Spitfires verse Zero's over Darwin(again)

[ickysdad]

I'm having a fierce debate on this matter on another board . Does anybody what ever happened to that website dedicated to the air battles over Darwin?? Where in the Australian archives can I find the info on this???

[Corsarius]

I'm at work at the moment. I'll post some details when I get home. Otherwise, look up 'clive caldwell', or 'bombing of darwin' or 'darwin's pearl harbour' to get you started.

[Montana]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

I'm having a fierce debate on this matter on another board . Does anybody what ever happened to that website dedicated to the air battles over Darwin?? Where in the Australian archives can I find the info on this???



Hi!

Go there and find yourself engaged with GregP in this same matter, already:

http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7&whichpage=17

Hope this is of any help to you.

Cheers!

Montana

[Kutscha]

Icky, what is being debated?

a link, http://www.vrb.gov.au/dvapublications/CLIK-darwin-42-45.pdf

[Montana]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

Icky, what is being debated?

a link, http://www.vrb.gov.au/dvapublications/CLIK-darwin-42-45.pdf


Hi, Kutscha, Ickysdad,

I just read the article which was linked by Kutscha here. I must say that, I am less than impressed by the performance the Spitfires showed against japanese planes. In sheer numbers, the Kill-ratio for the Spits with about 3:1 against jap attackers (Bombers and fighters) seems only about HALF that of the Kittyhawks which were deployed sooner.

Espechially of interest is the high loss-rate of the Spits against the japs, when compared to the Kittyhawks. Also, the number of mechanical failiures and - fuel starvation - seem to be extraordinarily high for the Spitfires (Mark V, I suppose).

How come? How can it be that, half the strength of a Spitfire-Squadron gets shot down in one sortie against Jap planes? And how can it be that, SIX PLANES of one Spitfire-squadron get lost during one sortie, due to engine failiure?

Potential reasons:

a. Faulty equipment (war-weary british frontline-Spits reused down under)?

b. Uncapable groundcrew and, mechanics?

c. Faulty tactics against japanese planes?

d. Too overoptimistic and, hence, too daring against "inferior" japs?

e. Mostly "freshmen" in the Spits' cockpits?

f. POOR FUEL?

g. Lack of sand filters? (Did the Kittyhawks have one?)

h. Spits' weapons inferior to Kittyhawks against Jap planes?

i. Rigors of climate and country Down Under too harsh for highly sophisticated Spitfires vs. rugged "truck-like" Kittyhawks?

j. TOO MUCH FOSTERS THE NIGHT BEFORE?

You name it - I can't.

Cheers! [8D]

Montanamotor

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by Montana



I just read the article which was linked by Kutscha here. I must say that, I am less than impressed by the performance the Spitfires showed against japanese planes. In sheer numbers, the Kill-ratio for the Spits with about 3:1 against jap attackers (Bombers and fighters) seems only about HALF that of the Kittyhawks which were deployed sooner.

We went through this once before on this forum, if you remember.

quote:Espechially of interest is the high loss-rate of the Spits against the japs, when compared to the Kittyhawks. Also, the number of mechanical failiures and - fuel starvation - seem to be extraordinarily high for the Spitfires (Mark V, I suppose).

How come? How can it be that, half the strength of a Spitfire-Squadron gets shot down in one sortie against Jap planes? And how can it be that, SIX PLANES of one Spitfire-squadron get lost during one sortie, due to engine failiure?

I'll address your reasons, if you like.

Potential reasons:

quote:a. Faulty equipment (war-weary british frontline-Spits reused down under)?

The Capstain fighters that were sent to Darwin were actually quite new, and were not faulty apart from having a 'vokes filter' tropicalising them.

quote:b. Uncapable groundcrew and, mechanics?

The RAAF mechanics and groundcrew did an incredible job during the war with an air force made up of many different airframe and engine types of many different nationalites with many different settings, fuel requirements, and nut sizes! Working on something British like the Capstain would have been a pleasure. Many of these mechanics had come from England with the machines, and would have known their way around a capstain quite well.

quote:c. Faulty tactics against japanese planes?

I find this quite likely. The tactics used against the Luftwaffe would not have been so decisive against the Japanese. Experienced pilots coming from the European theatre would have had to take time to adjust.


quote:d. Too overoptimistic and, hence, too daring against "inferior" japs?

By the time that Capstains were stationed at Darwin, nobody at all had any prejudice against the 'inferior' Japanese.

quote:e. Mostly "freshmen" in the Spits' cockpits?

Not at all. Pilots such as Creswell and Caldwell were among those sent to Darwin, these being amongst our finest.

quote:f. POOR FUEL?

A probable cause.

quote:g. Lack of sand filters? (Did the Kittyhawks have one?)

Why the heck would they need sand filters? This is Darwin we're talking about, not some beach somewhere. Besides, the aircraft WERE fitted with vokes filters, which decreased speed, lowered performance, and generally were all-round despised by pilots.

quote:h. Spits' weapons inferior to Kittyhawks against Jap planes?

2x cannon + 4x MG versus a similar armament in the Zero.

quote:i. Rigors of climate and country Down Under too harsh for highly sophisticated Spitfires vs. rugged "truck-like" Kittyhawks?

Not really. Spit operations continued as per normal. Spits were also used in other tropical locations that were pretty tough with no problems.

quote:j. TOO MUCH FOSTERS THE NIGHT BEFORE?

Lol. Aussie pilots are quite a professional bunch. I've no doubt that much of the local Darwin ale was consumed, but that's like saying that the marianas turkey shoot was caused by the Japanese pilots all boozing it up on sake the night before.

quote:You name it - I can't.

I may have reduced the numbers for you, at least.

[conrad]

I am suprised that the attacks carried on in to late 1943 and 1944
I thought that by that time the Japanese had been driven out of the South Pacific.

[Kutscha]

There was still a Japanese army in New Guinea In July 1944 but had been neutrilized.

[Lightning Guy]

Well, I've been reading on this forum for a few days and I have something that might be useful to this particular discussion.

From The Wildcat in WWII by Barrett Tillman, ISBN 0-933852-32-0...

While "down under" Joe Foss addressed three Spitfire squadrons recently assigned to the air defense of northern Australia. The RAAF wing commander was Clive R. Caldwell, credited with twenty Axis planes in North Africa, and many of his pilots were combat-experienced against the Germans and Italians. But Foss detected an air of complacency among the Spitfire pilots, and attempted in his direct (that is to say, undiplomatic) way to set them straight. "I understand that several of you guys are aces," Foss began. "Well, congratulations. But what worked against the Germans won't work against the Japs." He paused and felt more than heard a murmur run through the room. Then he plunged on.

[Lightning Guy]

"I know what you're thinking. You think that if a stiff-necked American can shoot down twenty-three Japs in an 8,000lb airplane with 1,200hp, then you're really going to clean house in a 6,500lb airplane with 1,500 horses. Well, it doesn't work that way. If you try to dogfight a Zero, he'll eat your lunch."

When asked how he handled a lone Zero, Foss made no better impression upon his hosts. "We have a saying up at Guadalcanal," the Marine replied. "We say that if you're alone and you meet a Zero, run like hell because your outnumbered." One Australian asked if that wasn't quite sporting, was it? Foss shook his head. "It may not be sporting, but it's smart." He left the meeting as a friend of Caldwell, admiring the Aussies' spirit, but fearing for their future.

His fears were well-founded. Cutting though wartime claims, a comparison of RAAF and Japanese records who that the Darwin wing came out on the short end of an eight-to-one exchange ration in its early combats.

This strongly suggests that improper tactics were to blame.

[ickysdad]

One of Japan's leading aces(I think his name was Sakai) was interviewed by John Toland for his book "Rising Sun Of Nippon" in the book it's related that Sakai was amzed at seeing one F4F pilot holding 3 Zero's downing one before breaking away. Sakai then jumped on the US plane and was amzed at the plane's toughness and the flying skill of the American but he still couldn't down the US plane figuring he had wounded the American pilot. So clearly one on one wasn't necessarily the demise of an F4F for even if the US pilot in this case was an excellent pilot he was also up against another excellent pilot.

[Lightning Guy]

Well the Wildcat was hardly a death trap and it's pilots did some incredible things at long odds. Still, the perfered tactic for any plane in an unfavorable situation is to get out!

[ickysdad]

OH I agree history has proven always,I mean always fight together with a wingman and protect each other's rear*** !!!!!.

[conrad]

About the RAF tactics, I read somewhere that the RAf was bound by the orthodox fighter manual, namely to outmanouver the other plane. Since the Zero was the most manouverable fighter in the world at the time this was not a good idea. The Americans had leaned the hard way not to do this.
Also the Americans had learned that with the Zero if you got in to trouble you could disengage by diving away. Any RAF pilot who did this would have been court marshalled for cowardice
So British and Commonwealth pilots had a steep learning curve in the Pacific. Also the Spitfire's short range wasn't ideal for the expanses of the Pacific, some bieng lost at sea.

[Corsarius]

I recall a documentary on the campaign in PNG that the commander of a Kittyhawk squadron was told that he had to outmanoever the Japanese. Up until that time our tactics were 'zoom and boom'. It was rather realistic and detailed such things as disease and malaria in PNG, and why you shouldn't wear an oxygen mask if you're flying (due to being forcibly ill). The conditions were horrendous, and I don't think that anyone could ever imagine what it was like.

After his death, squadron tactics changed.

Also, if you look at the evaluation of the boomerang fighter, it was evaluated in 'turning combat' with a Capstain, a Kittyhawk, and a lightened buffalo which was designed to simulate engagement with a Zero. This would be indicative of tactics at that time.

[Double T]

I think Lightning Guy is on-track.

No debating the Spitfire was one of the great fighter-aircraft of the Second World War.
I have also read of the deployment of the first 'Spit-squadrons" to the Pacific. They were eager to dog-fight the Zero... and they got 'Hell shot-out of 'em.
It appears they were of the impression that their well-sorted German tactics would also work-well against the Nip-pilots. They were very-wrong.

Tim

[Lightning Guy]

I also think there was a certain amount of racism involved. This showed itself in two forms: 1) It was assumed that the Japanese were incapable of designing modern aircraft and 2) it was assumed that they would be lousy pilots with lousy eyesight. Those faulty assumptions would lead an over-confident pilot into eagerly, if stupidly, trying a slow-turning fight against the Japanese.

[ickysdad]

Then too maybe the IJNAF was better than everybody gives them credit for. Then too maybe pure energy tatics are overrated & yto some degree you have to be able to follow an enemy into turns after jumping them with energy tatics. The short nose of the Zero & the Grumman fighters enabled them to perfform high angle deflection shots without loosing of the enemy plane. Just a thought.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning Guy

I also think there was a certain amount of racism involved. This showed itself in two forms: 1) It was assumed that the Japanese were incapable of designing modern aircraft and 2) it was assumed that they would be lousy pilots with lousy eyesight. Those faulty assumptions would lead an over-confident pilot into eagerly, if stupidly, trying a slow-turning fight against the Japanese.


I don't know where you're from, but living IN Australia and having frequent contact with pilots that went up against the Japanese, I can tell you that by the time Darwin was bombed, nobody believed in 'Japanese Inferiority'. Everyone was terrified of the Zero, and of the fanatiacal (and at that time unstoppable) Japanese army.

I've already made this point in an earlier post on this thread.

The spitfires under Caldwell thought that European tactics that were used against the Germans would be sufficient. Once this was discovered to be insufficient, they changed tactics. It's that simple.

[ickysdad]

Corsarious,
I really don't think that by march/april 1943 that people necessarily thought the IJA was unstoppable witness Guadalcanal/Papuan Campaigns.
When did the Spitfire pilots changed tatics? It seems like the loss ratio never really changed that much .There used to be a website up that showed the reverses the Spitifres suffered up into 1943. Now I don't if that website got it's info from promary sources or not .That's what I've been kind of working for. Another question that popped up earlier and you said it was discussed awhile back, why is it that Kittyhawks seemed to suffer half the casualty/loss rate compared to Spitfires? Or did I misread that website Kutschka referred me to? Just looking for answers and hopefully some primary sources !!! LOL !!!!

[Corsarius]

looking for it now, ickysdad. It was a discussion on tactics versus zeros. Someone posted a quote from Caldwell regarding his opinion on Japanese tactics.


*edit* Got it!!

http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=161&SearchTerms=caldwell,inverted

Try that, it may give some more info. All hail GregP and his immaculate library, and all hail the Australian War Memorial archives for keeping all this stuff!

[conrad]

Could the lower casualties of the Kittyhawks be due in part to it's robustness. The zero was armed mainly with low caliber machine guns. it did have a cannon but it was slow firing and unreliable. With these shooting down a Kittyhawk with these would have required a lot of hits. a spit was more lightweight.

[Trexx]

The British did dumb things with their fighter planes. The obsession with tight formation flying was a two-fold mistake. They should've put as much effort into teaching and learning hunting tactics. At a distance, in the sky, it's much easier to spot a group of airplanes flying together. The closer they are flying together, the easier they're spotted. The Germans really appreciated those tight formations. I bet the Japanese did too.

[DoBravery]

I don't know, but the article's assesments of Japanese losses sound greatly exagerated to me--especially in 1942. If the Kittyhawks had safer loss rates than the spits, then it was probably due to a greater reluctance by the hawks to "mix it up" after sweeping on the bombers.

[Montana]

Well -

"He who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day!" Old military wisdom - only sometimes overshadowed by some chivalrous "death-defying" attitude.

The weak point in the "defying death"-approach to doing things is: He won't let you defy him for long...

One may also put it this way: The OLD pilots flew Kittyhawks, whereas the BOLD pilots were distinctly more into Spitfires...

Cheers! [:o)]

Montana

[Trexx]

The legacy of the American Volunteer Group in China (AVG) is they fought aggressively and often. That is afterall, how they made their dough.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by conrad

Could the lower casualties of the Kittyhawks be due in part to it's robustness. The zero was armed mainly with low caliber machine guns. it did have a cannon but it was slow firing and unreliable. With these shooting down a Kittyhawk with these would have required a lot of hits. a spit was more lightweight.


I think you're mixing up the 'Zeke' with the 'Oscar'. The Nakajima product was armed Italian-style with only two rifle-calibre machine guns, but the Mitsubishi Zero was armed with two heavy MG and two 20mm cannon.

[simon]

The Zero only got heavy machine guns in the late war A6M5 versions IIRC which were entering service in 1944 I believe, timewise at any rate the majority of the wartime Zekes were the A6M2 armed with two 7.92mm MGs and two 20mm cannon that were basically licence built versions of the German MG-FF cannon. This was a fairly limited weapon IIRC having a relatively low muzzle velocity and for the Japanese less effective than their German counterparts since (According to Tony Williams) they didn't produce the thin walled explosive shells for them that were most effective against aircraft.

[Lightning Guy]

THe Zero's machine guns where 7.7mm I believe.

[Kutscha]

I have a recollection that the Ozzie Spits were well used hand-me-downs that were transferred to Oz because they were not up to snuff in Europe.

[simon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning Guy

THe Zero's machine guns where 7.7mm I believe.


Oops, yes sorry 7.7mm MGs rather than 7.92mms.

[ickysdad]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

I have a recollection that the Ozzie Spits were well used hand-me-downs that were transferred to Oz because they were not up to snuff in Europe.

I think they were hand me downs but still in very good shape ,if I'm reading Clive Caldwell right on the link posted the page before.

[cheepie]

believe it to http://forums.ipfw.edu/cgi-bin/ceilidh.exe/forums/calculators/?C3d5fc7a1200A-6368-475-00.htm continue or are http://forums.ipfw.edu/cgi-bin/ceilidh.exe/forums/calculators/?C3d5fc7a1200A-6368-476-00.htm seizure risk http://forums.ipfw.edu/cgi-bin/ceilidh.exe/forums/nur523/?C3d5fc7a1200A-6368-477-90.htm rare instances men http://forums.ipfw.edu/cgi-bin/ceilidh.exe/forums/heyt02/?C3d5fc7a1200A-6368-486-00.htm In rare instances

[conrad]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

I have a recollection that the Ozzie Spits were well used hand-me-downs that were transferred to Oz because they were not up to snuff in Europe.

I think they were hand me downs but still in very good shape ,if I'm reading Clive Caldwell right on the link posted the page before.


Would those Spits be MkV's?. In Europe they were given a roasting by the newly arrived FW190's. In North Africa they were given a torrid time by the 109F's. The RAF had to rush the MkIX's in to production. So not only were the Ozzie Spits 2nd hand but they were a model in urgent need of replacement. No wonder they had limited success.

[Corsarius]

Conrad makes a fine point. The spits were mark V, and later on mark VIII, I believe.

[Lightning Guy]

I'm not sure what model the Spits were, but the Mk.V would have impressive performances advantages over the A6M2 Zero. The Mk.V should have little trouble with the Zero if they choose to "boom-and-zoom."

So the issue remains one of which tactics the Aussies chose to use.