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

[Kevin J]

Just noticed this:



Lol what does a PhD in Philosophy have to do with Hurricanes and Ki-43s? I had no idea philosophy was so interesting!

S

Because it goes into the problems that the RAF faced operating in India, Burma and Ceylon. The lack of radar coverage, radar coverage in the wrong places, radar that doesn't work as well in a humid climate, radar that is affected my mountains. An Indian Observer Corps that was ineffectual. Hurricanes that are fitted with tropical dust filters designed for the Western Desert which affect climb performance and top speed. An armament that was designed to shoot down Luftwaffe bombers as opposed to the more lightly protected Japanese aircraft; putting guns at the ends of your wings in the IIb affects roll rates and turning circles. So the Hurricane fared badly because of all these issues, and of course the development effort being put into the Hurricane back home in England is for ground attack, whereas in Russia its mod'ed to be a better interceptor and unfortunately none of the Russian mods are applied to the RAF's Hurricanes in the Far East. Even the RN/FAA improved on the Hurricane IIc such that the Sea Hurricane IIc with its naval equipment was faster. The AVG on the other hand had a superior fighter and a professional Chinese Observer Corps. The Hurricane could have performed better for a large number of reasons.

 

[pinsog]

The KI43 was the main opponent in Burma, not the Zero. A KI43 did not have the high speed rolling problem the Zero did. If you try the "dive to 300 mph, roll right 90 degrees, pull out and laugh as enemy goes by" routine with a KI43, you will go home in a box

 

[RCAFson]

Well, if that's accurate one possible clue is that they only tested at one speed. But per the chart you keep posting, the Spitfire peaked at 105 degrees per second @ 200 mph, and the P-40 roll rate peaked at 95 degrees per second at ~260 mph.

64 degrees per second (if I'm reading what you posted above correctly) isn't so great.

I presented test data from the 16 Nov 1942 report at 5lb and 30lb (which is all that is reported except that they noted that at maximum aileron deflection the theoretical roll rate between the Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 would be nearly identical) stick force so you can't compare it against other aircraft except at those stick forces. The test data for the the larger comparison is for 50lb stick force but the key factor is that tested Hurricane and Spitfire roll rates were very similar with the Hurricane having a slight edge, which is also what was discovered in mock combat. At very high speed the Spitfire suffered from wing flexure which was not a factor on the Hurricane.

 

[Schweik]

The KI43 was the main opponent in Burma, not the Zero. A KI43 did not have the high speed rolling problem the Zero did. If you try the "dive to 300 mph, roll right 90 degrees, pull out and laugh as enemy goes by" routine with a KI43, you will go home in a box

yeah but if you make it to 400 mph I don't think the Ki-43 can follow, or at least not with the wings still attached. A6M top speed is also close to that.

There is also this test (see page 7) which shows that P-40Ks could actually outrun A6M in level flight, extend, turn around and come back for a head-on attack, without even diving.

S

 

[Schweik]

I presented test data from the 16 Nov 1942 report at 5lb and 30lb (which is all that is reported except that they noted that at maximum aileron deflection the theoretical roll rate between the Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 would be nearly identical) stick force so you can't compare it against other aircraft except at those stick forces. The test data for the the larger comparison is for 50lb stick force but the key factor is that tested Hurricane and Spitfire roll rates were very similar with the Hurricane having a slight edge, which is also what was discovered in mock combat. At very high speed the Spitfire suffered from wing flexure which was not a factor on the Hurricane.

Interesting but I'm sorry - not quite convinced.

S

 

[Schweik]

RCAFson
"Somewhat higher dive speed". Pulling away from an opponent at 10 mph while he hoses your plane from behind won't work with a Hurricane vs a KI43. It might work with Hurricane vs Zero because when you hit 300 mph you can roll 90 degrees and pull out and a Zero can't follow that move, but a KI43 can. A P40 below 15,000 can dive faster and has a top speed maybe 40 mph faster than a Hurricane. In Australian tests a P40E could disengage at will from a Spitfire V by diving.

Agreed! P-40's could routinely get to 500 mph in a dive, they even did some tests (very risky no doubt) where they did over 600 mph

The F4F-4 was a different machine than the Hurricane. (Still remarkable it wasn't slaughtered) A couple of things going for it: 1. Navy pilots trained and plane designed for deflection shooting 2. Good armor and radial engine 3. Zero couldn't roll at high speed

US Navy pilots were trained in deflection shooting allowing them to hit and down Zeros that wouldn't be hit otherwise

F4F-4 could dive to 300 mph and roll to break contact.

One thing which seemed necessary for success in nearly all Theaters and for all aircraft, was to work out very careful tactics. Bf 109s did their "boom and zoom", out of the sun, in pairs, "combat turn" escape maneuver etc. AVG developed their tactics thanks to the long experience of Claire Chennault. USN (and USMC) pilots and instructors, to their credit, figured out the optimal tactics for the Wildcat with Thach Weave and so on, very early on. That helped.

Gunnery training is also very important - most early war Allied pilots never had any. In a given air combat each side gets so many firing opportunities, but actual hits are a very low percentage of those.

I think Wildcats did have some other characteristics which contributed to victory though. One is a pretty good high altitude performance, pretty heavy guns (four 12.7mm) probably a good all around combination of turn, dive and acceleration.

S

 

[RCAFson]

RCAFson
"Somewhat higher dive speed". Pulling away from an opponent at 10 mph while he hoses your plane from behind won't work with a Hurricane vs a KI43. It might work with Hurricane vs Zero because when you hit 300 mph you can roll 90 degrees and pull out and a Zero can't follow that move, but a KI43 can. A P40 below 15,000 can dive faster and has a top speed maybe 40 mph faster than a Hurricane. In Australian tests a P40E could disengage at will from a Spitfire V by diving.

The F4F-4 was a different machine than the Hurricane. (Still remarkable it wasn't slaughtered) A couple of things going for it: 1. Navy pilots trained and plane designed for deflection shooting 2. Good armor and radial engine 3. Zero couldn't roll at high speed

US Navy pilots were trained in deflection shooting allowing them to hit and down Zeros that wouldn't be hit otherwise

Pilots were told "if a Zeros behind you, don't turn. Duck down behind your armor until someone shoots him off of you or he runs out of ammo". I file this under the "you gotta be kidding me, that's your best plan?" file. A Hurricane doesn't seem to stand up to that abuse.

F4F-4 could dive to 300 mph and roll to break contact.

P40 maximum speed was about 20mph faster versus ground attack versions of the Hurricane and about equal to the Hurricane IIa/b in Boscombe down testing.

You're talking about the Ki-43II which doesn't appear in any numbers until mid 1943. The Hurricane was just as capable as the F4F for deflection shooting due to the geometry of the cockpit and pilot view over the nose. If USN pilots were better trained, then that's no reflection on the aircraft.

The idea that an F4F/Hurricane could stand up to 20mm cannon fire is nonsense, however if the Zero has no 20mm ammo, then he's left with two 7.7mm mgs.

 

[RCAFson]

Interesting but I'm sorry - not quite convinced.

S

For a modern comparison:

http://www.flighttestsafety.org/ima...2009Nov/27-The-Battle-of-Britain-Fighters.ppt

see page 11.

 

[Schweik]

For a modern comparison:

http://www.flighttestsafety.org/ima...2009Nov/27-The-Battle-of-Britain-Fighters.ppt

see page 11.

Better roll rate than a Spitfire is very interesting if true, but ... who is that person? What is the basis of that claim?

Still not there yet but I like where you are going. I'm ready to be convinced but I think i need to see some kind of wartime data not somebodies powerpoint.

S

 

[Schweik]

P40 maximum speed was about 20mph faster versus ground attack versions of the Hurricane and about equal to the Hurricane IIa/b in Boscombe down testing.

Maybe you mean a P-40 prototype or an early Tomahawk model or something, do you have a link to the test? I don't know of any Hurricanes capable of flying 360-370 mph. Which is one of the reasons why they were flying almost exclusively as fighter bombers by 1942 (at least in the Med)

S

 

[RCAFson]

Better roll rate than a Spitfire is very interesting if true, but ... who is that person? What is the basis of that claim?

Still not there yet but I like where you are going. I'm ready to be convinced but I think i need to see some kind of wartime data not somebodies powerpoint.

S

What about the NACA report of 16 Nov 1941?

 

[Glider]

The Air Ministry considered discontinuing the Spitfire in 1939 because of production difficulties. Why do you continue to allege that the Hurricane was obsolete in 1939. It was successfully shooting down enemy aircraft in the ETO from 1939 to 1941, on the Eastern Front from Autumn 1941 to Summer 1942 and in the Mediterranean from 1940 through to 1942 also. In the Far East, it was less successful, but what is all this obsolete nonsense.

Before I reply I will quote your posting earlier in the thread
'Who mentioned 1944? Not me, I'm talking about 1942/43 in the CBI. '

Can I also remind you about the title of the thread
A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45
So when did we start talking about 1939? If you want a discussion about the state of development of the Hurricane in 1939 start a new thread and I will happily take part, but this isn't the place.

Now to the points you mentioned taken one at a time.
It was successfully shooting down enemy aircraft in the ETO from 1939 to 1941
Actually it wasn't. Once the RAF moved from the defensive to the offensive around the end of 1940 they knew that the time of the Hurricane as a fighter was over. Very quickly most Hurricane squadrons were moved to GA duties or overseas. None as far as I am aware were kept on in fighter roles in Europe.
Quote from SL Bob Stafford Tuck I shot down 109's when flying Hurricanes but only when I had the advantage of height. I'd stick my nose down and go for them but a Hurricane couldn't match the 109 on the same level. From Life as a Battle of Britain Pilot Chapter 4

on the Eastern Front from Autumn 1941 to Summer 1942
Almost as soon as they had them Hurricanes were transferred to secondary duties and needed to be rearmed with 2 x 20mm and 2 x HMG. What the Russians really wanted were Spitfires to the tune of 300 a month plus P39's as seen in this memo part of a discussion in August to October 1942 about production requirements.

and in the Mediterranean from 1940 through to 1942 also
I am afraid wrong again. When facing the Italian airforce the Hurricanes did very well but once the Me109E arrived they suffered very heavy losses and the same applied in the Battle for Malta. Suggest you read Malta the Hurricane Year and the Mediterranean Air War Series that will help your understanding

I have highlighted a number of books that I think you will find interesting and suggest you take up this suggestion

 

[pinsog]

RCAFson
In The First Team, Lundstrom, an F4F-4 returned to Guadalcanal with 20 20mm cannon hits. Yes the Wildcat was truly tough.

In Bloody Shambles a British RAF officer wrote up a report about how they just weren't using the right tactics and the Hurricane should be able to handle the KI43. He was invited to come on down, climb into a Hurricane and show us how it's done. He declined their offer.

The Australians tested a Zero against a Spitfire V and concluded that below 20,000 feet the Spitfire V does nothing better than a Zero and the Zero essentially was holding all the cards. If a Spitfire V can do nothing better than a Zero below 20,000 feet, how do you expect a Hurricane to do better than a KI43? (The KI43 is well known to out turn the Zero)

 

[Greyman]

I posted this in another thread earlier but seems pertinent here ...

Wing Commander Ops Paul Richey, AHQ Bengal:
The Japanese fighters have their good and bad points, our own fighters have their good and bad points. A comparison of the Japanese Army 01 and the British Hurricane makes it obvious from the start that in a certain type of fighting the Japs should come off best. This is borne out by experience: the Japs can dog-fight better than we can: however, they are lightly armed and need to get in good long bursts against our heavily armoured aircraft before they can shoot them down. Their manoeuvrability enabled them to do this if we try to dog-fight them. On the other hand, one short accurate burst from a Hurricane usually causes the disintegration of an 01 - and the Hurricane is faster. All this being so, the obvious thing to do is to work out tactics to give ourselves the maximum advantage. We won't dog-fight. We will only attack from above, diving and firing a short burst before climbing again. If we are caught out and below the Japs or at their level we will immediately take steps to reverse this situation by diving away and climbing up again before attacking. We will defeat the Japs by cleverness.

Sgt Yoshido Yasuda of the 64th Sentai:
The Hurricane was a unique plane with twelve 7.7 mm machine guns which caused deadly damage if we were shot from behind. Its diving speed was much faster than the 01 Fighter. Therefore, when we fought with Hurricanes we attempted to counter its firepower with the better manoeuvrability of the 01 and tried to hit its radiator, bringing the engine to a stop. Even with the poor firepower of the 01, Hurricanes could be shot down merely by a hole in the radiator.


All of the data (no real tests, mostly anecdotes and squadron surveys) I've seen on the Hurricane's roll rate indicates it was very similar to the Spitfire with fabric-covered ailerons.

As RCAFson said, during their tests the NACA found the Spitfire (metal ailerons) remarkably similar to the Hurricane in roll performance. This was at 30 pounds stick force.

The Hurricane's rate of roll at 30 pounds was somewhat similar to the F4F-3's rate of roll at 50 pounds. So if I had to guess I'd say the Hurricane has the Wildcat beat.

 

[pinsog]

Great post Greyman.
I think that is the RAF officer I was referring to who they invited to comb into a Hurricane and show them how it's done. Can you confirm that it is or isn't?

I will say the Hurricane dived better than I thought it did against the KI43

 

[Schweik]

As RCAFson said, during their tests the NACA found the Spitfire (metal ailerons) remarkably similar to the Hurricane in roll performance. This was at 30 pounds stick force.

The Hurricane's rate of roll at 30 pounds was somewhat similar to the F4F-3's rate of roll at 50 pounds. So if I had to guess I'd say the Hurricane has the Wildcat beat.

And yet I've read several pilot anecdotes describing the Hurricane as having a painfully slow roll rate. I must admit I find this all a bit baffling.

The 1941 report while interesting, seems to only measure roll rate at a fixed (pretty low) speed and a low aileron pressure. I'd like to see something like the chart showing maximum roll rates at different speeds.

I can't say I'm invested enough in this to go pouring through books looking for anecdotes to transcribe and post, but if i blunder across one while doing other research I'll post it. Meanwhile would love to see some more hard data.

And just out of curiosity, is this is a consensus among the other folks here? Hurricane outrolled a Spitfire?

I admit I may have been wrong about this I won't rule it out!

I can say the Russian were very disappointed in the Hurricane as a fighter, leading to experiments like this

This Russian Ace, who flew I-16, Hurricane, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk and Yak series fighters, compared the Hurricane to a "pterodactyl":

Part 1

"N. G. He is correct. Precisely a pterodactyl. It had a very thick profile and poor acceleration characteristics. At maximum speed it was somewhat faster than an I-16. But until it had attained this speed, many things could happen. It was not slow in responding to the control stick, but everything happened smoothly, in its own time. In the I-16, if you moved the stick, the airplane inverted right now. With this beast, it would roll over very slowly."

and the British and Aussies weren't very enthusiastic about it in the Med. They converted Hurricane squadrons to other types as soon as enough planes were available.

However I freely admit, one pilots opinion doesn't define a fighter. I will also say that Hurricanes were grimly hanging on as fighter bombers and were capable of getting Air to Air victories. They could certainly out-turn any enemy fighter in the Med, they made short work of Ju 87s, and were still shooting down MC 202s and Bf 109s in 1942 and even 1943.

S

 

[Greyman]

It is the officer. I don't think It was so much that he declined to "show them how all how to fight the Japs" in a Hurricane, as Air Commodore Gray suggested he do. Richey was flying a desk at this point - his comments ruffled a few feathers and the line was just a quip back at him.

More from Richey:
It is considered, however, that the Air Staff has played ostrich for long enough in the matter of the retrospective points of the Hurricane and the 01. If everyone, from the AOC-in-C is agreed that the Japanese fighters have our fighters at a disadvantage in certain circumstances let it be admitted and let steps be taken to avoid those circumstances. No useful purpose can be served by telling the pilots they have the best aircraft in the world, because they know they have not and will merely regard the Air Staff as a bunch of nit-wits.

 

[RCAFson]

RCAFson
In The First Team, Lundstrom, an F4F-4 returned to Guadalcanal with 20 20mm cannon hits. Yes the Wildcat was truly tough.

In Bloody Shambles a British RAF officer wrote up a report about how they just weren't using the right tactics and the Hurricane should be able to handle the KI43. He was invited to come on down, climb into a Hurricane and show us how it's done. He declined their offer.

The Australians tested a Zero against a Spitfire V and concluded that below 20,000 feet the Spitfire V does nothing better than a Zero and the Zero essentially was holding all the cards. If a Spitfire V can do nothing better than a Zero below 20,000 feet, how do you expect a Hurricane to do better than a KI43? (The KI43 is well known to out turn the Zero)

Lots of Hurricanes came back shot to pieces as well, and I'm sure I could find similar examples but generally speaking F4Fs that allowed Zeros hit them with 20 x 20mm cannon were going down.

In BSV3 there are examples given of Hurricanes using B'nZ tactics against the Ki43 with great success, but as I stated in most cases the Ki-43 had the altitude advantage.

That Zero was an A6M3 which was the faster than the typical carrier borne A6M2 but still ~20mph slower than the Spitfire Vtrop. The testing was not as one sided as you state but it did find the SpitV to be less manoeuvrable at speeds under 250mph.

 

[Greyman]

And yet I've read several pilot anecdotes describing the Hurricane as having a painfully slow roll rate. I must admit I find this all a bit baffling.

Painfully slow compared to what, should be the question. Slow compared to the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk? Makes sense to me.

One thing I've certainly noted when looking into roll rates is that it could quite possibly be the one attribute that varies most from individual airframe to airframe. It leaves me with a certain air of futility about the whole thing.

One issue with the Hurricane's roll rate was that at very low temperatures the ailerons would stiffen up appreciably. Generally, above 20,000 feet maneuverability was noticeably diminished. This was solved in early (I think) 1941 by switching the lubrication of the aileron differential control to 1/1 DTD 201 oil and parrafin.

I have a theory that perhaps the Russian and Finnish Hurricane units never got this memo and the famously low temperatures in their areas of operation had definite negative effects on aileron control.

 

[pinsog]

"Both pilots consider the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet....the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances"

Sounds pretty one sided to me