Now, there´s something different for you. Both early monoplane fighters, which one would you prefer to be in ?
I don't know anything about the Nakajima fighter, so please fill me in... As for the Polikarpov, by 1939 standards it wasn't all that bad except when facing the most modern of fighters built by technologically advanced nations such as Germany. Overall, it was decent, nothing more but certainly nothing less. Maybe its armament was a little light though, two small 7.62mm MGs.
In 1939, the most likely opponent to the Ki-27 would probably be the I-16 Type 10, which was armed with four 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns. The Ki-27 had only two 7.7mm machine guns, and I believe the Soviet aircraft guns in general fired heavier projectiles at higher velocity and a higher rate of fire than their Japanese counterparts. Another version of the I-16 the Ki-27 could encounter at the time was the Type 17, armed with two 20mm ShKAS cannons. The I-16 could also carry unguided rockets ( RS-82 ) for use against aircraft. I guess the I-16 at least has the upper hand when it comes to firepower.
The Ki-27 was probably the more manouverable of the two, though the I-16 had a nifty rate of roll. At the Nomonhan campaign, the Japanese apparently came out with a higher kill ratio, although there are several factors involved here - not least the fact that over-claiming of kills was ridiculous in the extreme. If Japanese claims are all correct, there would be practically no aircraft left world-wide afterwards. And the Soviets were not much better... However, the Japanese kept a record of their losses which seems fairly accurate / plausable. They were not huge. Edit: just how to spell 'Nomonhan'
I believe official documents shows that the Soviets lost 207 aircraft during the Nomonhan incident while the Japanese lost 162 aircraft ( The Japanese claimed 1162 Soviet aircraft shot down and the Soviets claimed 650 Japanese aircraft shot down ), so the numbers are slightly in favour of the Japanese. The Ki-27 was definately the most stable aircraft of the two, the I-16 was in fact so difficult to handle that the initial trials report actually recommended that the I-16 was suitable only for pilots of average or higher abilities. The Ki-27 could easily be handled by the most novice fighter pilot. One of the most serious shortcomings of the Ki-27 ( and typical for Japanese aircraft of the period ) was the lack of pilot protection and self-sealing fuel tanks. I´m not sure if the I-16 had the latter, but I believe it was fitted with armour-plating to protect the pilot.
Is this a standard for overestimating enemy kills? I mean, they just easily multiplied facts by five!
Kills were consisently overstated by all sides by factors of 3 to 10. Actual kills almost never matched those claimed. Now I'm going to be in big trouble as people bring upn the exceptions and point to the "rigourous" methods used to verify the claims.
Everybody overclaimed. The Japanese bunch at the Nomonhan might have been a tad more over-optimistic than what was usual ( too much sake perhaps ? ), but everbody did it. Except for those honourable Luftwaffe pilots of course. :roll:
Dial now for your exclusive copy of the all-inclusive, easy-to-read, informative Guide to Sarcasm! Written, edited and published by the great Skua. If you call now, you will recieve a highly authentic edition of the Forum Guidelines, entirely for free!
