PDA

View Full Version : IJAAF fighters the good & the bad....



Saburo_0
12-08-2004, 06:48 AM
If you haven;t seen this I think you'll enjoy it. From Usenet news groups.



From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P-51 D mustang vs F-4u corsair
Date: 09 Mar 1998
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

The Ki-43 was, in some ways, more dangerous to deal with than the A6M, chiefly
because it had a better rate of roll and was armed with two 12.7mm machineguns.
The P-40 driver with a Zero on his tail could usually break the contact with
an aileron roll. This was much less likely with the Ki-43. The Oscar boy
could plant himself behind the P-40 and stay there no matter what the Curtiss
driver did, all the while hammering .50 cal nails that could do some real
damage.
In contrast, the Zero pilot, even if he couldn't be shaken, was doing most of
his firing with rifle caliber mgs which did less damage (although enough of
them in the right places could do the job). The 20mms generally didn't come
into play unless the Zero was in point blank range. A way to stay out of
point blank range was to execute a series of violent aileron turns; this would
allow the P-40 pilot to gradually pull away from the Zero. Once he had
extended sufficiently, he could go into a fast, shallow climb and leave the
Zero behind.
The best bet for the P-40 driver was to have sufficient altitude to dive away
from either the Oscar or Zero, but that wasn't always the situation.
The Ki-43 had better wing loading and power loading than the Zero, had superior
initial acceleration, a better roll rate and a tighter turning circle. It also
had a substantially better rate of climb. That made it an awesome aerobatic
fighter that you absolutely, positively did not dare engage in a dogfight. It
also meant that if you bounced an Oscar and the pilot spotted you, he was
probably going to escape scott free because, should he choose to turn, he could
roll into a tight turn faster than you could follow, whereas if you bounced a
Zero, should he choose to turn, you could follow him, outrolling him and
staying with him for a considerable portion of his turn, often enough to do him
in. (In practice, Oscar and Zero drivers both generally preferred to snap up
into tight loops when bounced, leaving the P-40 driver the option of blowing on
by and clearing the vicinity or sticking around to get a Nip on his six.)
In a typical scenario early in the game, P-40s could be flying top cover for
B-26s flying at 9,000 ft. that were attacking an airstrip, note Oscars taking
off below, make a turn away from the B-26s to position themselves up-sun to
dive on the Oscars once they approached the bombers, turn and come back, taking
less than three minutes for the entire maneuver, and find the B-26s already
under attack from those Oscars they had seen just taking off. Amazing little
buggers.
P-40 escort quickly learned to dive on any Oscars they spotted, no matter how
far below they were, and the bomber boys had to learn not to howl when they saw
their escort peel off for the deck, even though there were no Jap planes
anywhere close by.
The chief advantages of the Zero over the Oscar besides the two 20mm cannon
were a somewhat faster maximum speed and a much, much greater range. Since the
P-40 was faster than the Zero, its superior speed to the Ki-43 wasn't too
important. Range was, because it meant that Zeros could be encountered almost
anywhere at anytime. That was a key reason they were so dangerous.

The Ki-61 was a very serious airplane, no doubt, and was by no means a rare
fighter in New Guinea, being routinely encountered from about mid-1943 on. The
Ki-84 wasn't encountered until the second PI campaign. Definitely a topflight
performer.
Not to be overlooked is the Ki-44, the performance of which was more or less
comparable to the FW 190A series, but with a faster rate of climb. It was met
over the oil refineries in the Dutch East Indies and was used in China and was
quite formidable. The P-40 was simply outclassed by it, and had the Japanese
Army pushed Ki-44 units into New Guinea in 1942, it would definitely been bad
news for the allies. In the nearly failed Buna campaign (the US 32nd Infantry
Division suffered 90 percent casualties, the worst rate of the entire war) in
late summer, for example, the chief allied fighter was the P-40, Es flying
escort for Ks which were used as dive bombers. The P-40s flew three and four
missions a day, desperately fighting to stave off disaster on the ground. No
way the old E could have handled the Ki-44. The Ki-44 could have cut a wide
swath through New Guinea at just the right time--pre-P-38. Apparently, the
JAAF considered holdings in the DEI, Manchuria and CBI more important than
Australian New Guinea, so reserved the Ki-44s to protect them, leaving the
Ki-43 to handle the "North of Australia Front" that the navy had gotten it
entangled in, then choosing to supplement the Ki-43 with the Ki-61, which fell
prey to the P-38.
The Ki-44 was replaced by the Ki-84, theoretically a good move, but it might
have made more sense to keep the Ki-44 in production anyway, perhaps shutting
down Ki-43 production at Tachikawa replacing it with Ki-44 production.
Tachikawa built Ki-43s until the end of the war; Nakajima itself stopped
building Ki-43s in Oct., 1944 and ended Ki-44 production in favor of Ki-84
production in Dec., 1944.
It's worth pointing out that while the Japanese Navy stuck pretty much with the
A6M manuever fighter, the Japanese Army went from the Ki-43 maneuver fighter to
the Ki-44, Ki-61 and Ki-84, all energy fighters.
As the USAAF introduced superior fighers, so did the JAAF. When an American
Army pilot was flying the P-40, he met the Ki-43. He got the P-47 or the P-38
and he met the Ki-44 and Ki-61. He got the P-51 and he met the Ki-84. When
the USN/USMC pilot was flying the F4F, he met the Zero. When he was flying
the F6F he met the Zero. When he was flying the F4U, he met the Zero. It's
another point of superiority of the JAAF over the JNAF that is largely
overlooked.

It's certainly true that the Ki-43 was kept in production long after its
virtues had largely become irrelevant or surpassed(true, too, of the Zero), but
that can be said as well of the Me 109 and, for that matter, the P-40. It's
worth remarking that while neither Messerschmitt nor Curtiss ever came up with
a better single-engine piston fighter than the one they started the war with,
and just monkeyed around with their original design, Nakajima came up with two
entirely new fighter planes, each substantially superior to its predecessor.

>The Ki-43, forming it's
>backbone, was simply no match for other planes

-----------
See why I want the Ki-44 Shoki!?

Saburo_0
12-08-2004, 06:48 AM
If you haven;t seen this I think you'll enjoy it. From Usenet news groups.



From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P-51 D mustang vs F-4u corsair
Date: 09 Mar 1998
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

The Ki-43 was, in some ways, more dangerous to deal with than the A6M, chiefly
because it had a better rate of roll and was armed with two 12.7mm machineguns.
The P-40 driver with a Zero on his tail could usually break the contact with
an aileron roll. This was much less likely with the Ki-43. The Oscar boy
could plant himself behind the P-40 and stay there no matter what the Curtiss
driver did, all the while hammering .50 cal nails that could do some real
damage.
In contrast, the Zero pilot, even if he couldn't be shaken, was doing most of
his firing with rifle caliber mgs which did less damage (although enough of
them in the right places could do the job). The 20mms generally didn't come
into play unless the Zero was in point blank range. A way to stay out of
point blank range was to execute a series of violent aileron turns; this would
allow the P-40 pilot to gradually pull away from the Zero. Once he had
extended sufficiently, he could go into a fast, shallow climb and leave the
Zero behind.
The best bet for the P-40 driver was to have sufficient altitude to dive away
from either the Oscar or Zero, but that wasn't always the situation.
The Ki-43 had better wing loading and power loading than the Zero, had superior
initial acceleration, a better roll rate and a tighter turning circle. It also
had a substantially better rate of climb. That made it an awesome aerobatic
fighter that you absolutely, positively did not dare engage in a dogfight. It
also meant that if you bounced an Oscar and the pilot spotted you, he was
probably going to escape scott free because, should he choose to turn, he could
roll into a tight turn faster than you could follow, whereas if you bounced a
Zero, should he choose to turn, you could follow him, outrolling him and
staying with him for a considerable portion of his turn, often enough to do him
in. (In practice, Oscar and Zero drivers both generally preferred to snap up
into tight loops when bounced, leaving the P-40 driver the option of blowing on
by and clearing the vicinity or sticking around to get a Nip on his six.)
In a typical scenario early in the game, P-40s could be flying top cover for
B-26s flying at 9,000 ft. that were attacking an airstrip, note Oscars taking
off below, make a turn away from the B-26s to position themselves up-sun to
dive on the Oscars once they approached the bombers, turn and come back, taking
less than three minutes for the entire maneuver, and find the B-26s already
under attack from those Oscars they had seen just taking off. Amazing little
buggers.
P-40 escort quickly learned to dive on any Oscars they spotted, no matter how
far below they were, and the bomber boys had to learn not to howl when they saw
their escort peel off for the deck, even though there were no Jap planes
anywhere close by.
The chief advantages of the Zero over the Oscar besides the two 20mm cannon
were a somewhat faster maximum speed and a much, much greater range. Since the
P-40 was faster than the Zero, its superior speed to the Ki-43 wasn't too
important. Range was, because it meant that Zeros could be encountered almost
anywhere at anytime. That was a key reason they were so dangerous.

The Ki-61 was a very serious airplane, no doubt, and was by no means a rare
fighter in New Guinea, being routinely encountered from about mid-1943 on. The
Ki-84 wasn't encountered until the second PI campaign. Definitely a topflight
performer.
Not to be overlooked is the Ki-44, the performance of which was more or less
comparable to the FW 190A series, but with a faster rate of climb. It was met
over the oil refineries in the Dutch East Indies and was used in China and was
quite formidable. The P-40 was simply outclassed by it, and had the Japanese
Army pushed Ki-44 units into New Guinea in 1942, it would definitely been bad
news for the allies. In the nearly failed Buna campaign (the US 32nd Infantry
Division suffered 90 percent casualties, the worst rate of the entire war) in
late summer, for example, the chief allied fighter was the P-40, Es flying
escort for Ks which were used as dive bombers. The P-40s flew three and four
missions a day, desperately fighting to stave off disaster on the ground. No
way the old E could have handled the Ki-44. The Ki-44 could have cut a wide
swath through New Guinea at just the right time--pre-P-38. Apparently, the
JAAF considered holdings in the DEI, Manchuria and CBI more important than
Australian New Guinea, so reserved the Ki-44s to protect them, leaving the
Ki-43 to handle the "North of Australia Front" that the navy had gotten it
entangled in, then choosing to supplement the Ki-43 with the Ki-61, which fell
prey to the P-38.
The Ki-44 was replaced by the Ki-84, theoretically a good move, but it might
have made more sense to keep the Ki-44 in production anyway, perhaps shutting
down Ki-43 production at Tachikawa replacing it with Ki-44 production.
Tachikawa built Ki-43s until the end of the war; Nakajima itself stopped
building Ki-43s in Oct., 1944 and ended Ki-44 production in favor of Ki-84
production in Dec., 1944.
It's worth pointing out that while the Japanese Navy stuck pretty much with the
A6M manuever fighter, the Japanese Army went from the Ki-43 maneuver fighter to
the Ki-44, Ki-61 and Ki-84, all energy fighters.
As the USAAF introduced superior fighers, so did the JAAF. When an American
Army pilot was flying the P-40, he met the Ki-43. He got the P-47 or the P-38
and he met the Ki-44 and Ki-61. He got the P-51 and he met the Ki-84. When
the USN/USMC pilot was flying the F4F, he met the Zero. When he was flying
the F6F he met the Zero. When he was flying the F4U, he met the Zero. It's
another point of superiority of the JAAF over the JNAF that is largely
overlooked.

It's certainly true that the Ki-43 was kept in production long after its
virtues had largely become irrelevant or surpassed(true, too, of the Zero), but
that can be said as well of the Me 109 and, for that matter, the P-40. It's
worth remarking that while neither Messerschmitt nor Curtiss ever came up with
a better single-engine piston fighter than the one they started the war with,
and just monkeyed around with their original design, Nakajima came up with two
entirely new fighter planes, each substantially superior to its predecessor.

>The Ki-43, forming it's
>backbone, was simply no match for other planes

-----------
See why I want the Ki-44 Shoki!?

nakamura_kenji
12-08-2004, 06:52 AM
the ki-43 very good plane but early models only have two 7.7mm machine gun it only later model of ki-43 that had two larger machine gun.

Ruy Horta
12-08-2004, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Saburo_0:
Messerschmitt nor Curtiss ever came up with
a better single-engine piston fighter than the one they started the war with,
and just monkeyed around with their original design, Nakajima came up with two
entirely new fighter planes, each substantially superior to its predecessor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is not true in either case. There is a difference between new designs and reaching production. For example Messerschmitt although fumbling once or twice (or at least not being able to present a type that was superior to to those already in production), finally got a replacement fighter which looked promising, however the RLM decided to go for the Ta 152, at that stage Messerschmitt dedicated itself to the next step - the Me 262.

The basic 109 model, through continued development, remained an effective fighter from the first to the last day of WW2, the same cannot be said for the production Ki-43s.

Saburo_0
12-08-2004, 07:46 AM
True about the 109, obviously superior to the Ki-43, & the K models are equal to anything.
but I think the point isn't to disparage Messerschmitt but to point out that Nakajima built some very good planes. The oscar was quite good early in the war. Mid war the Ki-44 was competitive & late war the Ki-84 was very impressive. Many folks are aware of Mitusbishi but Nakajima hasn't been recognized to the same extent & in many ways they built better planes.

Saburo_0
12-08-2004, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
the ki-43 very good plane but early models only have two 7.7mm machine gun it only later model of ki-43 that had two larger machine gun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An article which I cn't find at the moment sugests that that a mixed armament of 1 12.7mm & one 7.7mm was the most common. Perhaps because the 12.7 had more hitting power but was less reliable than the smaller mg.
At any rate it is safe to say that the KI-43 was under armed especially for going against tough American aircraft. The P-39 however was very vulnerable with the engine being behind the pilot.

Ruy Horta
12-08-2004, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Saburo_0:
True about the 109, obviously superior to the Ki-43, & the K models are equal to anything.
but I think the point isn't to disparage Messerschmitt but to point out that Nakajima built some very good planes. The oscar was quite good early in the war. Mid war the Ki-44 was competitive & late war the Ki-84 was very impressive. Many folks are aware of Mitusbishi but Nakajima hasn't been recognized to the same extent & in many ways they built better planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fully agree with your statement wrt Nakajima and its designs. The Ki 44 especially seems to suffer from this bias.

Saburo_0
12-08-2004, 08:11 AM
Oh, I one thing not mentioned is the Ki-43 was useless as a ground attack plane. One of the great strengths of most American fighters ( well not jsut Ami planes but...)was their ability to be multi-role aircraft. They had decent to fantastic bomb loads & were rugged enough to get through the enemy flak.

actionhank1786
12-08-2004, 08:11 AM
Wow that was a very nice read!
Isn't the Ki-44 kind of like the Ki-84's kid brother?
I think i remember seeing a picture, and they looked very similar.
I think the author brings up a good point about the Zero vs. the US navy. While the air force guys were constantly changing tactics and having to ID new fighters, the Navy was pretty much stuck against "That **** zero" Which i guess could be a reason that they weren't as much of a challenge as they initially were at the outset of the war.
4 years gives you a long time to perfect tactics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
12-08-2004, 08:45 AM
Its still sort of unfair to the Japanese Navy...the Zero did get changed a few times. The A6M2 isn't the same as the A6M5 or added improvements that came with the other versions as they came down the pipeline. It did get improved...just not a whole lot. I'd argue that the Zero had much less room to grow than the Bf-109 did for instance. I see the authors point...still, the US Navy was fighting improving Zeros...they weren't exactly the same from start to finish.

Ki-44 looks VERY close to the Ki-84. Not quite the same but the resemblance is very clear. No doubt thats why the Ki-84 came into production so quickly. It was similar to its predecessor.

WOLFMondo
12-08-2004, 08:54 AM
Nice read and informative.

I gotta say though, I hate the Ki61 with a passion. I really can't see any redeaming features about that plane. I do feel safer in it than a zero though.

Saburo_0
12-08-2004, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Its still sort of unfair to the Japanese Navy...the Zero did get changed a few times. The A6M2 isn't the same as the A6M5 or added improvements that came with the other versions as they came down the pipeline. It did get improved...just not a whole lot. I'd argue that the Zero had much less room to grow than the Bf-109 did for instance. I see the authors point...still, the US Navy was fighting improving Zeros...they weren't exactly the same from start to finish.

Ki-44 looks VERY close to the Ki-84. Not quite the same but the resemblance is very clear. No doubt thats why the Ki-84 came into production so quickly. It was similar to its predecessor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Zero did get improved but it never did get a real increase in horsepower. It may be questionable how much the airframe could be stretched, but look at the progressive HP improvements on the 109.
The Ki-44 had a fantastic climb rate somehwere I saw something like 4500 ft/min (not sure how reliable that is but you get the point.) I don't think it turned anywhere near as well as the Ki-84 from what I've read.
Ki-44 links:
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/IJARG/ki44shoki.html
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki44.html
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/nakajima/nakajima4-e.html this suggests that the Butterfly flap was developed for the Ki-44 but then installed on the Hayabusa as well.

Fliger747
12-08-2004, 11:38 AM
The Japanese aircraft industry came up with some excellent and inovative designs. As with Germany, the folks at the top of the heap did not always make good decisions with regards to future needs in the way of planes and pilots.

As the war ground on, the submarine war and later direct bombing impacted both raw materials and production ability.

Engines were their weakest link. The high performance, high horsepower aircraft engines required to be competitive later in the war needed metalurgy (and raw materials) which were not avilable in sufficent quantity. The development of the ultimate reciprocating engines, by all sides, is an amazing story of research and trial and error.

The Japanese were unable to produce a reliable copy of the DB601 under liscense. This hurt the real world performance of the Hein, an otherwise good aircraft. Many of their designs did however have very good hp/lb ratios.

Reliability, good to posess, a disaster not to. On the defensive, it was though a slightly reduced factor.

k5054
12-08-2004, 03:12 PM
It wasn't actually the lack of engines, but the failure to put them into fighter planes. The engine used in the Betty from 1941 never made it into the Zero before war's end, the A6M8 could have been at Pearl Harbour if it had been wanted, but the smaller Sakae gave the Zero it's remarkable range. Speed and dive were not asked for, and the manufacturers made planes to match. The Ha112 engine in the Ki-46 was operational in 1941 but only made it into a few fighters, the Ki-100 could have been a 1942 aircraft. I think Ki-44 performed as well as anything in 1942, was really good in terms of speed and climb by any standard. The Army didn't really seem to trust it.
Nakajima made 4 distinct single-seat single engine operational fighters in WW2, I don't think any company can claim to have done more.
As well as that they built all the Rufes and many Zeros, Kate, Jill, Myrt, Helen, Irving...some record.

VBF-83_Hawk
12-08-2004, 03:35 PM
What I see here, or rather see the lack of, are guys replying to the fact that the A6M sticks with the P-40 and even the F4U like stink on a June Bug! I shallow climb will get you killed as well as a shallow dive. Aileron rolls just slow you down to were the A6M will eat your lunch.

ICDP
12-08-2004, 03:48 PM
Havok, with all due repsect this is an historical information thread. It is not a thread to debate relative performance of fighters in PF. One person brought up that he felt the Ki61 wasn't that great but was better than a zero. Noone is debating how the zero perfroms v the US fighters in the actual sim.

Regards

Heinz_Knokke
12-08-2004, 04:02 PM
Saying that the IJN was stuck with only an turn-fighter (the type zero) is very far from the true, as this statement is forgetting to mention the tremendous effort on new designs of fighter made by the IJN.
What about the Shiden, Shiden-Kai, Raiden (not the mention the prototypes of new types, like the J7W1 and the A7M Reppu)
The true is that the IJN had more types of fighter in the war than the JAAF (speaking only of light fighters, not mentionning the heavier fighters derived from bomber or recco models).
The true is that the IJN and the JAAF constantly struggled to surpass eachother, and that can be seen even in the various type that each one of the two arms put into action.
The IJN being stuck with the zero would make sense only if one is speaking of carrier-based fighters; obviously, no conclusion can be drawn as to the superiority of the JAAF, the later having no carrier-based fighters.

JG53Frankyboy
12-08-2004, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heinz_Knokke:
...................................The true is that the IJN had more types of fighter in the war than the JAAF (speaking only of light fighters, not mentionning the heavier fighters derived from bomber or recco models).
......................... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IJAAF:
Ki27 , Ki43 , Ki44 , Ki61 , Ki84 , Ki100

IJNAF:
A5M , A6M , J2M , N1K

did i miss something ??
even if you count N1K1-J and N1K2-J as two differnet planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Saburo_0
12-09-2004, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heinz_Knokke:
Saying that the IJN was stuck with only an turn-fighter (the type zero) is very far from the true, as this statement is forgetting to mention the tremendous effort on new designs of fighter made by the IJN.
. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"It's worth pointing out that while the Japanese Navy stuck pretty much with the
A6M manuever fighter, the Japanese Army went from the Ki-43 maneuver fighter to
the Ki-44, Ki-61 and Ki-84, all energy fighters.
"
I think this comment comes from the fact that the IJA fielded other models much earlier in the war than the IJN did. Raiden & George came into use around the same time as the Frank/Hayate, but the Navy didn't introduce any new planes in say '42 like the Army's Ki-61 & Ki-44.
Of course you could argue that improvements to the Zero were new types or more effective & practical.
i'm just saying I think this is what the author was thinking. er I think...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-09-2004, 02:17 AM
Good read, thanks.

One doesn't see this comparison often, or never see this, but despite the exact opposite appearance, Ki~44 was the Japanese "MiG~3" -- early WAR high speed high altitude interceptor. This is probably why Ki~44 is my Fave Japanese fighter.

WOLFMondo
12-09-2004, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
What I see here, or rather see the lack of, are guys replying to the fact that the A6M sticks with the P-40 and even the F4U like stink on a June Bug! I shallow climb will get you killed as well as a shallow dive. Aileron rolls just slow you down to were the A6M will eat your lunch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Online or Offline? Online a dive in a F4U will get you away from anything bar a Ki-84, low down though a zero has a better power to weight ratio than an F4U but the F4U has the better top speed at all altitudes so just run away and don't climb till your comfortably exceeding the zero's top speed.