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

bada said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was in a computer gamers club in Moscow where a VVS veteran was invited. Early 2000s. He observed the duels in Il-2 on the projector screen with great interest. At some point, one or both (virtual) pilots extended their flaps, and the veteran shouted: Don't do that, you'll lose your speed!
 
Greg Boeser said:
Most numerous, then. In December 1941 only two IJAAF Sentai were equipped with Ki-43.
Click to expand...

Even "only two" Sentai had the same front-line numerical strength as the entire RAF Buffalo fleet in Singapore, Malaya and Burma.

Then add on the 150+ Ki-27s into the equation and the disparity in air strengths becomes stark, to say the least.
 
I posted this last year about the introduction of the Ki 43 to the JAAF.

On the outbreak of war in the Far East only the 59th and 64th Sentais were equipped with the Ki 43 having 24 and 35 (+6 Ki-27) respectively. The 77th, 1st, 11th over Malaya/Burma and 24th, 50th Sentais plus 84th Independent Chutia over the Philippines all had the Ki 27. In addition 47th Independent Chutia had 9 Ki 44.

59th Sentai was the first unit to receive Ki 43-Ia (30 aircraft) in Japan between June & Aug 1941 after which it went to China. It lost 4 or 5 aircraft to wing failures and inspections revealed 20 aircraft with defects in wing construction which local attempts by its ground crews were not able to correct. So returned to Japan in Oct to re-equip with the Ki 43-Ib model which it took to Indochina in early Dec 1941.

64th Sentai received Ki 43-Ia in Aug 1941 in Japan before returning to China. Concerns about wing strength saw them return briefly to Japan in Sept/Oct 1941 to have the wings strengthened. It moved to Indochina atvtge beginning of Dec.

Other units noted above converted to the Ki 43 as follows:-
77th Sentai - Aug 1943 with the Ki 43-II version while in China. It left Burma in June 1942.
1st Sentai - July 1942 after returning to Japan. Then to Sumatra and on to Indochina in Oct 1942.
11th Sentai - Aug 1942 after returning to Japan. Then to Burma Oct/Nov 1942 and Rabaul in Dec 1942.
24th Sentai - April 1942 after it moved to China
50th Sentai - April 1942 after returning to Japan (HQ, 1st & 2nd Chutai were in Burma in Mar/Apr). Then to Sumatra / Singapore and Burma from Sept 1942.

Information from "Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units And Their Aces 1931-1945" by Ikuhiko Hata, Yasuho Izawa and Christopher Shores.
 
GrauGeist said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll bring some context...


The Flying Tigers contributed to the legend of the Zero turning, by swearing up and down they were fighting Zeros... And you can gauge what they thought by the way they treated lowly internet dweebs who tried to point out those were Ki-21s and Ki-43s...

People were actually banned from events of the Flying Tiger association if they said (in a public enough manner) that they shot down mostly Ki-27s and Ki-43s...



Then there is the issue of: Since the Zero could turn (technically), did it do so when "necessary"?

I personally discussed this with Justin Pyke himself, and he said that when it was necessary the Japanese Navy did use turns. I am sceptical that he had anything to base this on other than the assumption that they knew what they were doing...

The problem is, if you have an attitude that low speed turns are to be avoided unless necessary, when is necessary going to be "necessary enough"?

"On October 21, 1943, the 530th squadron's P-51As met numerous Mitsubishi Zeros when they accompanied B-24s and B-25s on bombing missions to Kamaing. On the way down, I came up behind Lt. Geoffrey Neal, who was chasing a Zero down to the deck! I latched on to their formation and watched as he drove the enemy fighter right into the ground. The pilot of the Zero had tried everything to get rid of Lt. Neal except to circle fight." 311th Fighter Group Unit history.

We tend to have this conception that WWII air combat was this sophisticated domain full of intricate shades of gray, with pilots having complicated notions of what they were doing...

Maybe that is the case today, but it wasn't then.

Occasional hard high speed turns can fit into a notion of random circumstantial use (and the Zero did hard high speed 90 degree turns in spades, at least one US pilot even used the term "square turns", which certainly excludes circles), but prolonged low speed circles require an acceptance that you will drop the speed to its minimum, and that requires a doctrine to support it.

And that is where the fundamental contextual problem lies: Unless you were flying a caricature like the Ki-43, all WWII pilots were basically told circles, not turns, but circles, were bad, period.

Monoplanes were new, remember? And circles were not considered part of the new monoplane era, only turns were. (And barely even those either.)

The entire evolution of WWII tactics shows this pattern:

Find me a WWII tactical manual that says:


1-The word, just the word, circle.... And in a positive light....

2-Cutting the power is good for low speed turns,

3-A smaller radius is everything for aiming lead, and trumps a wider faster turn rate.

4-Diving attacks are easily broken by low speed turns,

5-Speed makes your guns too weak for anything but point-blank.

6-You should always deeply curve as you extend away after a diving pass, because going straight is death.

7-Never reverse your turn past the first 60-90 degrees. (With ten exclamation points...)

8-A lower speed can beat an altitude advantage, sometimes even against a great numerical superiority.

.
That WWII manual does not exist. The pilots had to find all this out on their own.


That is the context you are referring to.


And you can see the bias in the entire pattern of WWII combats.

In the 1940-43 period, all sides used dive and zoom tactics whenever possible (sometimes very successfully, I am in no way denying it, especially given the weak 1940-42 protection).

During this whole period, Spitfires, Zeros and Me-109s are all dedicated hit and runners... Or at least they tried hard.

The entire 1930s heavy fighter class was created solely on the basis of hit and run: That turned out fantastic did it not?

By late 1943, the pattern reverses, most notably among Western Front Razorback P-47s, which become truly obsessive circle fighters. By mid 1944, Western Front Me-109G pilots finally give in, and the dogfights consequently become much more prolonged than the comparative massacre of early 1944... Read thousand of Encounter Reports, and the "Me-109 late '44 Western shift to circles" is very evident, and likely all by word of mouth to rookies. Way too late...

I would even argue that the huge early 1944 decimation of German aces is part of this pattern: They stuck to their early War Hit and Run experiences, and kept the power high (which meant their turns sucked).



Then by 1945, you ask a REAL FW-190D-9 pilot, and all of a sudden what you hear is that he used only 50-60% power because "You did not need that much in a fight."


He doesn't even know anything about using WEP in combat: "We never used it."

When pressed (repeatedly) about WEP, he goes into a story about taking off from his family backyard during an impromptu visit!!!!:p

There is no doubt about it; our knowledge of WWII aerial combat is really, really deep.

But I have a feeling this was not the "context" you were referring to...

 
Last edited:
Hogan_Heroes.jpg
 
You hit on some good observations. But then you insist that because slow turns could be an advantageous maneuver in certain situations, it was the only sensible maneuver. You completely ignore the lack of success of the Desert Air Force defensive circles in North Africa. The Experten picked them off like ducks in a pond.
 
Memory may be faulty, but Ford challenged total number of AVG victories. Japanese aircraft downed were reported through Chennault's Chinese warning nets. No verification, no payment. The AVG assn claims many Ki-27s went down in water, and I can't remember how verification was made or not.
 
GrauGeist said:
Greg is an idiot, so I will enjoy this.

I also look forward to your chemtrails research results.
Click to expand...

In the case of the Flying Tigers, if no one actually got banned specifically for calling their kills Ki-43s (but I did read at least one claim that this happened), my general point was that as a whole they persisted well beyond reason to get upset over it, rather than being happy to set the record straight. From what I heard, most never accepted that they were wrong... And that, here and elsewhere in the Pacific, did contribute to the false narrative that the Zero eagerly made circles.

In the meantime, here is another form of the results from my "chemtrail research", spread over 30 years (The pasted images below have been fixed, so you can copy them or visit the Internet Archives link):

Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Texts, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

archive.org archive.org



1753994087561.jpeg



1753994139195.jpeg




1753994219436.jpeg



1753994258362.jpeg



1753994301141.jpeg



1753994372320.jpeg



1753994415794.jpeg



1753994444477.jpeg



1753994523559.jpeg



1753994740420.jpeg



1753994779837.jpeg



1753994845904.jpeg



1753994962483.jpeg



1753995008603.jpeg



1753995080850.jpeg



1753995115698.jpeg



1753995167647.jpeg



1753995212839.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 1753994181267.jpeg
    1753994181267.jpeg
    1 MB · Views: 32
Last edited:
wrathofatlantis said:
In the case of the Flying Tigers, if no one actually got banned specifically for calling their kills Ki-43s (but I did read at least one claim that this happened), my general point was that as a whole they persisted well beyond reason to get upset over it, rather than being happy to set the record straight. From what I heard, most never accepted that they were wrong... And that, here and elsewhere in the Pacific, did contribute to the false narrative that the Zero eagerly made circles.

In the meantime, here is another form of the results from my "chemtrail research", spread over 30 years (The pasted images below have been fixed, so you can copy them or visit the Internet Archives link):

Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Texts, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

archive.org archive.org



View attachment 840709


View attachment 840710


View attachment 840711


View attachment 840712


View attachment 840713


View attachment 840714


View attachment 840715


View attachment 840716


View attachment 840717


View attachment 840718


View attachment 840720


View attachment 840721


View attachment 840722


View attachment 840723


View attachment 840724


View attachment 840725


View attachment 840726


View attachment 840727


View attachment 840728
Click to expand...
You are basing your argument on game charts?
 
wrathofatlantis said:
In the case of the Flying Tigers, if no one actually got banned specifically for calling their kills Ki-43s (but I did read at least one claim that this happened), my general point was that as a whole they persisted well beyond reason to get upset over it, rather than being happy to set the record straight. From what I heard, most never accepted that they were wrong... And that, here and elsewhere in the Pacific, did contribute to the false narrative that the Zero eagerly made circles.

In the meantime, here is another form of the results from my "chemtrail research", spread over 30 years (The pasted images below have been fixed, so you can copy them or visit the Internet Archives link):

Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Texts, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

archive.org archive.org



View attachment 840709


View attachment 840710


View attachment 840711


View attachment 840712


View attachment 840713


View attachment 840714


View attachment 840715


View attachment 840716


View attachment 840717


View attachment 840718


View attachment 840720


View attachment 840721


View attachment 840722


View attachment 840723


View attachment 840724


View attachment 840725


View attachment 840726


View attachment 840727


View attachment 840728
Click to expand...

The pasted images have been fixed. (In case this wasn't obvious, aside the mechanics of the original Air Force game, this is entirely created by me, based on roughly 30 years of research (allowing for one ten year hiatus).

I have also included the 4 pages of added rules as pasted images. They still require reading the original manual to be used, although they replace pretty much every aspect of Air Force play.

I did attempt to replicate the speed-weakened firepower, and now doing flat circles indefinitely (at 3 G) within the Green speed range is possible.

These card were started in 1995, and were finished in July 2025 after 3.5 years of serious revisions starting in early 2022. There was one 11 year hiatus between 2011-2022.

All the profile drawings except the Yak-9 were largely created by me, except some small detail areas like the exhausts. All the available drawings in thick lines style were very poor in profile accuracy, and needed massive corrections... When printed to 100% the profiles should be in 1:144 scale. Some types have more speculation on their flying characteristics than others, since the amount of pilot accounts was much narrower: Yak-9, N1K1, Me-163B.

I may make others, but it will be a long while. I hope a few here will enjoy this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

JoblinTheGoblin
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
beers
N
How capable was the Ki-44?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
10K
Irregualr23
I
Dimlee
The last dogfight of WWII
Replies
5
Views
2K
Gnomey
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
SaparotRob
Back