Ki-43 opinions?

[Ack-Ack]

Thought I remember reading that the version of the 339 the Dutch received actually fared pretty well against the Japanese, and the Dutch were just overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

The Dutch B-339 was lighter than the modified B-339E used by the RAF and Commonwealth air forces and if provided with enough warning to get to altitude for the intercept did enjoy some success against the Ki-43 and Zekes.

ack-ack

[Brooke]

I thought that the rounds in the Ki-43's guns are explosive.  That would give a good amount of extra lethality to them compared to non-explosive ones on the Ki-84's MG's.

[Karnak]

I thought that the rounds in the Ki-43's guns are explosive.  That would give a good amount of extra lethality to them compared to non-explosive ones on the Ki-84's MG's.

If the rounds in the Ki-43's guns were explosive then the rounds in the Ki-84's guns were probably also explosive.  I can't think of a reason for the Japanese to complicate logistics by having different rounds for the different planes.  Ki-61's, Ki-44s and Ki-67's too.

As to the Ki-43 in AH, I just downed two B-17Gs by shooting their right wings off.  Got proximity credit for an ack kill on the third.  I didn't see how many rounds I landed with.

[HighTone]

In regards to the hitting power of the Ho-103 12.7mm machine cannon, I think HTC has done a great job with it. Poorer armor penetrating capabilities, with a pretty good result on wings and fuselage.
 
 
“This combat tends to confirm intelligence reports that state that the Hayabusa's machine cannon, though having poor penetrative powers, had significant explosive effect. A Type 1 fighter that he identified as a ZEKE hit 1 st Lt. Roy Klanrud a P-40 pilot of the 35 th FS. According to Klanrud: “I knew I was badly shot up…I expected another attack which would have been fatal because my elevator and coolant was shot up by a 20mm cannon. Three bullets hit my armor plate and glanced off, clearing out the glass of the canopy on the left side.” More than one American fighter pilot hit by 12.7mm explosive rounds thought he had been hit by the larger 20mm round fired by the Japanese Navy's Zero fighter. A partial explanation for this phenomenon is suggested by findings of Britain's Ordnance Board that tested Japanese army 12.7mm ammunition. A 1944 report said: “The fuse of the H.E./I. [high explosive/incendiary] shell is probably too sensitive for optimum performance.” In tests in India the same type ammunition failed to ignite fuel in a partially filled petrol tin, it was thought because “the blast effect was such that any possibility of petrol or petrol vapour being set on fire was nullified because of this.” Another report concluded the super-sensitive fuse was likely to explode against an aircraft's wing or fuselage skin before penetrating to a fuel tank. Japanese armor piercing ammunition was found to be effective against certain types of Allied armor at least at close ranges on the order of 100 yards.”
 
 
 
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/248th/248th-2.htm
 

[Mitsu]

If the rounds in the Ki-43's guns were explosive then the rounds in the Ki-84's guns were probably also explosive.  I can't think of a reason for the Japanese to complicate logistics by having different rounds for the different planes.  Ki-61's, Ki-44s and Ki-67's too.

As to the Ki-43 in AH, I just downed two B-17Gs by shooting their right wings off.  Got proximity credit for an ack kill on the third.  I didn't see how many rounds I landed with.

I think so too.
HTC modelled Ho-103 well.

[Oldman731]

If they are the same as karnak suggests then fair enough but doesn't seem like it.

I think Karnak's right.  Like you, I also sensed that the MGs were more powerful than I expected (I'm used to 202's odd armament), but it's probably because one does tend to get in close with the Oscar.  

Heck, you really can't help it.

- oldman

[mechanic]

no no I said they seem more powerful than the ki-84 MG's.  

Killed some dude from 400 with minimal rounds.  Anything from 200 or less dies very quickly.  I would have to hit them more with 8x 303's.  

If they are the same as karnak suggests then fair enough but doesn't seem like it.

Ahhh that makes sense, I misunderstood your meaning. I tend to agree, although, when guys like Karnak hold a differing opinion in WWII data matters I have found him to be much more righter than me almost every time  

[Ack-Ack]

I thought that the rounds in the Ki-43's guns are explosive.  That would give a good amount of extra lethality to them compared to non-explosive ones on the Ki-84's MG's.

The Ho-103 guns did use explosive rounds but against well armored Allied planes its effects were reported to be marginal.

ack-ack

[Brooke]

If the rounds in the Ki-43's guns were explosive then the rounds in the Ki-84's guns were probably also explosive.  I can't think of a reason for the Japanese to complicate logistics by having different rounds for the different planes.  Ki-61's, Ki-44s and Ki-67's too.

I haven't done the world's most-exhaustive study, but I haven't seen any reference to explosive rounds in the Ho-103 except with respect to the Ki-43.  Maybe there wasn't sufficient production of explosive Ho-103 rounds to supply all aircraft types, and so they were prioritized to the Ki-43 since there were a lot of Ki-43's and since the Ki-43 needed them to be useful whereas the other aircraft had more powerful cannon and didn't need it.  Also, nations at times did things that seemed counterproductive in terms of logistics (especially the Japanese with respect to ammo types).

[Karnak]

Well, I guess I'll do some testing of the Ki-43's MGs in comparison to the Ki-84's and Ki-61's.

[Ack-Ack]

I haven't done the world's most-exhaustive study, but I haven't seen any reference to explosive rounds in the Ho-103 except with respect to the Ki-43.  Maybe there wasn't sufficient production of explosive Ho-103 rounds to supply all aircraft types, and so they were prioritized to the Ki-43 since there were a lot of Ki-43's and since the Ki-43 needed them to be useful whereas the other aircraft had more powerful cannon and didn't need it.  Also, nations at times did things that seemed counterproductive in terms of logistics (especially the Japanese with respect to ammo types).

You might find this site interesting to read.  Nakajima Type 1 Model 1 Army Fighter (Ki 43-I) Armament -- A Reassessment

ack-ack

[Brooke]

You might find this site interesting to read.  Nakajima Type 1 Model 1 Army Fighter (Ki 43-I) Armament -- A Reassessment

ack-ack

Thanks -- it is an interesting read.

Summary for others:  the author gives evidence and concludes that the large majority of Ki-43-I's in the war had one 7.7 mm MG with normal rounds and one 12.7 mm MG with explosive rounds (such as 1 AP, 1 HE, and 1 HE tracer loading).

[Karnak]

Thanks -- it is an interesting read.

Summary for others:  the author gives evidence and concludes that the large majority of Ki-43's in the war had one 7.7 mm MG with normal rounds and one 12.7 mm MG with explosive rounds (such as 1 AP, 1 HE, and 1 HE tracer loading).

No, the article is specific to Ki-43-Is.  It doesn't address Ki-43-IIs or Ki-43-IIIs.

[Brooke]

No, the article is specific to Ki-43-Is.  It doesn't address Ki-43-IIs or Ki-43-IIIs.

You are correct.  I should have been more precise.

[Karnak]

You are correct.  I should have been more precise.

We had a big go around on the forums when that article was first presented here.  Krusty claimed it applied to all Ki-43s and others said it was about Ki-43-Is only.

Sorry if I came off as cutting you off at the knees.