Heaviest armed Japanese single seat, single engine fighter?

[J.A.W.]

A point of information is weight. The Japanese were not stupid.

Japanese 12.7mm Ho-103............................23kg
US .50 cal Browning........................................29kg
Japanese 20mm Ho-5....................................37kg
20mm Hispano..................................................50kg.

The ammunition shows a somewhat similar increase in weight.
The Japanese army guns/ammo were pretty good for the weight.
But a Japanese army fighter with two 12.7s and two 20mm guns was not really carrying "heavy" armament. In target effect in may have been only 5-10% more effective than six .50s and then we could argue about the amount of ammo/firing time.

Now compared to a Ki-43 the armament was a huge improvement

Good points.
Is that the long-barrel Hispano, what did the 'sawn off' variant save, a couple of kg?

 

[GregP]

The Japanese 20mm guns were not really in the first rank.

The Ho-5 was sort of fast firing, 750-820rpm, (for wing guns) but a little on slow side for MV and a lot on low side for shell weight.
79 gram HE shells compared to the 128-130gram shells from a Hispano.

The Navy had two guns, the later type 99-II used shells about the same as the Hispano/Oerlikon but fired them at less velocity (750ms instead of 880ms) and fired fewer shells per second/minute. about 480-500rpm, there was a model 5 version in the last few months of the war that got up to 750rpm but it is not certain that it saw combat (or not much).
But the British were fielding MK V Hispanos in Europe in the Spring of 1945 that also fired at 750rpm. The MK V Hispano dropped velocity to 850ms.

The Japanese guns were firing about 75% of the shell weight per second and were firing the shells about 85% as fast.

I bet if you got hit with them, the difference would have proven to be negligible.

 

[Shortround6]

I bet if you got hit with them, the difference would have proven to be negligible.

Unless you were well instrumented

But the difference was in the hit percentage. The faster shells have a bit more chance to hit depending on firing angle (defection). The navy guns fired few shells per second. The Army shells did do less damage although more than a .50 cal.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Ki61 had a Japanese copy of a DB601 engine, chosen for it having superior high altitude performance to other Japanese fighter engines. So the Tony could get to the B-29's on their high altitude daylight missions better than most other Japanese fighters.

When the Japanese copy/copies of the DB 601A materialized (1942-ish), they were as low altitude engine as the German DB 601A was in 1942. Engine on the F4F-3/-4 or on the Zero 32 were with better high-altitude abilities; even the Merlin III was a bit better.
The area where the DB 601A was better than the (not just) Japanese radials was drag, and, at least during 1942, the usage of exhaust thrust.

Japanese equivalents of the DB 601E, like the Atstuta 31 and Ha-140, were with even more problems than the earlier DB 601A copies, or the Homare.

 

[GregP]

Thing is, if you were a Japanese pilot in WWII, you didn't get to choose what airplane you flew or what armement you used. You flew whatever airplane they had at the unit to which you were assigned. You didn't get to choose your armament. You used whatever was in the airplane you were assigned to.

Essentially, it was like street racing. You "run what you brung."

Not saying you aren't correct that the Japanese guns were less than stellar, they mostly were. Just saying it didn't matter since they fought with the airplanes and guns they had and achieved the results they did. Even with all the faults of the Zero, the Japanese pretty much did whatever they wanted to to do for about a year and a half until we got our act together and responded to Pearl Harbor.

 

[Shortround6]

Thing is, if you were a Japanese pilot in WWII, you didn't get to choose what airplane you flew or what armement you used. You flew whatever airplane they had at the unit to which you were assigned. You didn't get to choose your armament. You used whatever was in the airplane you were assigned to.

Essentially, it was like street racing. You "run what you brung."

Not saying you aren't correct that the Japanese guns were less than stellar, they mostly were. Just saying it didn't matter since they fought with the airplanes and guns they had and achieved the results they did. Even with all the faults of the Zero, the Japanese pretty much did whatever they wanted to to do for about a year and a half until we got our act together and responded to Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese (and just about everybody else) had to "run what you brung" when it came to guns. Guns and ammo could take 3-6 years to develop from scratch.

Thread is mostly heavily armed Japanese fighters. They had to use what they had, but a heavily armed Japanese fighter was often not quite on the same field as everybody else.
The Ki-84 for example may not quite be equal to a Spitfire XVI(e) for example despite the nominal caliber of the guns being the same.
The George may only be firing about 80% of the shells of an allied fighter with four Hispanos per second. May not make much difference in fighter vs fighter combat, over time it may make a difference trying to shoot down bombers.

 

[MIflyer]

Engine on the F4F-3/-4 or on the Zero 32 were with better high-altitude abilities;

Well, yeah. The F4F had a two stage supercharger. But the BF-109E was no slouch at 20,000 ft plus and the Spitfire I/II pilots would agree And the A6M3 had 1700 cu in.

Thing is, if you were a Japanese pilot in WWII, you didn't get to choose what airplane you flew or what armement you used

Saburo Saki said he was distressed when he got to Lae and found they had some Claudes as well as Zekes. I do not recall hearing of any of our pilots shooting down any Claudes, so maybe they were used only for training.

Speaking of Claudes, did anyone ever read of our pilots in the SW Pacific shooting down any Nates? Of course Nates or Claudes might have been identified as Vals. I read that at Luzon a TBM pilot was told to lower his gear when he overflew the invasion ships at low altitude in order to show he was not hostile. Well, all that did was cause the Navy gunners to say "VAL!!!" They shot him down.

 

[MIflyer]

Not saying you aren't correct that the Japanese guns were less than stellar,

It was not until pretty recently that I realized that the IJN used their own version of British .303 ammo, such as in the cowl guns of the Zero. That is what 7.7 MM really means. Japanese ground troops used that, too, and at least on New Guinea the Aussie troops were very happy to take captured .303 and use it in their Vickers.
The .303 round was a bit less powerful than the US Thirty Ought Six and I guess the Japanese version was as well.
I recall a novel, perhaps by Barrett - where an Aussie coastwatcher treasured his Enfield rifle and was very disappointed that the US troops on the 'Canal had no ammo available for it. In reality they should have had buckets of Japanese 7.7MM around with nobody interested in using it.

 

[tomo pauk]

Well, yeah. The F4F had a two stage supercharger. But the BF-109E was no slouch at 20,000 ft plus and the Spitfire I/II pilots would agree

For circumstances of 1938-1941, the 109E was certainly competitive; small size and small weight also played the part.
For 1942-45, both the 109E and the 601A were were well behind the curve.

And the A6M3 had 1700 cu in.

Agreed. Even so, the Sakae 21 were with the slightly better hi-alt performance.

Japanese Navy was 'guilty' of not insisting on their main fighters having the last and best engines, choosing the 4th/5th best engine for the Zero; J2M was too little & too late, as well as to smart for their own good with the engine that had the extended prop shaft, as well as not being a carrier-borne type.

Army at least had some foresight to adopt the bigger Ha-41/-109 (2290 cu in) on the Ki-44, and the similar displacement Homare (2185 cu in) on the Ki-84.

 

[MIflyer]

For circumstances of 1938-1941, the 109E was certainly competitive; small size and small weight also played the part.

You wonder if maybe the Ki61 was more or less a better airplane than the BF-109E.

 

[tomo pauk]

You wonder if maybe the Ki61 was more or less a better airplane than the BF-109E.

I'd argue that Ki-61 was the better of the two as fighter aircraft compared.
Much more fuel on board, a proper and sizable drop tanks installation, much better U/C, bigger wing so the wing loading is not excessive even under the heavy take-off weights, lower drag (despite the bigger size and thicker wing of greater area), no limitations wrt. ammo count for the big(ger) guns...
Lighter 109E certainly climbed better, that is probably the only tactical/technical advantage.

Crucial advantages of the 109E were that it was available much earlier, in greater numbers, and that was with the more reliable engine - ie. the 109E was a much better weapon of war.

 

[SaparotRob]

It was not until pretty recently that I realized that the IJN used their own version of British .303 ammo, such as in the cowl guns of the Zero. That is what 7.7 MM really means. Japanese ground troops used that, too, and at least on New Guinea the Aussie troops were very happy to take captured .303 and use it in their Vickers.
The .303 round was a bit less powerful than the US Thirty Ought Six and I guess the Japanese version was as well.
I recall a novel, perhaps by Barrett - where an Aussie coastwatcher treasured his Enfield rifle and was very disappointed that the US troops on the 'Canal had no ammo available for it. In reality they should have had buckets of Japanese 7.7MM around with nobody interested in using it.

Too bad he didn't think to ask.

 

[special ed]

Well, yeah. The F4F had a two stage supercharger. But the BF-109E was no slouch at 20,000 ft plus and the Spitfire I/II pilots would agree And the A6M3 had 1700 cu in.


Saburo Saki said he was distressed when he got to Lae and found they had some Claudes as well as Zekes. I do not recall hearing of any of our pilots shooting down any Claudes, so maybe they were used only for training.

Speaking of Claudes, did anyone ever read of our pilots in the SW Pacific shooting down any Nates? Of course Nates or Claudes might have been identified as Vals. I read that at Luzon a TBM pilot was told to lower his gear when he overflew the invasion ships at low altitude in order to show he was not hostile. Well, all that did was cause the Navy gunners to say "VAL!!!" They shot him down.

View attachment 759989

An excellent video program a few years ago about the sunken ships in Rabaul harbor shows clearly a Claude in the cargo along with trucks & equipment. It may have been a Nat Geo video on PBS. I remember at the time thinking why would IJN want a Claude delivered unless a commander wanted the type he flew in China.

 

[MIflyer]

I remember at the time thinking why would IJN want a Claude delivered unless a commander wanted the type he flew in China.

Interesting! I'd guess that they shipped the Claude simply because it was all they had to send. Like the P-400's sent to the Solomans.

Admittedly, the USAAF flew P-26's in defense of HI for a time but that was because of the Urban Renewal project of 7 Dec 1941.

 

[MIflyer]

I'd argue that Ki-61 was the better of the two as fighter aircraft compared.

I think I read that the Japanese did a fly off between a BF-109E they had received and a Ki61 and decided the Hein was better than the Heinie.

 

[SaparotRob]

 

[J.A.W.]

I'd argue that Ki-61 was the better of the two as fighter aircraft compared.
Much more fuel on board, a proper and sizable drop tanks installation, much better U/C, bigger wing so the wing loading is not excessive even under the heavy take-off weights, lower drag (despite the bigger size and thicker wing of greater area), no limitations wrt. ammo count for the big(ger) guns...
Lighter 109E certainly climbed better, that is probably the only tactical/technical advantage.

Crucial advantages of the 109E were that it was available much earlier, in greater numbers, and that was with the more reliable engine - ie. the 109E was a much better weapon of war.

Except for downing B-29s (or tough US heavies), it would appear, question being what characteristic/s allowed for the Tony to take top spot
on the table for giving the Superforts, the ol' Teppanyaki chop-chop, while the 4-cannon Nippon birds didn't emulate the FW 190's prowess
over the Me 109 for blasting down Boeings into the Beerhalls below, back in the Fuehrer's Fatherland?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Except for downing B-29s (or tough US heavies), it would appear, question being what characteristic/s allowed for the Tony to take top spot
on the table for giving the Superforts, the ol' Teppanyaki chop-chop, while the 4-cannon Nippon birds didn't emulate the FW 190's prowess
over the Me 109 for blasting down Boeings into the Beerhalls below, back in the Fuehrer's Fatherland?

Knowing I'm replying to a banned member, I think it's fair to point out that the B-29 was much more capable defensively than a -17, which likely factors into the general ineffectiveness of Japanese air defenses.

 

[SaparotRob]

Didn't look as good as the B-17, though.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Didn't look as good as the B-17, though.

Oh, the -29 looked like the business. Didn't need to look good -- it looked deadly.