Talk:Nakajima Ki-27

Questionable data

"In the 1939 Battle of Halhin Gol against USSR in Mongolia, Ki-27 faced I-15 biplanes and I-16 monoplanes, and dominated them with its maneuverability, downing a total of 1,252 enemy aircraft."

Soviet data (skewed for sure) had Soviet air losses at 207 planes and Japanese - 660 planes. Data taken from Soviet Military Encyclopedia (8 volumes).

There is some losses discussion: http://www.warbirdforum.com/nomonhan.htm http://www.warbirdforum.com/nomon2.htm http://www.warbirdforum.com/nomon3.htm

It mentions official Japanese fight losses data - 90 aircraft, 62 of them Ki-27.

---

• See Soviet air losses:

[1]

Total of Soviet Fighters shot down (I-16, I-15, I-153) = 156 of the 207 planes shot down. Compared to the Japanese 62. Thats still a pretty good 2.5/1 ratio.Asiaticus 05:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you assuming all those Soviet air losses were due to Ki-27? 71.235.243.144 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment

Good length, though most of that length is tech specs. Could probably benefit from an infobox. LordAmeth 10:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pacific War was a Long Range War, Requiring Long Range Aircraft

The US could not bomb Japan during WWII until it possessed a superbomber; This was done when the B-29 Superfortress entered service. Conversely, Japan couldn't conquer nations at great distances unless they too had "long range" aircraft; nearly all IJA/IJN aircraft were long range aircraft. One, the A6M Zero, an "antique" by 1943 had longer range than the P51 Mustang or the Lockheed P38 Lightning. Reason? Because Japan and their enemies were fighting a long range war. Long range was attained by removing weight from their aircraft...e.g. ARMOR. Long range was the priority, maneuverabilty was a bonus! It does no good to have a maneuverable airplane if it CANNOT reach it's objective. A warplane must reach it's target before it can fight.

The ETO was a short range war, in which fighters & bombers could be heavily armored; they did not have far to fly. The escorts needed drop tanks to extend their flights. This couldn't be done in the PTO however; the Pacific Theater was a long range war; a naval war. As the allies closed in on Japan and their conquest days were over, then IJA/IJN aircraft could be armored, because by then, they too didn't have far to fly...just interception like Germany did against the US 8th Air Force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.17.205 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You are correct for Japanese Navy aircraft certainly, however the Army did not have a similar need for long range fighters as they were focussed on the Chinese and Burma theatres. In any case it is irrelevant - you have been misreading the numbers you have as the 1000km is Ferry range - as I just fixed, and you broke again. Wieliczko, Leszek A. and Zygmunt Szeremeta. Nakajima Ki 27 Nate (bilingual Polish/English). Lublin, Poland: Kagero, 2004. ISBN 83-89088-51-7. has the numbers as they were in the article. What is your source?NiD.29 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese book "Famous Airplanes of the World, 29, 1991 - Army Type 97 fighter" also gives a range of 627km so regardless of how much you have trouble believing what you see, the FAotW series are unimpeachable sources with access to a lot more information than anything published in English and are therefore very much likely to trump whatever source you got your numbers from.NiD.29 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Long range was the priority, maneuverabilty was a bonus!" Well, no. Maneuverability was the objective, for Army & Navy specifications both. Long range was achieved by omitting (not removing...) armor. If you don't know that much, I'm not surprised you're mistaking ferry range for combat radius. The 627km figure looks about what I'd expect for that (a bit low, maybe), based on the ferry range you cite, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)