Why no wing armament for the Ki-43?

Elmas · Oct 8, 2014

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 · Oct 8, 2014

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 · Oct 8, 2014

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 · Oct 8, 2014

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 · Oct 8, 2014

buffnut453 said:
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 · Oct 8, 2014

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

buffnut453 · Oct 8, 2014

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 · Oct 8, 2014

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 · Oct 8, 2014

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 · Oct 8, 2014

buffnut453 said:
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.

Why no wing armament for the Ki-43?

More options

Elmas

Staff Sergeant

buffnut453

Captain

Shinpachi

Colonel

Shortround6

Major General

Aozora

Staff Sergeant

Shinpachi

Colonel

buffnut453

Captain

Shinpachi

Colonel

buffnut453

Captain

windswords

Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads