Ki-44-II is the most broken prop fighter at its BR

In short bursts.
The AN/M2 is a closed bolt gun.
So there’s always a round in the chamber, absorbing barrel heat, „cooking“.

As long as you fire short burst with enough cooling intervals you can fire your whole ammunition supply.

I assume this from P-47s since P-51s only carried 1880 rounds.

The heat sensitivity was obviously a problem, in addition to general heating up the barrel more than other rounds, due to being fired at over 1000m/s.

Barrel heat reduces accuracy and when the rounds end up self-igniting, you are dealing with accuracy issues as well a reduction in firing power.

It’s unlikely the round would have been used in M3s, as that would have just amplify the problem.

The explosive round is practically identical in construction to the M1 Incendiary.

The problem with this test is that it says a bullet was placed in the chamber after a burst.

But what about cooling?

Obviously an aircraft mounted gun is cooled by the airflow.

I don’t see how an M1 Incendiary wouldn’t cook-off under the same condition on the ground.

I don’t think that Tetryl would ignite earlier than flash powder when exposed to heat.

It’s kinda how they concluded that US self-sealing fuel tanks could survive even getting shot by .50cal bullets, yet they shot the tank directly and not with a bullet first impacting the duralumin skin of an aircraft, which would lead to bullet tumbling and much larger holes.

In later tests they found out that even holes from 20mm rounds could be sealed, when the round pierced the tank, but when a .50cal impacted the tank sideways it would rip the rubber apart, resulting in worse sealing.

So what I’m trying to say is that unless a test is carried out in the right condition, it’s not particular conclusive.

They said the standard M1 Inc could withstand the “cook-off” test, while the lead core version of it failed in the test.
image
Could it be that the Tetryl caused the failure? The explosive said to be ignited above 180 degree C.

1 Like

Must be the case 🤔

No wait, it says the round has a detonator.

Maybe that’s the issue.
Detonators are generally more sensitive than the explosive they carry.

Which makes me wonder, if the Berezin UB had the same problems with its explosive ammunition.

Bullets in copper jackets are much better at conducting heat than steel shells 🤔

So that tubular dowel in the M1 probably also served as a layer of insulation, which the M23 lacked.

On the other hand the Soviet MDZ also has a steel tube on the inside.
So probably no issues with self-ignition.

1 Like

It completely slipped away from me that I have to substract the projectile mass from the whole cartridge weight. Ki-44’s guns + spent cartridge + belt weight is 120kg, not 140kg. Not much of a difference though. I don’t think gaijin cares about the cartridge weight in the first place, though.

I was thinking back to this… shouldn’t it be the other way around? With a 4-blade prop, the synchronizer would try to fire the guns more often as it’d have more ‘gaps’ to do so, while with a 2-blade prop it’d be only twice per rotation - half as often.

I’m not sure about that.
Someone?

As far as the Ki-84 is concerned, the synchronized gun firing timing appears to be twice per propeller revolution.


The above figure shows the “Synchronous Cam Advancement Device” of the Ki-84.
The cam mountains are depicted in two.

This is only the case for the Ki-84 and does not apply to other 4-blade airframes.
It is not definite that there are two cam mountains with two blades, and with three blades, there will either be one or three cam mountains.

The answer is “it depends on the aircraft”.

Well, it doesn’t matter that much since the speed of the propeller is often much higher than the gun’s rate of fire to begin with.
In the case of the Ki-84, a reduction ratio of 0.5 for 3000 rpm results in 1500 rpm; in the case of the Ki-44-II, a reduction ratio of 0.6875 for 2650 rpm results in 1822 rpm.

7 Likes

That’s an insightful diagram. Thanks for the very detailed explanations.

had to fight on in a p38E. Needless to say i got absolutely trashed, nothing i could do, nothing.

Best bet is to drag them high where their engine power diminishes. Other than that, yeah you’re screwed, they out speed you in SL. RIP

I was screwed yes, i was the only guy left, vs… this guy… who job it is to fly ki44 it seems… StatShark - See All Player, Missile, and Vehicle Statistics

so, yes, i had ZERO chance of winning or killing him, he also had full team around him, very bad situation D:

But really the P38 is trash, pure garbage, regret flying it, it is good FOR NOTHING.

Interesting that the A6M2 (slightly!) outkills it, but Japan 3.7 in general is just super strong.

image

well now i know what i will use to progress through japan tree haha

The P-38E is kinda mid, but the G is a free kill machine. It’s almost impossible to do poorly in it.

i dont really want to fly more p38’s for the moment, maybe later, im much more interested in the different corsairs, at least you have fighting chance wtih them

You do you, but the P-38G and later all offer the best chances at good results.

1 Like

oh i will try later but right now i just never want to fly a p38 again, its so awkward to fly…

Checked his stats and it seems more like you got into an unfortunate battle against a statpadder.

Chin up man.

1 Like

P-38L is good to try, also the P-38K but this thing is so rare.