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

Kevin J said:

Both P-40N and Beaufighter are better than Spitfire VIII if opponents are only A6M and Ki-43, because they have better range than Spit.

Click to expand...

For offensive operations, yes. But for defensive interceptions, rate of climb and ceiling are more important, especially considering the Japanese tried bombing from high altitude. That's why the P-40Es and P-39D/P-400s were no use as interceptors at Guadalcanal, because the Japanese came in above their operational ceiling, leaving only the Wildcats as capable of getting high enough fast enough to catch them. The Spitfire V was the fastest climbing interceptor available at Darwin. By the time Spit VIIIs arrived the Allied position had changed from defensive to offensive, and the Spit VIII didn't have the range required for long-range interdiction nor escorts.
The May 2nd 1943 Darwin Raid actually illustrates how badly the Aussies were commanded at Darwin, with some of the blame lying with Clive Caldwell.
Firstly, the Spitfires only intercepted the Japanese after they had dropped their bombs and were withdrawing. This shows bad use of radar by ground control. Over Malta in 1942, the RAF used Park's Forward Interception Plan to defeat Luftwaffe raids using Ju88s and Bf109Gs, faster and tougher than the equivalent Japanese bombers and fighters used over Darwin. If the Malta Spit Vs could defeat the Luftwaffe with proper ground controlled interceptions (GCI) in August 1942, with a lot less warning time, then the RAAF should have over Darwin eight months later. By intercepting after the raid the Spits were committed to a stern chase and used up too much fuel before they even engaged.
Secondly, we have the Caldwell issue. As an experienced fighter leader he should have predicted the fuel problems and disengaged his squadrons earlier. But Caldwell let his inexperienced pilots carry on dogfighting with the Zeros, which was in itself a poor decision as the Zeros were not a threat to Darwin, the Japanese bombers were. And this was after the US P-40 jocks at Darwin, who had already tangled with the Zeros, had warned Caldwell that dogfighting Zeros was a bad idea. Despite having scored his victories in the Desert in the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, Caldwell was another sufferer from "Spitfire snobbery", and simply assumed the P-40 was the issue. Caldwell and the RAAF did learn from the May 2nd raid, and after that they tended to ignore the Zeros, kept their speed high and just went for the Jap bombers.

I never said the US didn't have long range fighters. I said "nothing the British or Germans had". The 3 longest range fighters of WW2 are the P38, P47N and P51, so why when I specifically said British and German planes would you bring up 3 US planes? That's like me saying the Germans didn't have a good long range bomber and you arguing that they had He177, B17, B24 and B29.

pinsog said:

.....The US left drop tanks off of the .... P47 and the Germans left drop tanks off the Me109. Those are all real head scratchers looking back

Click to expand...

Read this. Then read this.
The 109 didn't have drop-tanks for the Battle of Britain because the Luftwaffe assumed the ME110 would do all the long-range work. The ME109E-4 had the fittings for a centre-line crutch but not the fuel lines for a drop-tank. Those came with the E-7, which was available towards the end of August 1940, and were later retro-fitted to early E-4s from October 1940.
The P-47 in the ETO didn't originally have drop-tanks because the Air Corp in the ETO was run by the "Bomber Kings", who still thought the bombers would be able to fight their way in and out without escorts. Whilst the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid of October 1943 didn't have escorts right to the target, because the ETO P-47s and P-38s didn't have the long-range drop-tanks available for anything other than ferrying, the P-38s had been flying longer escorts in the PTO since March 1943 because they did use drop-tanks operationally. P-47s in the PTO began using drop-tanks operationally in June 1943.

What is there to disagree with here?! Do you think it was a good idea to leave drop tanks off of the early models of the Wildcat, P47 and Me109?

Mad Dog said:

Read this. Then read this.
The 109 didn't have drop-tanks for the Battle of Britain because the Luftwaffe assumed the ME110 would do all the long-range work. The ME109E-4 had the fittings for a centre-line crutch but not the fuel lines for a drop-tank. Those came with the E-7, which was available towards the end of August 1940, and were later retro-fitted to early E-4s from October 1940.
The P-47 in the ETO didn't originally have drop-tanks because the Air Corp in the ETO was run by the "Bomber Kings", who still thought the bombers would be able to fight their way in and out without escorts. Whilst the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid of October 1943 didn't have escorts right to the target, because the ETO P-47s and P-38s didn't have the long-range drop-tanks available for anything other than ferrying, the P-38s had been flying longer escorts in the PTO since March 1943 because they did use drop-tanks operationally. P-47s in the PTO began using drop-tanks operationally in June 1943.

Click to expand...

I don't care WHY they left off the drop tanks, what I said was it was a bad idea. The Wildcat, P47 and Me109 SHOULD have had drop tanks from the beginning.

Do you actually read what is typed or just hit disagree and start typing?

Mad Dog said:

Secondly, we have the Caldwell issue. As an experienced fighter leader he should have predicted the fuel problems and disengaged his squadrons earlier. But Caldwell let his inexperienced pilots carry on dogfighting with the Zeros, which was in itself a poor decision as the Zeros were not a threat to Darwin, the Japanese bombers were. And this was after the US P-40 jocks at Darwin, who had already tangled with the Zeros, had warned Caldwell that dogfighting Zeros was a bad idea. Despite having scored his victories in the Desert in the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, Caldwell was another sufferer from "Spitfire snobbery", and simply assumed the P-40 was the issue. Caldwell and the RAAF did learn from the May 2nd raid, and after that they tended to ignore the Zeros, kept their speed high and just went for the Jap bombers.

Click to expand...

Additionally, Caldwell knew that his Spitfires had drop tanks available and he purposely didn't use them. The RAAF was rather upset about that decision.

M Mad Dog , if I see one more childish insult, you will no longer be posting here.

Don't ignore me again.

RCAFson said:

Additionally, Caldwell knew that his Spitfires had drop tanks available and he purposely didn't use them. The RAAF was rather upset about that decision.

Click to expand...

You mean the Spitfires he was using were plumbed for drop tanks and he either had British drop tanks or could have used P39 or P40 drop tanks and he chose not to do use them??? If that's the case, he should have been sacked....

Caldwell and the RAAF did learn from the May 2nd raid, and after that they tended to ignore the Zeros, kept their speed high and just went for the Jap bombers

19 of the 28 Spitfires lost over Darwin were shot down while they themselves were attacking a bomber, which puts some light on the MkV's losses.

pinsog said:

An Me110 was not 20-30 mph slower than a Spitfire. It was faster than a Hurricane and just barely slower than a Spitfire with nowhere near the climb rate or maneuverability of either.....

Click to expand...

The average Bf110C-1/2/3 available to the Luftwaffe in 1940 had a top speed of 336mph at 20,000ft, which is about 30mph slower than a BoB Spit I, and not much faster than a Hurricane I with 100 Octane fuel. The Bf110C-4 with the DB601N engines (100 Octane) could hit 349mph, but were available in very small numbers in late 1940. RAF Hurricane and Spitfire pilots meeting the ME110 in August 1940 reported it could outclimb them above 15000ft, especially when it zoom-climbed after an attack. Bob Tuck was one that gave up chasing an ME110 in a climb during the attacks on London, a period by which the ME110 was supposedly "useless". Please do tell me your sources are better than Bob Tuck.

pinsog said:

…...Essentially when an Me110 got a single engine British fighter on its tail there was no way to shake it off.....

Click to expand...

In the early period of the Battle of Britain, when the ME110s could range freely without being tied to the bombers, they actually had a higher kill-to-loss ratio than the 109.

pinsog said:

…...An Me109 had about 10 minutes of fuel over London and German pilots constantly talked about watching the fuel gauge, worried about going down in the channel......

Click to expand...

And? You might want to check a map, London is not on the Channel coast, it is 80-odd miles inland. You were going on and on about the Channel, that's not London.

pinsog said:

…...In isolated incidences a twin engine fighter (other than the P38) I'm sure took on a won battles with single engine fighters, but there is no way a Beaufighter, Me410 or Mosquito is going to work as a long range fighter.......

Click to expand...

The tests for the Mosquito were done against ETO aircraft, not the relatively slow Zero. For a start, a 450mph dive in a Zero would rip the wings off! As I tried to explain earlier, the job of an escort is to dissuade or stop the enemy's interceptors from getting to your bombers. A Mosquito diving on you at 450mph, with four 20mm Hispano and four .303s, is a lot of dissuasion! Especially when you consider a Spitfire V climbed best at a speed of180mph, and a lot less as it got to altitude. As I pointed out earlier, a force of Mosquitos could not only have flown all the way to Darwin with their own bombs, they would have had the speed to evade the Spitfire Vs, negating the need for an escort. Same goes for the Me410 with its 380mph top speed, especially as the RAAF ground controllers seem to have been incompetent. The Beau IIF could clock 301mph at 20,000ft with radar, probably a bit more without, so still fast enough for the IJN "Betty" bombers they would need to escort, though they would be more likely to be intercepted than the Me410 or the Mosquito.
The only reason the Zero was viable as an escort over Darwin in 1943 was because the tropicalised Spit Vs were just not that fast, and because Caldwell was not using the best tactics. As soon as Caldwell sorted the tactics and they started using drop-tanks, even the Spit V was good enough to be successful against the Japanese bombers.

pinsog said:

…..I never said the US didn't have long range fighters. I said "nothing the British or Germans had"......

Click to expand...

Do I really need to point out which country the de Havilland Mosquito and Bristol Beaufighter originated in, or is it the Messerschmitt Me410 that has you confused?

pinsog said:

What is there to disagree with here?! Do you think it was a good idea to leave drop tanks off of the early models of the Wildcat, P47 and Me109?

Click to expand...

As I pointed out, they didn't. Even the Wildcat got a pair of 58-gal drop-tanks, though I'm not sure when they started being used operationally.
The P-47C was the first operational Thunderbolt model in 1943, and it had drop-tanks the same year. The decision not to use them in the ETO straight away was down to the brass.
Under the Luftwaffe's policy of primarily supporting the Wehrmacht, the ME109 wasn't supposed to do the long-range role, that was supposed to be the job of the ME110, but even the ME109 had drop tanks in use by late 1940. Goering's problem was that Germany couldn't build enough ME110s so he had to try and use ME109s as escorts.
So your statement is incorrect.

pinsog said:

You mean the Spitfires he was using were plumbed for drop tanks and he either had British drop tanks or could have used P39 or P40 drop tanks and he chose not to do use them??? If that's the case, he should have been sacked....

Click to expand...

The RAAF Spitfires had been supplied with 30IG slipper tanks, they were available at the airstrips and Caldwell opted not to use them because he (and other pilots) thought they caused too much loss in performance. See Darwin Spitfires, p159.

Mad Dog said:

The only reason the Zero was viable as an escort over Darwin in 1943 was because the tropicalised Spit Vs were just not that fast, and because Caldwell was not using the best tactics. As soon as Caldwell sorted the tactics and they started using drop-tanks, even the Spit V was good enough to be successful against the Japanese bombers.

Click to expand...

To be fair there was no other fighter in the Allied inventory (except maybe the P-38 but they had their own problems) that had the climb rate and altitude performance to have intercepted the IJ bombers over Darwin after they switched to high altitude attacks. The Spitfire V/Merlin 46 actually had fair high altitude performance and were somewhat faster than the Zero at high altitude.

The Spitfire VII/VIII/IX could have been used but these were scarce in late 1942 when the decisions had to be made.

The Hurricane IIA was the other UK/Cdn fighter available in numbers but it's high altitude performance was somewhat less than the Spitfire V/M46 at ~310mph @30K ft.

The P47 hadn't sorted out it's high altitude ignition problems in time for them to have been used. The P40F was marginal at best, because of it's climb rate and ceiling.

Mad Dog said:

As I pointed out, they didn't. Even the Wildcat got a pair of 58-gal drop-tanks, though I'm not sure when they started being used operationally.
The P-47C was the first operational Thunderbolt model in 1943, and it had drop-tanks the same year. The decision not to use them in the ETO straight away was down to the brass.
Under the Luftwaffe's policy of primarily supporting the Wehrmacht, the ME109 wasn't supposed to do the long-range role, that was supposed to be the job of the ME110, but even the ME109 had drop tanks in use by late 1940. Goering's problem was that Germany couldn't build enough ME110s so he had to try and use ME109s as escorts.
So your statement is incorrect.

Click to expand...

So, you disagreed with my statement "it was a bad idea to not put drop tanks on early models of Wildcat, P47 and Me109" by saying they eventually got them?
Oh my. Please read this very slowly and carefully.
The EARLY models of the Wildcat, P47 and ME109 did not get drop tanks. The Wildcat did not get them until very late in the Guadalcanal campaign which means that it was in service with the British and US Navy for over a year before it was plumbed for drop tanks.
The first P47's deployed to Britain did not have drop tanks and had a horrible combat range, something like 200 miles.
The Me109 did not get drop tanks until, I believe, the end of the BoB. It doesn't matter that they didn't plan to use it as a "long range" fighter, it was still a bad idea to not give it drop tanks.

It was a massive mistake not to equip the very first Wildcat and P47 with drop tanks.

It was a massive mistake not to equip the Me109 with drop tanks before the BoB started. How many bombers were shot down because their 109 escort was headed home on fumes instead of protecting them? How many 109 pilots ended up in the channel because he was out of fuel?

RCAFson said:

The RAAF Spitfires had been supplied with 30IG slipper tanks, they were available at the airstrips and Caldwell opted not to use them because he (and other pilots) thought they caused too much loss in performance. See Darwin Spitfires, p159.

Click to expand...

Oh ok. I get not using a slipper tank. Caldwell was probably right on that. The performance margin of the Spitfires over the Zero at Darwin was slim above 20,000 and nonexistent below 20,000 so I don't blame him on that. They needed true drop tanks.

pinsog said:

Oh ok. I get not using a slipper tank. Caldwell was probably right on that. The performance margin of the Spitfires over the Zero at Darwin was slim above 20,000 and nonexistent below 20,000 so I don't blame him on that. They needed true drop tanks.

Click to expand...

There was little difference between the 30IG slipper tank, which was a true drop tank which could be and was jettisoned when empty, and other designs, especially as the slipper tank was so light. IIRC, no Darwin Spitfires ran out of fuel when using the 30IG slipper tank. Max performance of the RAAF SpitV/M46 with/without the 30IG DT was 352/332 mph at 30k ft which was considerably better than the A6M2 and by the time it reached 30K ft the slipper tank would be empty and could be dropped if combat was imminent.

Mad Dog said:

Do I really need to point out which country the de Havilland Mosquito and Bristol Beaufighter originated in, or is it the Messerschmitt Me410 that has you confused?

Click to expand...

Please please start a "Bristol Beaufighter as high altitude long range escort" thread. Some others in here might enjoy that.

If the Beaufighter could boom and zoom a Spitfire Trop V at high altitude, why didn't they use them to intercept the Japanese raids over Darwin? With your logic the Beaufighters could have escorted the Spitfires and protected them from those 2nd rate Zero's with boom and zoom tactics and let the Spitfires engage the bombers.

RCAFson said:

To be fair there was no other fighter in the Allied inventory (except maybe the P-38 but they had their own problems) that had the climb rate and altitude performance to have intercepted the IJ bombers over Darwin after they switched to high altitude attacks. The Spitfire V/Merlin 46 actually had fair high altitude performance and were somewhat faster than the Zero at high altitude.

Click to expand...

Agree 100% with this. US had 2 fighters that had the performance to do the interceptions, the P38 and the P43. The P43 had the speed and altitude performance to do the job, 4 50's would have been fair since 2 were synchronized lowering the rate of fire. Armor was supposedly added to them, but the whole wet wings that leak fuel even on the ground would have been a MAJOR problem. Too bad. If the P43 would have had self sealing tanks it could have been useful against Japan early on. The P38, even the early models, I think would have been a great choice. Great climb, 75 mph faster at high altitude than a Zero, 4 50's and a 20mm concentrated in the nose. I think 40 P38's would have ended the Darwin raids in a hurry.

Mad Dog said:

The Beau IIF could clock 301mph at 20,000ft with radar, probably a bit more without, so still fast enough for the IJN "Betty" bombers they would need to escort, though they would be more likely to be intercepted than the Me410 or the Mosquito.
The only reason the Zero was viable as an escort over Darwin in 1943 was because the tropicalised Spit Vs were just not that fast, and because Caldwell was not using the best tactics. As soon as Caldwell sorted the tactics and they started using drop-tanks, even the Spit V was good enough to be successful against the Japanese bombers.

Click to expand...

The IJ bombers were coming in well above 20k ft, and typically were at or above the Beaufighters service ceiling.