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

Schweik said:

Spit IX (arriving in small numbers from early 43) seemed to have slightly better but still too short range / endurance but they did sometimes use slipper tanks and later drop tanks from P-40s to extend it.

Click to expand...

The Spitfire IX's combat debut was in August 1942. There were 4 squadrons equipped with the IX.

In the CBI, the Japanese Army had a major edge in the early years with their aircraft led by the Ki-43, with the less capable Ki-45 twin engined fighter also playing a role, and in the early months the comparative fragility of their bombers like the Ki-21 didn't seem to matter much. We tend to focus a lot on the fighters, for obvious reasons, but as air superiority remained at least contested for most of the war in the CBI, it's important to consider the role of the bombers as well.

The Ki-21 "Sally" was fast (300 mph at 15,000 feet, cruise speed 236 mph, defended by 5 x 7.7mm and 1 x 12.7mm mgs) and had a fantastic range for an early war bomber of 1,680 miles. But as the war shifted away from Blitzkrieg type shock warfare and settled into attrition, that vulnerability particularly for the relatively cumbersome bombers started to tell. The IJN's G4M "Betty", also used in Theater, was a bit more robust but slower, (266 mph, 196 mph cruise speed, 1,700 mile range, 4 x 7.7mm mg and 1 x 20mm cannon) seemed to do more damage in bombing raids and suffer less attrition, as well as being a fairly lethal torpedo bomber particularly against merchant shipping. This edge may have just come down to the better training standard of IJN flight crews compared to the IJA. The IJA also had a very useful recon asset in their excellent and beautifully designed Ki-46 "Dinah" recon plane.

The British potentially had an advantage but they deployed older aircraft types and took a long time to adjust Tactics. We already discussed the limitations of the Hurricane, (though it proved quite capable of shooting down Ki-21s) the other big weakness on the British side (to me) was the Blenheim bomber, which remained one of their most important attack types through the end of 1942. Blenheims (266 mph, 198 mph cruise, a good range of 1,460 miles, defended by 3 or 4 x .303 mgs), though they did have some protection and self-sealing tanks, seemed to be as vulnerable to fighters as the Japanese types. It carried a light bomb load and did not have great bombing accuracy and overall contributed relatively little to the war effort in the CBI while costing the lives of many trained crew and using up valuable resources.

However the British were able to make a major leap forward in (theoretical) capability with the introduction of the Beaufighter and to a lesser extent the Mosquito in Theater in April / May 43 initially in small numbers. The Mosquito proved to be a valuable recon asset, though the wood construction caused some problems in the humid and rainy environment. The Beaufighter in particular had a significant impact. This would have been more telling if more of these planes had been available sooner. Both were accurate bombers and in the ground attack role and had comparatively low loss rates on missions. The Brits also used fighters in the fighter-bomber role with success, as they bombed accurately and could do some real damage strafing, while suffering relatively low attrition (compared to a Blenheim or a Ki-21).

The Japanese did also produce some good new bombers, the Ki-49 Storm Dragon / "Helen" (operational from late 1941) had armor and self sealing tanks, yet still managed 306 mph / cruise 217 mph, with a 1,200 mile range, albeit with small bomb load. The even better Ki-67 Flying Dragon / "Peggy" which didn't become operational until 1944, had armor and self-sealing tanks, could make 334 mph, cruised at 249 mph, had a 1,700 mile range and was armed with 1 x 20mm and 5 x 12.7mm machine guns. It too had a light bomb load but was accurate due to dive bombing capability. The Japanese Navy developed the similarly performing Yokosuka P1Y Ginga "Frances" (arriving in 1944), which had 340 mph at 19k feet, an incredible 3,300 mile range, 1 x 13mm and 1 x 20mm guns and a light bomb load. It was used in the CBI but was severely hampered with engine problems. However none of these bomber ever really found their niche. The Ki 49 though good, was not available in sufficient numbers in time to have a telling effect in the crucial mid-war years, while the Ki-67 and P1Y did not become operational in time. The Ki-67 was roughly comparable to a German Ju-88 but two years too late. The P1Y could have been almost comparable to a Mosquito but was so crippled with design and maintenance problems it's hard to say if it was really as good as it looked on paper... and it too arrived two years too late. Nor did the IJA field a satisfactory replacement fighter in time in the same period to protect them.

The problem with the Ki-49, Ki-67 and P1Y were basically production, especially the engines. This, to me, was the major Strategic advantage the British had over the Japanese: they were able to keep producing good new engines through the war and get them in working order relatively quickly (albeit with some exceptions of course, Napier Sabre comes to mind). Engine production as well as indecisive meddling on the planning / procurement side really hamstrung Japanese aircraft development leading up to the crucial mid-war period, and they famously never did really introduce satisfactory replacements for their early war fighters (the excellent Ki-43 and A6M) and instead only made incremental improvements*. The new bomber types came in very small numbers - Japan only produced ~ 700 Ki-49s through the whole war, while almost 6,000 Beaufighters and roughly 6,000 Mosquitoes were produced by 1945. The British meanwhile had the Spit VIII coming into the theater and the US had the P-38 and P-47 coming available in 1943, and later the P-51, while around the coastline, the Navy Hellcat and Corsair also arriving in 1943, all of the above used as fighter-bombers as well as fighters (something neither Japanese fighters or dive bombers ever really worked out well for against land targets), while early war B-25s and A-20s were kept in the game (albeit not quite as good as a Mosquito or a Beaufighter), when they were modified for strafer and skip bombing Tactics that made them quite dangerous to the enemy and effective as bombers.

I think the British could have better leveraged their advantage in producing excellent engines like the RR Merlin and Bristol Hercules by hurrying the retirement of aircraft like the obsolescent Hurricane and obsolete Blenheim, and producing even more of their excellent and much more effective aircraft like the Beaufghters and Mosquitoes, (and of course Spitfires) if that could have been possible. The production of newer and better engines was the Achilles heel and a major bottleneck for the Japanese, the Italians, the Russians, and to some extent the Americans**. The British and the Germans were the world leaders in this department, and both could have leveraged that advantage better. Of course certain design struggles like with the British planned replacement for the Hurricane, the Typhoon, and the Germans planned replacement for the Stuka, the He 177, complicated this agenda. Design hell was a serious pitfall which could be difficult to perceive as it was happening.


* of course they did get the Ki-61 in time to make a difference but it was plagued with mechanical problems and was not really dominant over mid-war Allied types. The really good new Japanese fighters like the N1K1 and Ki-84 came about a year too late and in too small of numbers, and they too suffered from engine problems.

** The Americans eventually did produce effective and reliable radial "second gen" engines in the Pratt and Whitney R-1830 and R-2800 etc., but their inline engine industry, represented mainly by Allison, clearly suffered from a Strategic deficiency in altitude performance remedied only by the adoption of Rolls Royce two stage supercharger technology. The Allison did eventually work well with a turbo in the P-38 but this wasn't truly in working order until 1944 which is a year too late, though the P-38 still played an important role (despite many problems) in the Far East during the mid-war years.

wuzak said:

The Spitfire IX's combat debut was in August 1942. There were 4 squadrons equipped with the IX.

Click to expand...

I was referring to it's availability in the Med. Spit IX were kept in England for a while to protect the homeland from Fw 190s.

Schweik said:

Spit VB / VC had very short range which was a Strategic problem for the DAF since it was arguably their best fighter until 1943. In the Med the issue was not (partly) addressed until the arrival of the Spit VIII, and there weren't enough of those.

Spit IX (arriving in small numbers from early 43) seemed to have slightly better but still too short range / endurance but they did sometimes use slipper tanks and later drop tanks from P-40s to extend it. Spit IX was the first really dominant Allied fighter type in Theater. The only other with a similar impact was the P-51 but it didn't arrive until 1944. The P-38 (great range but the early models were mediocre against Axis fighters) and P-47 (better in air combat but range was considered mediocre) both more or less held their own against Axis fighters but neither had a major edge, nor did the Spit V or the Merlin P-40s. They were basically even against Bf 109s and MC 202s, victory largely came down to who had numerical or situational advantage.

For the Spit the major problem seemed to center around the Tropical filters, which may have affected range as well as performance.

I was surprised to read recently though that far out to sea, Fulmars and even Skuas were doing some real damage to Axis torpedo bombers, particularly the SM. 79s and He 111s, which were statistically the most lethal Axis torpedo bombers. The advantage for the Fulmar aside from being a carrier aircraft was definitely range. There is also some anecdotal evidence that having the second crewman helped with spotting enemy aircraft early.

Ju 87s, very lethal but short ranged, were often escorted and seemed to take surprisingly few losses even when intercepted, while the Ju 88 was definitely the most effective Axis bomber overall in the Theater as they were very hard to intercept for the likes of Fulmars, Gladiators or Hurricanes and both dive bomb and launch torpedoes, while they could also attack allied bombers.

The rough equivalent for the Allies in Theater was the versatile and deadly Beaufighter.

Click to expand...

The Spitfire Vb / Vc was outclassed by the Bf 109F-4 / G-2's that opposed it. You'd be better off flying the P-40 as it had structural strength, dive speed, roll rate, low altitude WEP speed and turn circle on its side.

I should also add- another important bomber type for the British in the CBI was the Vickers Wellington which arrived in 1942. Slower than the Blenheim (at least on paper) at roughly 250 mph top speed for the Mk X which was used in the Far East, it had an excellent range of 1,800 - 2,500 miles depending on type and load. The Wellington was less vulnerable than the Blenheim at least in terms of outcomes, probably because it was both much better armed defensively (8 x .303 mg with two turrets) and more strongly made with the innovative geodesic structure. It also carried roughly twice the bomb load as the Blenheim or any of the Japanese types and appears to have been a pretty good torpedo bomber, posing a threat to Japanese shipping around the coasts.

Overall you could say the Wellington was maybe half again as good as a Ki-21 or a Blenheim, which is good enough to make a noticeable difference. Not nearly as much as the Beaufighters but still an improvement.

Toward the end of the war the British also got B-24 Liberators which were good in that they were fast (297 mph / 215 cruise speed) had pretty long range (1,500 miles), four engines, and were too heavily armed (10 x 12.7mm mg with 4 turrets) to be seriously threatened by most Japanese fighters. Though they could carry a lot of bombs they were not particularly accurate as bombers most of the time so they were probably more useful as patrol aircraft and in a recon role.

I'm not sure about the A-20 / Boston did the British have any of those in the CBI?

Schweik said:

I should also add- another important bomber type for the British in the CBI was the Vickers Wellington which arrived in 1942. Slower than the Blenheim (at least on paper) at roughly 250 mph top speed for the Mk X which was used in the Far East, it had an excellent range of 1,800 - 2,500 miles depending on type and load. The Wellington was less vulnerable than the Blenheim at least in terms of outcomes, probably because it was both much better armed defensively (8 x .303 mg with two turrets) and more strongly made with the innovative geodesic structure. It also carried roughly twice the bomb load as the Blenheim or any of the Japanese types and appears to have been a pretty good torpedo bomber, posing a threat to Japanese shipping around the coasts.

Overall you could say the Wellington was maybe half again as good as a Ki-21 or a Blenheim, which is good enough to make a noticeable difference. Not nearly as much as the Beaufighters but still an improvement.

Toward the end of the war the British also got B-24 Liberators which were good in that they were fast (297 mph / 215 cruise speed) had pretty long range (1,500 miles), four engines, and were too heavily armed (10 x 12.7mm mg with 4 turrets) to be seriously threatened by most Japanese fighters. Though they could carry a lot of bombs they were not particularly accurate as bombers most of the time so they were probably more useful as patrol aircraft and in a recon role.

I'm not sure about the A-20 / Boston did the British have any of those in the CBI?

Click to expand...

No A-20's a handful of B-25's. The Vengeance was widely used. Compared to a Blenheim, better armed, more accurate, faster, more bombs.

Kevin J said:

The Spitfire Vb / Vc was outclassed by the Bf 109F-4 / G-2's that opposed it. You'd be better off flying the P-40 as it had structural strength, dive speed, roll rate, low altitude WEP speed and turn circle on its side.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. As much as I like the P-40 I think the Spit was still a bit better against a Bf 109F or G, and similarly against an MC 202 / 205. It's certainly arguable. But the Spit still had better turn rate and especially climb. Probably depending on the variant and the altitude it had better acceleration than a P-40 and less drag. Most importantly though the Spit V still performed well way above the performance ceiling of the best (Merlin engined) P-40s which was a major limitation of the latter.

I think the Spit Vs were about equal to the Bf 109 in the Med. The P-40 F/L worked out pretty well but mainly due to tactics, the pilots liked the plane because it had a relatively high pilot survival rate but hated the fact that they almost always started combat by being bounced from above. Spits got bounced from above too but less often as they could 'comfortably' operate at 25,000 ft, and could get there much quicker. US tactics of escorting bombers in attacks over Axis airfields helped even the score quite a bit.

The single real advantage of the P-40 IMO is that it apparently had a more effective escape maneuver using dive. But the Spits could keep up with the 109 and MC 202 in the vertical so they didn't need to escape as often.

Kevin J said:

No A-20's a handful of B-25's. The Vengeance was widely used. Compared to a Blenheim, better armed, more accurate, faster, more bombs.

Click to expand...

Yeah good point the Vengeance is another one I should have mentioned, though I am not precisely sure of the details as I gather it was only used by the RAAF? As a dive bomber it would be more accurate.

Schweik said:

Yeah good point the Vengeance is another one I should have mentioned, though I am not precisely sure of the details as I gather it was only used by the RAAF? As a dive bomber it would be more accurate.

Click to expand...

The RAAF didn't use it for very long. The P-40N was just as accurate and a better bomb truck. It was mainly used by us Brits and Indians over Burma.

Schweik said:

I wouldn't say that. As much as I like the P-40 I think the Spit was still a bit better against a Bf 109F or G, and similarly against an MC 202 / 205. It's certainly arguable. But the Spit still had better turn rate and most importantly, climb. Probably depending on the variant and the altitude it had better acceleration. Most importantly though the Spit V still performed well way above the performance ceiling of the best (Merlin engined) P-40s which was a major limitation of the latter.

I think the Spit Vs were about equal to the Bf 109 in the Med. The P-40 F/L worked out pretty well but mainly due to tactics, the pilots liked the plane because it had a relatively high pilot survival rate but hated the fact that they almost always started combat by being bounced from above. Spits got bounced from above too but less often as they could 'comfortably' operate at 25,000 ft, and could get there much quicker. US tactics of escorting bombers in attacks over Axis airfields helped even the score quite a bit.

The single real advantage of the P-40 IMO is that it apparently had a more effective escape maneuver using dive. But the Spits could keep up with the 109 and MC 202 in the vertical so they didn't need to escape as often.

Click to expand...

The Brits needed the Mk IX to establish parity with the Bf 109F-4 / G-2 at altitude. A lot of Spitfire folklore is propaganda, you didn't get many Spitfire V aces considering the numbers built.

Kevin J said:

The Brits needed the Mk IX to establish parity with the Bf 109F-4 / G-2 at altitude. A lot of Spitfire folklore is propaganda, you didn't get many Spitfire V aces considering the numbers built.

Click to expand...

I would say if you look through the battles in MAW III and IV, the Spit V was roughly equal, depending on the subtype and other factors, while the Spit IX was dominant over the 109 G series and 202 / 205. The 109F's were mostly gone by the time Spit IX showed up in 1943.

This is just my memory and in aggregate, but typically if you had 12 x Spit IXs go up against 12 x Bf 109G-2 or G-4, the latter were in trouble, based on typical outcomes. G-6 maybe a little more so.

The Spit V may not have been as good at altitude but it could easily out-turn the 109s and remained pretty close in performance in terms of actual combat speeds. Also the Axis fighters didn't always have time to get much above 20 - 25,000 ft as combat quite often took place shortly after takeoff. A lot of times they would keep a pair or a rotte as high cover with the rest further down below. In the early days those 2-4 planes could cause havoc on Allied fighters but as tactics improved (wingmen / pairs) and with the arrival of the Spit V, this wasn't as effective.

I hear what you are saying about the Spitfire myth but there was something to it.

Kevin J said:

The RAAF didn't use it for very long. The P-40N was just as accurate and a better bomb truck. It was mainly used by us Brits and Indians over Burma.

Click to expand...

The P-40N had a very good combat record in the CBI. I've read quite a bit about the record of some of the US fighter groups using them in India and China, but I didn't realize the British and Indians were using them there as well.

Schweik said:

The P-40N had a very good combat record in the CBI. I've read quite a bit about the record of some of the US fighter groups using them in India and China, but I didn't realize the British and Indians were using them there as well.

Click to expand...

We didn't use them in the CBI. The Aussies and Kiwis used them in the Pacific. I was referring to the Vengeance. The Vengeance was better than the Blenheim for jungle warfare. The Blenheim IV was designed as a coastal reconnaissance bomber.

Kevin J said:

We didn't use them in the CBI. The Aussies and Kiwis used them in the Pacific. I was referring to the Vengeance. The Vengeance was better than the Blenheim for jungle warfare. The Blenheim IV was designed as a coastal reconnaissance bomber.

Click to expand...

Ah, ok understood. Yes the P-40N was probably better as a bomber plus it could be used for escort or air superiority missions.

Schweik said:

I would say if you look through the battles in MAW III and IV, the Spit V was roughly equal, depending on the subtype and other factors, while the Spit IX was dominant over the 109 G series and 202 / 205. The 109F's were mostly gone by the time Spit IX showed up in 1943.

This is just my memory and in aggregate, but typically if you had 12 x Spit IXs go up against 12 x Bf 109G-2 or G-4, the latter were in trouble, based on typical outcomes. G-6 maybe a little more so.

The Spit V may not have been as good at altitude but it could easily out-turn the 109s and remained pretty close in performance in terms of actual combat speeds. Also the Axis fighters didn't always have time to get much above 20 - 25,000 ft as combat quite often took place shortly after takeoff. A lot of times they would keep a pair or a rotte as high cover with the rest further down below. In the early days those 2-4 planes could cause havoc on Allied fighters but as tactics improved (wingmen / pairs) and with the arrival of the Spit V, this wasn't as effective.

I hear what you are saying about the Spitfire myth but there was something to it.

Click to expand...

The Bf 109F-1/2 was opposed by the Spitfire I/II, the F-4 by the V. Go back and do your comparisons now. The results are not so good. Less than a thousand IX's were built between Summer 42 and Spring 43 to oppose the G-1/2.

Well I can't say what happened in the Channel front as I don't know the combat history up there, but in the Med, it was about even (I think). Not that "even" is nice for the pilots involved in the combats mind you nor perceived as a good situation. But aside from the Spitfire myth I'd say there is also very much a Bf 109 myth, and they too suffered from tropical conditions and the adaptations to them. Maybe we need to find another thread to discuss that in.

And don't forget, 109G were also badly needed on the Russian Front, which by Spring 1943 was starting to tip from dangerous to terrifying for the Luftwaffe and the Heer.

Kevin J said:

The Brits needed the Mk IX to establish parity with the Bf 109F-4 / G-2 at altitude. A lot of Spitfire folklore is propaganda, you didn't get many Spitfire V aces considering the numbers built.

Click to expand...

Not that meaningless stat again.

wuzak said:

Not that meaningless stat again.

Click to expand...

Okay smartass, give me a metric.

Kevin J said:

Okay smartass, give me a metric.

Click to expand...

Let me put it this way:

• The number of aircraft built does not directly correlate with the number of aircraft in combat units. The more you build, the more you can have in combat units, but not all go to those units.
• The number of aircraft in combat units does not directly correlate with the number of sorties. Some units will have higher sortie rates than others, based on their role, location, weather and, doubtless, other factors.
• The number of sorties does not correlate with the frequency of encounters* with enemy aircraft.
• The number of encounters with enemy aircraft does not directly correlate with the number of combats.

The number of victories a given type has is related to opportunity. The Spitfire as a short range interceptor held back in the UK for home defence for the first half of the war does not help it gain a lot of victories.

That the Lutwaffe would generally not engage Spitfires "leaning into France" except on their own, favourable, terms denied the Spitfire opportunities to rack up kills.

That by early to mid 1943 the Luftwaffe would avoid engaging Spitfires because they could not be sure, until perhaps too close, if the Spitfire was V, IX or XII also denied an opportunity to rack up the kills.

That when the Luftwaffe withdrew the bulk of its fighter forces from France to Germany so that they could take on the "Boeings" unhindered from P-47 and Spitfire escorts meant that there was little opportunity for kills.

I assume you mean a metric for an aircraft's effectiveness? I'm not sure there is one, as there are too many variables.

Take your example of aces. Is an aircraft more effective if there have been 20 pilots with 5 kills, or 50 pilots with 2 kills, or 100 pilots with 1 kill?

* by encounters I mean that the pilot can see enemy aircraft.