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

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

In fact four .50s seems to have been enough for destroying German and Italian fighters in the MTO. US and RAF, RAAF and SAAF pilots noted that four guns (which was often fitted especially to later model P-40s) was fine for air to air combat, they ended up putting the other pair in (or back in) when they had to do more ground strafing missions.

Early P-51B/C also often had just the four .50 cal machine guns and seem to have done quite well against Lufwaffe fighters.

 

[ThomasP]

Apparently longer than the IIcs with 60 rounds.

The Hurricane Mk IIC wing was designed to carry a nominal 90 rounds of 20mm per gun using belt feed. I may be wrong but I do not think the Mk IIC ever used 60-round drums.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Hurricane Mk IIC wing was designed to carry a nominal 90 rounds of 20mm per gun using belt feed. I may be wrong but I do not think the Mk IIC ever used 60-round drums.

Thanks, I'll take your word for it.

Armored Carriers says 100 rounds per gun for the Sea Hurricane IIC.

I'm reading Hurricane I had 338 rounds per gun for the inner pair, then 324 and 338 rounds.
I see here IIa has 334 rounds per gun.

I can't find ammunition data for IIb or IIc.

Looks like the Russians put in two 20mm ShVAK and two 12.7mm, which may be a bit better.
I'm reading that 417 Sqn RACAF removed two of the 20mm cannon to improve roll rate and speed.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Does anyone have an Aircraft Data Sheet for the Hurricane IIb or IIc? I would think such an important aircraft would have that around somewhere. I could only find I and IIa.

 

[ThomasP]

I have run across load sheets for the Hurricane Mk IIC with 94 round per gun, but never any more than that.

I have not been able to find any ADS for the Hurricane Mk IIB or IIC so far, or for the SeaHurricane Mk IIB or IIC.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I have run across load sheets for the Hurricane Mk IIC with 94 round per gun, but never any more than that.

They are probably just rounding up.

I have not been able to find any ADS for the Hurricane Mk IIB or IIC so far, or for the SeaHurricane Mk IIB or IIC.

It's a bit shocking there isn't more on the Hurricane on WW2aircraftperformance or somewhere else. There absolutely has to be data sheets etc. in some kind of archive in the UK, probably in Australia, South Africa, and for sure Canada too. Maybe RCAFSon knows?

 

[ThomasP]

I have found mention of the various Hurricane ADS in the Kew archives. I also ran across a copy for sale of a 'compendium' of the ADS (the same document as at Kew) of 'all' aircraft not including RAF fighters (ie it contained the RAF bombers and attack aircraft, along with the Coastal Command flying boats, plus the RN/FAA aircraft - including the SeaHurricane, Swordfish, Albacore, etc). I was going to order it (at ~90 Euros) from the bookstore in England that advertised it, but the COVID-19 epidemic came along and I tabled the idea. Unfortunately, when I checked on its availability about a year ago, the bookstore was no longer in business. I have not seen the 'compendium' mentioned as for sale on any of the bookstore lists/websites I regularly check. Very frustrating.

 

[Mike Williams]

Does anyone have an Aircraft Data Sheet for the Hurricane IIb or IIc? I would think such an important aircraft would have that around somewhere. I could only find I and IIa.

Sorry, please see:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane-IIB-ADS.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane-IIC-ADS.jpg

 

[PAT303]

Bullets will punch through the skin of the aircraft, hit the armor, and bounce off. Routinely! Same will happen when you hit the engine block of a car or other vehicle. Saw that quite often at the range when in the Army. They had a bunch of old trucks etc. out on the machine gun range.

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

 

[PAT303]

Anyone catching fire from six fifties was having a bad day at the office, indeed

Some of those aircraft took very long bursts from tip to tail, lots of flashing and drama but no decisive strikes, at 6 minutes the 190 is interesting for two reasons, that aircraft was no more than 100m away, at the end within 50 meters yet without tracers the attacking pilot clearly missed, thats about as easy a kill as it gets yet clean miss, the second thing thats interesting is the FW pilot did nothing but fly straight a level with no idea he was under attack, I'd say late war, a few dozen hours flight time and totally concentrating on trying to stay in control.

I somehow managed to stuff my reply up.

 

[PAT303]

In fact four .50s seems to have been enough for destroying German and Italian fighters in the MTO. US and RAF, RAAF and SAAF pilots noted that four guns (which was often fitted especially to later model P-40s) was fine for air to air combat, they ended up putting the other pair in (or back in) when they had to do more ground strafing missions.

Those same pilots after using the 20mm thought otherwise, the likes of Johnny Johnson stated that four 20mm's are the optimal, the Hispano and Browning .50 were not only unreliable but so was the ammunition but after a lot of effort they eventually were sorted, the RAF thought so too which is why they skipped the HMG in their fighters.

 

[J.A.W.]

The (later model) Ki-43-II had 12mm plate armor behind the pilot seat, another 12mm plate behind the pilots head rest mounted at a 45 degree angle, and protected fuel tanks. They started manufacturing them with this about halfway through the Ki-43-II run, and then apparently installed the armor in the field on some of the older models. One intercepted JAAF intelligence report states that "after the first clashes between the Ki-43 and RAF Spitfires in Burma mentions that its pilots were pleased with the armour and fuel tank protection in the Type 1 Hayabusa and that one aircraft had returned safely after receiving 39 hits." Some more on this here.



The armor on Bf 109s, and most WW2 fighters, would work best when being hit directly from behind. Fw 190s also had armor on the wing roots, nose, and some other places, and were unusually strong. But no WW2 aircraft could withstand heavy machine gun bullets beyond a certain point, let alone cannon.



Well that does make it interesting that the British started putting US M2 Browning .50 caliber machine guns into so many Spitfires and other fighters later in the war, replacing the .303s.

The idea that Bf 109s or Fw 190s could survive a .50 cal fighter attack is utter nonsense. I believe that is a WW2 era trope that became popular in the postwar era, similar to a lot of American tropes about "kill ratios" and so on.

As I've pointed out in here before, it didn't take many 12.7mm rounds to blow the wing off, blow the tail stabilizers off, kill the pilot, cut the fuselage tail off, etc. etc. Which you can see in countless gun camera reels and can count in the thousands of Luftwaffe losses inflicted by P-51 and P-47 units all over NE Europe, at least hundreds from defensive gunners on heavy bombers, and hundreds by P-40s in the MTO.

Incidentally IJN and JAAF pilots were trained that most Allied aircraft were vulnerable to hits in the nose area, due to the radiator, and on British and some US planes, to the fuel tank in front of the cockpit. They aimed for the nose by preference.

Ta for the 'busa armour info.

"Standard" RAF fighter gun fit was deemed to be 4 x 20mm cannon, but the earlier 8 x .303" fighters Hurricane/Spitfire struggled
with the extra weight, & for Spitfires the 4 x 20mm was only standard for the late mark 20 series variants.

The Spit's 4 x .303" were only replaced by a pair of .50", when the gyro-gunsight was available, & accuracy improved.
The remark about German pilots reporting 'surviving' .50" attacks related to their mortal existence, not the plane itself,
albeit the RAF officially regarded the 4 x .50" fit in the Mustang III (P-51B/C) as "Light", even compared to a Spitfire.

Apart from the P-40, how many Allied aircraft facing the Japanese had a nose radiator? But yes if you can hit the engine, that worked,
as the USN studies showed in their case, & with the USAAF analysis of bomber vulnerability (cockpit/engines in head on attacks).

 

[J.A.W.]

Plenty of destructive penetration and outright disintegration here in this reel:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3cpkQT4Njw&t=10s

Anyone catching fire from six fifties was having a bad day at the office, indeed.

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

 

[J.A.W.]

Let alone eight...

USN reckoned a good 20mm was worth x 3 .50" in destructive capability.

 

[J.A.W.]

maybe a few others, Spitfire VIII and IX for sure, Spit V too was worth having even if it didn't give an edge over Nazi planes, it held it's own especially the later versions and LF version. P-40F as well, was very useful for five fighter groups with the USAAF in the MTO (and for the DAF in general) and played a fairly important role in the Solomons too with 18 FG.



Well, I guess they can take a two pairs of guns out of a IIb and more or less turn into a IIa easily enough...

P-40 was deemed as 'not up to scratch' in the ETO, (the RAF quickly replaced the 'hawks used in cross-channel work - with Mustangs),
- albeit the Germans always seemed to respect them, much more so than the Hurricane.

Funnily enough - just as the Spitfire pilots shocked by the new FW 190 - had initially thought the Germans had got the ex-French Curtiss
going real well - in return the FW 190 pilots raiding England, then racing back across the channel - were shocked at being run down by the
new Typhoon, & initially reported how the British had obtained remarkable performance from their P-40s!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Apart from the P-40, how many Allied aircraft facing the Japanese had a nose radiator?

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.

 

[J.A.W.]

Hurricane = belly radiator; Spitfire = underwing radiator; P-51/P-38 = fuselage radiator; P-39 = wing radiator.

Yes, the P-40 comment is correct, and Typhoon/Tempest action in the ETO also noted this (Typhoon did get armoured there, though).

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Hurricane = belly radiator; Spitfire = underwing radiator; P-51/P-38 = fuselage radiator; P-39 = wing radiator.

Yes, the P-40 comment is correct, and Typhoon/Tempest action in the ETO also noted this (Typhoon did get armoured there, though).

Well the cooling systems plumbing connects back to the engine, so it's really nose to belly, nose to underwing, nose to fuselage etc.

 

[J.A.W.]

Sure, & those hoses/lines/tubes were usually closely coupled within the cowling, & behind whatever protecting the engine itself had,
until they were fed through the firewall/bulkhead on back through the fuselage itself.

'Shittle buff out'? Flying through tree-tops with a nose-mounted radiator could be a bit risky, but 'Pinky' Stark brought 'er home.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Sure, & those hoses/lines/tubes were usually closely coupled within the cowling, & behind whatever protecting the engine itself had,

Typically that would be nothing, I think

until they were fed through the firewall/bulkhead on back through the fuselage itself.

'Shittle buff out'? Flying through tree-tops with a nose-mounted radiator could be a bit risky, but 'Pinky' Stark brought 'er home.

View attachment 759611

It's a tough bird, no doubt