Why no wing armament for the Ki-43?

[Elmas]

As far as I know Japanese industriy built during the IIWW more than one hundred ( one hundred eighteen, if I rememer well) different kinds of airplanes.
Probably far too much in comparison to the resources in manpower available.
And, as an Engineer myself, I dare say that my Japanese Colleagues of those times were far from stupid: I admire their work quit a lot. And, observing that some posts add very little to discussion and knowledge, that's enough saying, from my side......

 

[buffnut453]

Was the proximity of the Ki-43's replacement, the Ki-44, in terms of delivery schedule, a component here? Ki-43s had only just entered service by the time of the Malayan Campaign and yet there was a small detachment of pre-production Ki-44s also available for that conflict. Why invest in up-arming the Ki-43 when the Ki-44 was so much more capable?

Maybe part of the problem was that production for the Ki-44 did not ramp up sufficiently quickly...or delays in retooling from the Ki-43 to the Ki-44 were too costly in terms of productivity? Certainly the Ki-43 was retained in service for far too long when more capable designs had been available for years.

 

[Shinpachi]

Ki-43 and Ki-44 were planned simultaneously as a pair. The former was as combat fighter and the latter as bomber interceptor.
Ki-44 was not replacement for Ki-43. Integrated replacement for them was Ki-84.

 

[Shortround6]

They kept making Ki-43s right through to the end of the war.

Ki-43s -------5900+ built
Ki-44s--------1227 built
Ki-61s--------3159 built
Ki-84s--------3514 built
Ki-100s-------395 built

 

[Aozora]

Was the proximity of the Ki-43's replacement, the Ki-44, in terms of delivery schedule, a component here? Ki-43s had only just entered service by the time of the Malayan Campaign and yet there was a small detachment of pre-production Ki-44s also available for that conflict. Why invest in up-arming the Ki-43 when the Ki-44 was so much more capable?

Maybe part of the problem was that production for the Ki-44 did not ramp up sufficiently quickly...or delays in retooling from the Ki-43 to the Ki-44 were too costly in terms of productivity? Certainly the Ki-43 was retained in service for far too long when more capable designs had been available for years.

The Ki-43 and Ki-44 were designed for different roles. The Ki-43 was designed to be a "light fighter" to replace the Ki-27; it was to be just as manoeuverable, plus have a higher speed and greater range. The first prototypes didn't meet up with the requirements, and the Ki-43 was completely redesigned. The real breakthrough came when the "butterfly" manoeuvering flaps were incorporated into the design. As a weapon, the Ki-43 was highly effective for about 18 months, and was only truly outclassed once newer Allied fighters such as the P-38 and later P-40s reached the front line in quantity.

The Ki-44 was designed to be a 'heavy fighter" - fast, with a good rate of climb and reasonably well protected. It's hard to know exactly why only 1,227 were built.

 

[Shinpachi]

Pilots loved Ki-43 in spite of lesser armaments because it was so agile that it was hard to be shot down.

 

[buffnut453]

I stand corrected, although the deployment of the Ki-44 to Malaya, where there were relatively few bombers, seems to contradict the stated role of that airframe. Irrespective, by even late 1942 it should have been self-evident that the "light fighter" concept, while manoeuvreable, lacked the firepower punch to damage the opposition it was up against. That brings me back to why the Ki-43 was kept in production for so long...maybe the demand for airframes was so great that there simply wasn't time to retool factories for the Ki-44 or later airframes.

 

[Shinpachi]

I agree buffnut453. Ki-44 should have replaced Ki-43 as combat fighter.
Experienced army pilots mostly denied Ki-44 saying it was hard to control but a flight instructor of Akeno Army Flight School testified later that students flew Ki-44 freely as they wanted after 100 hours flight training.

 

[buffnut453]

Japan simply didn't have the resources to build dedicated "light" and "bomber" fighters. They needed a single, merged airframe and the Ki-44 seems to have fitted the bill far better than its production run would suggest.

 

[windswords]

That brings me back to why the Ki-43 was kept in production for so long...maybe the demand for airframes was so great that there simply wasn't time to retool factories for the Ki-44 or later airframes.

The Ki-44 was a limited production run since it was for a specific role. Ki-43 production was stopped by Nakajima soon after the Ki-84 came on line (there was some overlap as production ramped up). Late war production was done by Tachikawa (limited). The Ki-84 was designed to simplify its production so it could be built with less man hours than the Ki-43. So it was the true successor to the Ki-43.