A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45 (1 Viewer)

[Kevin J]

I found this an interesting read, but it took a while.
A Critical Analysis of the Royal Air Force Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya, 1941-1945 - Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses
It looks like an interesting topic for discussion.

 

[Kevin J]

I found this an interesting read, but it took a while.
A Critical Analysis of the Royal Air Force Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya, 1941-1945 - Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses
It looks like an interesting topic for discussion.

Here are my initial thoughts. There's no point in introducing Spitfires until the radar coverage is available because the Spitfire V Trop versions available from late 1941 to early 1943 don't have the speed necessary to catch up with a Ki-46-II recce plane in a chase, they need GCI to get them to the altitude and position in order to be successful. Spitfire (F) Mk.VB W.3322 Report
The performance of the Hurricane II is perfectly adequate to combat the Ki-43-I/II, all you need to do is to remove half of the machine guns. The Mohawk IV served perfectly adequately with that number of guns. For added range, you simply add two 45 gal drop tanks, giving it a better range that a Spitfire V with a 45 gal drop tank. The 90 gal tank they had was intended for ferry missions only, although theoretically could be used as a drop tank.

 

[MycroftHolmes]

The 90 gal tank they had was for ferry missions only.

No, the 90-gallon tank was used for combat. The 170-gallon tank was solely for ferrying.

 

[Kevin J]

No, the 90-gallon tank was used for combat. The 170-gallon tank was solely for ferrying.

Not at the start. On the Spitfire Vb, the 30 gal was the combat tank, the 45 gal was the drop tank and the 90 gal was the ferry tank. Its only in 1942 with the Spitfire Vc that you get the 170 gal ferry tank with an extra 29 gal tank behind the pilot. The problem with the 45/90 gal tanks was they didn't always detach properly. I think you'll find that the Spitfires in the Med were rigged up with the Kittyhawks drop tanks as detachment was more reliable and the desert survival kit behind the pilot was re-arranged to allow the use of the additional 29 gal tank. The BPF never used the slipper tanks. They used the drop tanks from RAAF Kittyhawks. The RAF don't have Kittyhawks in India, so none of their drop tanks.

 

[Glider]

The Hurricane was never a match for the Ki43 despite the theory and the Spit V did I believe have the performance to catch the Ki46 as it was only when the Spitfire arrived on the scene did the Japanese start losing appreciable numbers of the Ki46.

 

[Kevin J]

The Hurricane was never a match for the Ki43 despite the theory and the Spit V did I believe have the performance to catch the Ki46 as it was only when the Spitfire arrived on the scene did the Japanese start losing appreciable numbers of the Ki46.

The Dutch tested a Hurricane in the East Indies with half the armament and fuel and it was fully capable of dog fighting the Hayabusa. The Hurricane had problems with the Hayabusa when it couldn't get to sufficient altitude to combat it i.e. ineffective radar. The Spitfire did stop the Ki-46 overflights but only after the radar cover was up and running. Without effective radar it would not have been able to as the Vc TROP was slower than the Ki-46-II and had a lower rated altitude. Have you read the document attached?

 

[MIflyer]

The 9th Photo Recon tried to convert one of their F-4's into an interceptor to deal with the Dinahs. They mounted two .50 cal machine guns in the F-4 (which was their hangar queen) but failed to intercept the Dinah due to lack of radar warning. Finally the USAAF stripped down a P-40 and got the Dinah.

An interesting item is that the RAF went over to VHF communications and when the USAAF Air Commandos went into action in 1944, the RAF said that they did not need for their pilots to talk to the ground forces in Burma. The ground forces did not have VHF, only HF communications. The P-51A's of the Air Commandos came equipped with SCR-274N HF radios, and they talked to the ground troops.

 

[Kevin J]

The 9th Photo Recon tried to convert one of their F-4's into an interceptor to deal with the Dinahs. They mounted two .50 cal machine guns in the F-4 (which was their hangar queen) but failed to intercept the Dinah due to lack of radar warning. Finally the USAAF stripped down a P-40 and got the Dinah.

An interesting item is that the RAF went over to VHF communications and when the USAAF Air Commandos went into action in 1944, the RAF said that they did not need for their pilots to talk to the ground forces in Burma. The ground forces did not have VHF, only HF communications. The P-51A's of the Air Commandos came equipped with SCR-274N HF radios, and they talked to the ground troops.

Did they use a stripped down P-40F/L to intercept the Ki-46? A 2 gun P-40F/L, polished up and with putty fillings to any cracks would certainly be faster than a Ki-46-II. Also, the Chinese Observer Corps that the Americans had was a lot more effective than that of the British.

 

[fubar57]

Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society

​

"The slipper tank was the standard range extender on the Spitfire and some 300,000 were built in a variety of capacities and materials. Fitted flush on the fuselage underside ahead of the cockpit, the slipper tank was essentially a trough whose depth varied in proportion to volume. The 30, 45 and 90-gallon versions were used on fighter missions with the 170-gallon tank reserved for ferry flights only. The drag penalty imposed by slipper tank carriage was relatively high compared to the later 'torpedo' style drop tanks that were mounted on struts clear of the fuselage (see table 2). Compared with the slippers, the torpedoes were little used. All tank types could be jettisoned although this was normally only done when operationally imperative"

 

[Kevin J]

Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society

View attachment 497247
​

"The slipper tank was the standard range extender on the Spitfire and some 300,000 were built in a variety of capacities and materials. Fitted flush on the fuselage underside ahead of the cockpit, the slipper tank was essentially a trough whose depth varied in proportion to volume. The 30, 45 and 90-gallon versions were used on fighter missions with the 170-gallon tank reserved for ferry flights only. The drag penalty imposed by slipper tank carriage was relatively high compared to the later 'torpedo' style drop tanks that were mounted on struts clear of the fuselage (see table 2). Compared with the slippers, the torpedoes were little used. All tank types could be jettisoned although this was normally only done when operationally imperative"

Are you agreeing by a roundabout way that there were potential problems in jettisoning the slipper type tanks in combat?

 

[fubar57]

I just posts em and let you guys go nuts

 

[Kevin J]

I found this an interesting read, but it took a while.
A Critical Analysis of the Royal Air Force Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya, 1941-1945 - Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses
It looks like an interesting topic for discussion.

This document highlights the need for transport aircraft to resupply units that have been cut off by the enemy. Compared to the Soviets, Germans and Americans, us Brits didn't build a lot of transport aircraft. It certainly sheds light on why the British Army had to retreat so often.

 

[MIflyer]

I thought that the Dinah shootdown was mentioned in the book "Eyes for the Phoenix", a history of Allied photo recon the SE Asia, 1941 - 1945, but I have not been able to find it.

 

[fubar57]

From "Eyes for the Phoenix"

 

[Kevin J]

Did they use a stripped down P-40F/L to intercept the Ki-46? A 2 gun P-40F/L, polished up and with putty fillings to any cracks would certainly be faster than a Ki-46-II.

From "Eyes for the Phoenix"

View attachment 497254​

You still need an effective radar and ground observer corps to spot them and until that was in place there would have been no point in having Spitfires because the Spitfire Vc TROP was slower at its rated altitude which was lower than that of the Ki-46-II. That was not in place one year before.

 

[pbehn]

Are you agreeing by a roundabout way that there were potential problems in jettisoning the slipper type tanks in combat?

I believe the slipper tanks could be jettisoned but with speed and maneuvering restrictions ...not ideal to slow down and fly level in combat, and you may need the fuel anyway.

 

[Kevin J]

I believe the slipper tanks could be jettisoned but with speed and maneuvering restrictions ...not ideal to slow down and fly level in combat, and you may need the fuel anyway.

So the only one you'd really want to enter combat with attached is the 30 gal slipper, is that not so? Maybe you could use the 45/90 gal ones if you were engaged in counter air operations attacking airfields, but then again, you'd go up with a big bang if you were hit with even light ack ack? The 45/90 gal tanks really aren't very useful.

 

[fubar57]

It says in the article,"....All tank types could be jettisoned although this was normally only done when operationally imperative..." I read this as: jettisoned before combat was engaged.

 

[Kevin J]

It says in the article,"....All tank types could be jettisoned although this was normally only done when operationally imperative..." I read this as: jettisoned before combat was engaged.

Any idea what the maximum speed for dropping them was?

 

[fubar57]

My thoughts as well. I wonder if it's in Mk.V Pilot's Notes?

EDIT: which it seems is the only one I don't have