but these seem to have been largely cleared up with the -II. I'm going to look at all this later after I get through some more of the operational history.