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

[fubar57]

Mk.IV could carry a 500lb bomb under each wing

 

[Mad Dog]

So these pilots are testing a Spit V vs a Hap so they can figure out the strong points and weak points of both aircraft so hopefully they could keep themselves and their squadron mates from dying and you think they forgot to try the overboost when the Hap was whipping the Spit V from 0-20,000 feet?

Wouldn't there be a note somewhere,"Hap stomps Spit from 0-20,000, BUT if you use overboost Hap doesn't have a chance"

Seems that would be a relevant addition to the test. OR they used it and didn't mention it.

Zero had overboost available as well

For some reason the Australians just weren't happy with the Spitfire Vs they were sent from the UK. They were a bit embarrassed by their No1 Wing pilots crashing Spitfires and also running them out of fuel. It didn't help that the Spits arrived without a lot of the field mod.s the RAF already had in place for RAF Spit Vs, the most serious being they only ran +9Lb boost, the lack of the Shilling Orifice fix for the carb, and they had the original heating tubes for guns (which often fell apart, leaving the guns vulnerable to freezing at high altitude). The Americans were supplying a steady stream of P-40s, plenty of spares and maintenance assistance. The grumpy Aussies, led by Desert P-40 ace Peter Jeffrey, asked for more P-40s instead of Spitfires. The British got so tired of the Australians and their moaning that they arranged a competitive trial of the tropicalised Spit V (Merlin 45) against a CAC Boomerang, a Hurricane IIb Trop, a P-39 Airacobra and a P-40E, flown by RAF and RAAF pilots. Not surprisingly, the Spitfire trounced the other fighters. Interestingly, the P-39, despite being lumbered with the heavy 37mm M4 cannon, was faster, climbed better and flew higher than the P-40 with the same Allison V1710-39 engine, and was preferred by the RAF pilots to the P-40. This was quite ironic given how the RAF bad-mouthed the Airacobra in 1941! The result was the Aussies moaned a bit less and got Spitfire VIIIs in 1944.

 

[Mad Dog]

…..But it is good question as to why Australia didn't get Hurricanes....

Ah, that would be the politics involved. In 1939, when Britain went to war, the Commonwealth countries stepped up and sent their sailors, soldiers and pilots to help. By December 7th 1941 there was exactly one modern fighter in Australia, a single Hurricane I Trop, V7476. The British promised that the Hurricanes in Malaysia would keep the Japanese away from Australia. So when the Japanese bombed Darwin in 1942 there were no fighter defences available, not even Hurricanes. The Australians were rightly unamused, and Winston Churchill hastily promised to send them a wing of Spitfires. The resulting reformation of No1 Wing was actually two RAAF Spitfire squadrons from the UK plus 54Sq RAF, but because it was so associated with Winnie it was christened the "Churchill Wing" by the press. Ironically, upon hearing of the plan, the experienced pilots in all three squadrons transferred to other UK squadrons, meaning the majority of No1 Wing's pilots came straight from training units.
Despite Winnie's promises, the USAAF actually operated P-40s in Australia first, and were supplying a steady stream of P-40s before the Spitfires arrived. To make matters worse, the RAF diverted most of the original Spitfires promised to the Med in 1942, meaning Churchill's Wing arrived in Australia in August 1942 with only six Spitfires, and they were in a bad state after shipping. Replacement Spitfires didn't arrive until October 1942, giving the Aussies 71 operational Spitfires. Ever since, Australians have used the term "Churchill promise" to indicate a good deal gone bad.

 

[Mad Dog]

I think we have a problem here in equating bearing failure to engine life or time between overhauls....

During the BoB, a pilot had to report if he used max boost. The fitters were then supposed to strip the engine and look for signs of wear. As the situation became more desperate and the trust in the Merlin grew, this was reduced to the fitter pulling out the oil filter and checked for white metal in the oil. By the time the P-40s were flying in the Desert the RAF was more relaxed, and whilst the pilot still had to report using WEP, the official procedure was now for the fitter to just check the Allison's oil filter, record it as "clean" on the Form 700, and that was it. The Allison was always considered very reliable in RAF service.
A bigger problem with Merlins was the dreaded reconditioned engine. This was a Merlin that had reached the end of it's operational life and was returned to Rolls-Royce for a thorough rebuild before being sent back to the RAF "good as new". As the RAF went to war, the need for more engine rebuilds than RR could handle arose, and most engines were sent to maintenance units for their rebuilds. Outside the UK all rebuilds were done in MTUs. RAF pilots avoided reconditioned Merlins if they could, considering them much more likely to fail than factory-fresh engines. Tom Neil mentions having two reconditioned Merlins seize in a week when he was flying Hurricanes over Malta, one after less than a minute of full boost.

 

[Mad Dog]

One of the things mentioned in "Hurricane & Spitfire Pilots at War" is that the wing mounted ferry tanks used by Hurricanes were not jettisonable…..

If you mean the cigar-shaped 44-gallon tanks, they were actually called ferry tanks as they were only intended for long-range deliveries, not combat use. Part of the reason the RAF did not intend them being jettisoned was they each had their own electric pump inside, making them rather expensive to manufacture.
The RAF was forced to use the ferry tanks as a way to stretch the range of the Hurricane in the Med, most notably when trying to provide air-cover for Crete from Libya. They were also used for long-range strafing attacks in the Desert where the cannon of the IIc made it very good for shooting up roads and airfields. The ferry tanks allowed the Hurricanes to hook far out over the desert and then attack the Axis supply-lines behind the areas covered by Axis fighters. This was so successful it culminated in Operation Chocolate, two weeks after Alamein, when a wing of Hurricanes operated from desert strip LG125 behind the Axis lines. Over three days they shot up 14 Axis aircraft and over 300 vehicles, and disrupted the attempts to resupply Rommel's retreating army.

 

[Mad Dog]

I know there's a serious difference when you're flying close to sea level or up at 35000 feet but how much difference is it between 10000 and 20000

The air pressure and temperature drop as you gain height. For engine performance, the less dense air has less oxygen, which means you need to push more air into the engine (with a supercharger) to get the same level of horsepower as you did at sea level. If you have a relative air density of 1 at sea level, it has already dropped to 0.73 by the time you get to 10,000ft, and 0.53 by 20,000ft, meaning your engine that produced 1000hp at sea level is probably only going to generate 730hp at 10,000ft and 530hp at 20,000ft without supercharging.
Also, if the air temperature is 15 degrees C (59F) at sea level, by the time you get to 20,000ft the air temperature is down to -24.6 degrees C (-12.2F). That has a big effect on your coolants, oil and fuel, with poor oil turning to sludge in the oil coolers whilst still boiling away in the engine.

 

[Schweik]

I'm well aware of all that, I'd appreciate since you and I clearly don't see eye to eye that you didn't quote my posts or respond to them.

 

[GrauGeist]

I'm well aware of all that, I'd appreciate since you and I clearly don't see eye to eye that you didn't quote my posts or respond to them.

Quoting posts regardless of a like or dislike situation, provides context.

 

[Glider]

Mad Dog
First, I must say that I am impressed with the effort and detail of your posts on this topic, there is a lot of information which is new to me and no doubt others.

However, we are going to have to agree to disagree on the main basis of your argument that the Hurricane was at least equal with the Ki43. There is no doubt that if the Hurricane of any version, got a good shot at the Ki43 then it was game over, but that aside, the Hurricane in my view only had two other advantages. It could dive faster and it didn't (practically speaking) tend to 'mush' or sink when pulling out of the dive.
In all other criteria, speed, agility, climb, range take your pick, the Ki43 was in a different class. This was recognised by the RAF who themselves described the Hurricane as obsolete and the only reason it was kept in service in the Far East was its ability as a particularly accurate bomber. It was very accurate because it could release its bombs at a lower altitude than any other aircraft because it didn't 'mush' when pulling out.

 

[taly01]

This was recognised by the RAF who themselves described the Hurricane as obsolete

In Air War for Burma: Bloody Shambles 3, a British officer is noted as been a big complainer and minute writer about the Hurricane in early-ish 1943 been outclassed and he was told to shut the hell up about it as he was hurting morale, Sadly ironically he was soon shot down and killed....in a Hurricane.

In Burma the Ki-43 vs Hurricane is a classic matchup. The Japanese do say the Hurricane was better in a dive and a tough opponent, especially vs the Ki-43-I. Unfortunately i've never found a comparison fly-off of Ki-43 vs allied aircraft etc like they did with the Zero, which may suggest the Allies didn't consider it highly (or different to a Zero ) But the Ki-43-II was probably very similar to a A6M3 Model 32 in performance. It is only after the Spitfires VIII arrival that the JAAF began to be decimated in Burma.

 

[Schweik]

I haven't read Bloody Shambles yet but from their own records US P-40 squadrons didn't seem to feel outgunned by the Ki-43 nor did they suffer particularly heavy losses. They certainly weren't complaining about the P-40.

 

[MIflyer]

I read where a CBI RAF Hurricane pilot described the 12 gun version as just marvelous for strafing, especially against Japanese troops in barges. I could see that.

As for why they kept the Hurricane in service in the Med and CBI, one pilot summed things up thusly: "They have five thousand Hurricanes in England and they have to do something with them."

Reference the book, "They Flew Hurricanes."

 

[Mad Dog]

….In all other criteria, speed, agility, climb, range take your pick, the Ki43 was in a different class.....

Not so. The late Ki-43 III was faster and considered a pretty good match for a Spitfire V Trop, but by the time they reached the frontline the RAF had Spitfire VIIIs and P-47s. Very few Ki-43 IIIs reached Burma, meaning the Japanese pilots were still using Ki-43 IIs in 1944, which were not considered superior to the Hurricane II by the RAF.

…. This was recognised by the RAF who themselves described the Hurricane as obsolete and the only reason it was kept in service in the Far East was its ability as a particularly accurate bomber.....

Whilst the Spitfires were moved forward to provide air-superiority ahead of the frontline, the Hurricanes were given the vital tasks of both anti-bomber defence and escort of the Dakota supply flights. The Commonwealth strategy in the Arakan was to stand and fight, using resupply from the air. Escorting the Dakotas was vital, and the Hurricanes did a very good job, losing only one Dakota to Japanese fighters. You can read more about the use of Hurricanes after the arrival of Spitfires here. Please note the New Zealander pilots mentioned did not have any qualms about dogfighting with the Ki-43, especially when they used tactics like the rolling dive attack followed by a climb away, Frank Carey's version of boom'n'zoom.

 

[Greyman]

Not so. The late Ki-43 III was faster and considered a pretty good match for a Spitfire V Trop, but by the time they reached the frontline the RAF had Spitfire VIIIs and P-47s. Very few Ki-43 IIIs reached Burma, meaning the Japanese pilots were still using Ki-43 IIs in 1944, which were not considered superior to the Hurricane II by the RAF.

Not to mention, the great majority of the time the Hurricane II was the main fighter for the RAF in theatre -- its main opponents were the Ki27 and Ki43 I. The Ki43 II only had a couple of months as the Hurricane's main antagonist before the Spitfire Vs and VIIIs started coming in.

As I said earlier in the thread, my impression is that the Hurricane wasn't outclassed by the Ki43 at all, but tactics, pilot skill (vs. the Japanese, not in general), radar and control deficiencies were much more important factors in why the Hurricane struggled.

 

[slaterat]

This is a repost from earlier in the thread.

The Spitfire and the Zero both suffer from stiff ailerons at high dive speeds , the Spit only slightly less so, therefore using the high speed dive and rolling or turning to escape from the Zero didn't work as well for the spitfire, as it did for the Hurricane which had effective controls at high speed.

Essentially the Hurricane and Zero are very close performance wise in climb and speed with the Zero being better below 15,000 feet and the Hurricane better above.

The Hurricanes escape plan is the same as the P 40s, the P40 does dive faster than the Hurricane but they both can dive fast enough to escape a Zero or KI 43.
The limiting factor for the P40 in all variants is its anemic rate of climb, its just too heavy, with the Kittyhawks actually being worse than the Tomahawks they superseded. The Hurricanes superior climb rate gives it a far better chance of being at an equal or greater altitude when intercepting inbound raids.

The Hurricane also has other advantages over the Zero and KI 43. Its much tougher and stronger with self sealing tanks, a full plate of rear armor from the pilots head to his heels, a front armoured windshield, a front bullet proof bulkhead , as well as a 10 swg bullet resistant front cowling and an eight lb plate of armour in front of the glycol header tank. The heat treated high tensile steel frame was very resistant to exploding shells fired form the Japanese cannons and heavy machine guns.

Against the KI 43 i , which has a maximum speed of only 308 mph at 13,000 feet, the tropicalized Hurricane IIa is is clearly faster above that height reaching 334 mph at 17,500.

It really doesn't matter what Allied fighter you are flying in early 1942 the game plan is the same when fighting the Zero or Ki 43. Whether you are flying an F4F, P 40, P39, Spit V or Hurricane, the goal is to get height, come down fast, take a shot, evade and repeat.

 

[eagledad]

Taly01

Attached are 2 reports on the Oscar Mk I vs P-40 and P-38

FYI

Eagledad

Source: J-aircraft.com

 

[PAT303]

Ah, that would be the politics involved. In 1939, when Britain went to war, the Commonwealth countries stepped up and sent their sailors, soldiers and pilots to help. By December 7th 1941 there was exactly one modern fighter in Australia, a single Hurricane I Trop, V7476. The British promised that the Hurricanes in Malaysia would keep the Japanese away from Australia. So when the Japanese bombed Darwin in 1942 there were no fighter defences available, not even Hurricanes. The Australians were rightly unamused, and Winston Churchill hastily promised to send them a wing of Spitfires. The resulting reformation of No1 Wing was actually two RAAF Spitfire squadrons from the UK plus 54Sq RAF, but because it was so associated with Winnie it was christened the "Churchill Wing" by the press. Ironically, upon hearing of the plan, the experienced pilots in all three squadrons transferred to other UK squadrons, meaning the majority of No1 Wing's pilots came straight from training units.
Despite Winnie's promises, the USAAF actually operated P-40s in Australia first, and were supplying a steady stream of P-40s before the Spitfires arrived. To make matters worse, the RAF diverted most of the original Spitfires promised to the Med in 1942, meaning Churchill's Wing arrived in Australia in August 1942 with only six Spitfires, and they were in a bad state after shipping. Replacement Spitfires didn't arrive until October 1942, giving the Aussies 71 operational Spitfires. Ever since, Australians have used the term "Churchill promise" to indicate a good deal gone bad.

Not only were the spit's in poor condition, they were fitted with Merlin 46's which were only allowed 9psi boost which meant the MkV's had performance levels less than the Mk11.

 

[PAT303]

Mad Dog
First, I must say that I am impressed with the effort and detail of your posts on this topic, there is a lot of information which is new to me and no doubt others.

However, we are going to have to agree to disagree on the main basis of your argument that the Hurricane was at least equal with the Ki43. There is no doubt that if the Hurricane of any version, got a good shot at the Ki43 then it was game over, but that aside, the Hurricane in my view only had two other advantages. It could dive faster and it didn't (practically speaking) tend to 'mush' or sink when pulling out of the dive.
In all other criteria, speed, agility, climb, range take your pick, the Ki43 was in a different class. This was recognised by the RAF who themselves described the Hurricane as obsolete and the only reason it was kept in service in the Far East was its ability as a particularly accurate bomber. It was very accurate because it could release its bombs at a lower altitude than any other aircraft because it didn't 'mush' when pulling out.

The fact that Hurricane pilots only attacked from a position of advantage and continued diving away after the engagement, and were forbidden to dogfight JAAF aircraft only strengthens the argument as to it's obsolescence.

 

[PAT303]

Tom Neil of Malta fame certainly did in his Spit XII. There is a hilarious description of the problem in "From The Cockpit: Spitfire". The Spits had two little hooks under the fuselage just aft of the slipper tank, the idea being that upon release, the hooks would catch the back end of the tank and flip it out away from hitting the Spitfire's tailwheel. Some Spitfire's never had problems, some seem to have almost continual problems caused by those hooks. Neil's XII was a bit of a lemon and the jettisoned tank would continually ram itself onto the hooks, as he put it "standing out rampant from the fuselage", and acting as a big airbrake! Not ideal when you consider the tactics for the Spitfire XII squadrons was to find a group of high-flying Jerries, slip in underneath them, and challenge them to come down to the level the Spit XII's Griffon engines worked best at.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but you have to scratch your head at why they didn't just fit a 35g aux tank behind the seat.

 

[Kevin J]

The fact that Hurricane pilots only attacked from a position of advantage and continued diving away after the engagement, and were forbidden to dogfight JAAF aircraft only strengthens the argument as to it's obsolescence.

So they were used the same way as the P-40 in the CBI which was the top scoring fighter in that theatre. So no problem. Against the Ki-43-I/II the Hurricane IIb Trop had higher level and dive speeds, heavier armament and better armour protection. Against a II-Kai onwards you really need a Spitfire. Monsoon time in India is May to October. Earliest available Vb Trop was Feb 42 in Malta, Summer 42 for Vc. Others all went to North Africa in 1942. Maybe if we hadn't given USSR 200 Vb's early 43 then India could have got them in time for their Monsoon season when little flying took place.