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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I'm not surprised that a Hurricane that started with a substantial height advantage could boom and zoom a KI43, but nearly any fighter with a height advantage could do that. F4F-4's could and did boom and zoom Zero's when they caught them down low.
 
Report from No.1 Fighter Wing, RAAF
Spitfire versus "Zeke"

Points favouring the Spitfire are :-
(a) Maximum level speed at all heights
(b) Manoeuvrability at high speeds, and
(c) Diving speed.​

Zekes on the other hand are more manoeuvrable at low speeds. Characteristics giving no appreciable advantage to either type over the other are :-
(a) Service ceiling, and
(b) Rate of climb.​

Although the rate of climb is approximately the same, the Spitfire appears to climb and zoom at a slightly shallower angle and higher speed than the Zeke, thus opening the range by covering a greater plan distance.


=======================================================


Intelligence Summary No.87 - HQ RAAF SW Pacific Area
Comparison of Spitfire and Type Navy "0" Mk.I SSF Zeke Performances

The relative merits of the Spitfire and Zeke have been discussed by an experienced Spitfire pilot, who participated in the Darwin Raid interception; portion of his report is quoted below:-

...

To summarise, ... despite the fact that both height and numbers favoured the Zekes, I regard the Spitfire as a superior aircraft generally, though less manoeuvrable at low speeds. In straight and level flight and in the dive the Spitfire appears faster.

Though the angle of climb of the Zeke is steeper, the actual gaining height seems much the same, the Spitfire going up at a lesser angle but at greater forward speed - an advantage. No difficulty was experienced in keeping height with the Zekes during the combat. I believe that at altitudes above 20,000 feet the Spitfire, in relation to the Zeke, will prove an even better aircraft in general performance.

It must be remembered, however, that the Japanese pilots had been airborne for a very long period and their efficiency must necessarily have been impaired by considerations of fuel conservation and fatigue.
 
Last edited:
Something from a little project I've been puttering away at. Take with a grain of salt since I've just eyeballed a few things for the sake of speed. Anyone know where I could go to figure out EAS/IAS conversions?

Zero
Spitfire
Solid lines are 30 lb stick force, dashed lines are 50 lb.
Zero 50 lb curve is eyeballed midway between right and left roll curves.
Spitfire curves are from different airframes, different establishments

Rate of roll in degrees per second by IAS in mph
 

That was only one

That was only one test of several and they were actually doing before and after testing of a G-suit. After the G-suit was worn the Spitfire could outmanoeuvre the Zero, but the Australian tests are flawed in that the Spitfire was not allowed to use overboost hence the low speeds. Additionally, the Australian Spitfires used the Merlin 46 which had a weaker power curve at medium altitude than the Merlin 45 and Merlin XX.
 
Last edited:
Greyman said:
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.
Click to expand...

The heaviness of HURRICANE ailerons was discussed with Mr. Lucas and Captain Broad. Both pilots agreed as to the necessity for lightening HURRICANE ailerons, but pointed out that these aircraft were still very inconsistent in this respect. Some were too light and some were extremely heavy.
...
Some ailerons on the production line were examined and although apparently the design calls for the complete sealing of the cut out portions in the nose of the aileron where the hinge brackets are mounted; this is not done in every case ... It is clear that inconsistency in this respect may easily lead to wide differences in the heaviness of ailerons. Trailing edges of some ailerons were markedly ridged, almost as badly as if deliberate cord had been attached to them. -- J.E. Serby, 10 Sep 1940
 
Last edited:
I have the "Bloody Shambles" series of three books I must admit that I find them very biased and even misleading about different attributes of the Hawker Hurricane. They seem to have no problem heaping most of the blame for the poor performance of the RAF in the Far East on the Hurricane. I have found what I consider a much fairer appraisal in the various books written by Terence Kelly, himself a hurricane pilot in Singapore, Sumatra and Java. Shores and Cull propagate the notion that the tropicalized Hurricane was grossly overweight and that the tropical filter was huge, neither of which is true. The actual impact of the tropical conversion was a decrease in top speed from 340 to 335 mph and an increase in normal loaded weight for a hurricane IIb from 7,233lbs to 7,396 lbs, an increase of only 163 lbs ( which also includes 50lbs of survival gear).
In his book "Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War", Kelly explains how it was so much easier just to scapegoat the Hurricane instead of looking at other (human) reasons for failure. Kelly actually calls it "fiction" that the zero out classes the Hurricane. Kelly also mentions about how much more combat experienced the Japanese pilots were and how, in his 258 Squadron, only three pilots had ever fired their guns in combat before arriving in Singapore. In reading Kelly's books one discovers how there was a complete dearth of support for the Hurricanes. No ews, no spares, no tool kits, poor or non-existant communications, a complete lack of intelligence gathering and dissemination, shortages of everything , ap ammo, dixon/dewilde ammo, glycol ect. Add to this always being outnumbered , climbing to a fight and learning tactics the hard way.
I've got copies of , Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War, Hurricane Over the Jungle, Hurricane vs Zero(also published as Battle for Palembang), Nine Lives of a Fighter Pilot and Hellship to Hiroshima. They give an engrossing, truthful picture of the events at that time and tell it in away that is far more interesting and than anything of Shores and Cull that I have ever read.
 
Here's some roll rate info from "Flying to the Limit"

Curtis Hawk Hurricane Spitfire Buffalo
ASI Time to bank 45 degrees Max force lbs

200 2.2sec 8lbs 1.3 sec 10lbs 1.8 10 1.7 10.5

250 2.3 14 1.4 15 1.8 18 1.7 14

300 2.7 20 1.5 21 2.1 35 1.7 17

350 4.0 27 1.6 38 2.6 55 1.8 20

390 5.2 33 1.9 34 3.5 80 1.6 24

Overall the Hurricane is the best roller of the four, the spitfire is a MK 1. The stiff wing of the Hurricane helped it maintain good rates at all speeds.
 
Wow that didn't come out right let me try again,

Hawk/Hurricane/Spitfire/Buffalo

asi/ time to 45 degrees/force

200/2.2 sec , 8lb /1.3sec,10 lb/1.8sec,10lb/1.7sec,10.5lb
250/2.3sec,14lb/1.4sec,15lb/1.8sec,18lb/1.7sec, 14lb
300/2.sec7, 20lb/1.5sec ,21lb/2.1sec, 35lb/1.7sec, 17lb
350/4.0sec, 27lb/1.6sec, 38lb/2.6sec, 55lb/1.8sec ,20lb
390/5.5sec ,33lb/1.9sec, 34lb/3.5sec, 80lb/1.6sec, 24lb
 
Looks like the Buffalo wins
 
The test is only using 1/4 aileron so I don't find that it's a good indication of what the planes could do in combat.
 
Caldwells report on the spitfire V vs A6M3 Hap
(transcribed by our own Greg_P)

Tactical Trials Between Japanese S.S.F. Type "0" Mark II "Hap" and Spitfire V.C.
1. Comparative performance trials were not carried out at the time and these performance figures will be supplied at a later date.
2. Both aircraft were flown at normal combat weight minus belly tanks.
3. Brief Particulars of Hap:
a. Take-off run - 900' using 2600 rpm and 30" MP.
b. Approach speed, wheels and flaps fully down - 75 knots.
c. Stalling speed, landing condition - 53 knots.
d. Rated altitude - 16,000'.
e. Combat ceiling - 32,500'.
f. Maximum speed at rated altitude - 335 mph, 2600 rpm, 40" MP.
g. Armament - 2 x 7.7 synchronized machine guns, 600 rounds per gun (Identical with Vickers). British .303 ammunition may be used - 2 x 20 mm cannons, 100 rounds per gun Identical to Oerlikon).
h. Figures shown in b, c, and f are approximate. Air speed indicator had not been calibrated.

4. Flying Characteristics of Hap
a. No tendency to swing in take off or landing. However, a tail wheel locking device was incorporated since the brakes were inoperative.
b. Short take off and landing runs.
c. Good visibility.
d. Stick loadings normally not light and increasing with speed. This is more evident with right stick.
e. Movement of elevator trim extremely stiff.
f. Rudder loading normal but tiring in climb due to absence of rudder trim.
g. Very stable stalling characteristics. No tendency to spin even in high speed stalls.
h. Extremely maneuverable at low speeds, rolling off the top of loops can be executed at 180 knots.
i. Boost gauge calibrated in centimeters.
j. Seating position cramped, rudder position to suit short legged pilots only.


Test No. 1 - Commencing at 17,000 feet:
1. Spitfire and Hap to approach head on and maneuver, without loss of altitude, until one aircraft gets on the other's tail.

Result:
Both aircraft passed at about 50 yards. Spitfire executed steep climbing turn. Hap steep turned and was on Spitfire's tail within 21/2 turns.
2. Hap on Spitfire's Tail. Spitfire to complete 4 steep turns to left. Reform position and carry out 4 steep turns to right.
Result:
Hap was able to turn easily inside Spitfire. However, jinking was necessary to watch Spitfire and check on deflection allowance. Hap did not steep turn as easily to right as to left.
3. Spitfire on Hap's Tail. Steep turns to left and right as in previous test.

Result:
Hap commenced steep turning at 220 mph IAS. Spitfire was unable to turn with Hap., either in left or right hand turns, for more than 3/4 turn by which time Spitfire was close to stall.
4. a. Hap on Spitfire's Tail. Spitfire to perform loop.
b. Spitfire on Hap's Tail. Hap to perform loop.

Result:
a. Spitfire commenced looping at 300 mph IAS with speed of 140 mph IAS on top. Hap had no trouble in following Spitfire.
b. Hap commenced lop at 220 knots IAS and completed two loops in succession. Spitfire endeavored to follow Hap and stalled at top of first loop and fell out. Hap finished on Spitfire's tail.
5. Hap on Spitfire's tail. Spitfire to shake Hap off.

Result:
Spitfire commenced evasive action by executing spaning aileron rolls to right. Hap had difficulty in following this maneuver and was unable to get into firing position. Spitfire then did a high speed vertical climbing turn which Hap was just able to follow. Hap was able to comfortably follow all other maneuvers which were not carried out above 250 mph.



Conclusion:
1. Hap considerably more maneuverable than Spitfire at low speeds.
2. Hap stalling speeds considerably lower than Spitfire.
3. Hap able to turn and loop in much smaller radius.
4. Hap able to carry out any aerobatic maneuver at a much lower speed than Spitfire, e.g., roll off the top of loop - Hap 205 mph, Spitfire 250 mph.
5. Hap experienced considerable difficulty in following Spitfire in High-G, High-Speed maneuvers, especially to right.
6. At medium and low levels Hap easily able to evade Spitfire and turn the tables.


Recommendations:

1. Do not attempt to dogfight the Hap, especially at low airspeeds.
2. If you have a height advantage, use excess speed obtained in your spaning attack to climb vertically thus retaining your height advantage.
3. High Speed - High G tactics will considerably alter the disparity in maneuverability.
4. Keep your speed high. Don't stagger through the sky.

Test No. 2 - Commenced at 27,000 Feet:



The results obtained in Test No. 1 were confirmed and the following additional conclusions were reached.

1. Spitfire had an approximate advantage of 25 mph at 26,000 feet.
2. Spitfire had a slight advantage in rate of climb at 26,000 feet.
3. Spitfire initially gained speed slightly faster in a vertical spane.
4. The Spitfire's advantage in 2 and 3 are not sufficient to evade the Hap's fire.
5. At altitudes over 20,00 feet with a height advantage of approximately 3,000 - 4,000 feet, the Spitfire can spane and attack the Hap with impunity. The breakaway would be made in a vertical climb, thus maintaining height advantage.



Tests No. 3 and 4 - Commenced at 17,000 and 32,000 Feet Respectively:

1. No appreciable differences were noted at 17,000 and 27,000 feet.
2. A special Spitfire was used for these trials.
3. All maneuvers were carried out at high speed and high "G".



Results:
Hap commenced tests on Spitfire's tail:
1. In high speed flight, Spitfire was able to loop in a smaller radius. Hap pilot blacked out endeavoring to follow.
2. Spitfire carried 3 loops in succession at high speed and finished in firing position on Hap's tail.
3. Spitfire carried out roll off top of loop. Hap was unable to follow in same radius and lost considerable distance.
4. Spitfire executed a series of high speed, tight spaning turns to right; Hap pilot unable to follow and was on verge of graying out.

5. Spitfire executed a 1/2 roll to right from 45° spane at 280 mph IAS and 330 mph IAS and pulled out abruptly into vertical climb. Hap pilot unable to follow this maneuver either at 280 or 320 mph and finished up in both instances approximately 1000 feet below Spitfire and some distance behind.



Conclusions:
1. Spitfire was able to evade and outmaneuver Hap by combining high speed and High "G".
2. Spitfire required a minimum speed of 250 mph to retain maneuverability advantage.
3. Hap was able to evade and outmaneuver Spitfire by maneuvering at low speeds.
4. Stresses placed upon both aircraft during tests were not measured. However, the Hap pilot considers his tolerance in reference to blacking out to be above average.

Spitfire vs. Zero
Report of Combat - 2/3/43
Duration of engagement was approximately eight (8) minutes from the time of first attack on enemy formation, which was well enough disposed for its purposes. The enemy tactics employed in this first instance were, I consider, unsound and based on false premises, and/or lack of experience.

When first sighted the enemy were flying in 3 sections as follows.
No. 1 E/A section comprised of 3 single engined L.E with a close escort of 3 Zekes at a height of approximately 10,000 feet. No. 2 E?A section comprising 4 Zekes about 400 yards on the port beam of No. 1 E/A section and approximately 2,000 feet above them. No. 3 E/A section comprising 5 Zekes about 800 yards on starboard beam of No. 1 E/A section and approximately 5,000 feet above them.
The positions of my own formations of 6 Spitfires flying in 3 sections of 2 aircraft in line astern, section abreast, was at this time approaching from slight astern of the starboard beam of the enemy formation, height slightly above the No. 2 E/A section , at an IAS of 230 mph.
The enemy made no attempt to alter the disposition of their aircraft though our approach must have been observed, but continued to fly as before at approximately 190 mph IAS (estimation).

From what took place subsequently it was obvious that the enemy considered we would not place ourselves beneath the Zeros, but attempt in the first place either climb away for height in order to engage the top or No. 3 E/S section, which would then no doubt have climber also, or alternatively, if failing to observe the top cover to move across and engage the No. 1 E/A section, thus leaving ourselves open to attack in the rear by No. 3 section E/A above.
My own tactics were governed primarily by our pressing shortage of petrol.



We had been airborne at this stage approximately one hour fifteen minutes mostly at altitudes in excess of 20,000 feet under fighter sector control.
My own tanks showed less than 30 gallons, which as leader would exceed that of any of the other 5 Spitfires. We were now 40 or more miles from our base on a vector and at a height instructed by 5 fighter sector, and a Spitfire at combat revs and boost uses petrol at a rate between 70 and 90 gallons per hour. Therefore it was impractical waste time and petrol in attempting to climb after the top cover or No. 3 section of the E/A section. To attack No. 2 section on our left, in view of the position of No. 3 section, or to attack No. 1 E/A section from astern, in view of the respective positions of No. 2 and No. 3 E/A sections would have been inadvisable in the extreme.

I therefore flew my formation directly under the No. 3 E/A section and some 3,000 feet below, where any attack from them must be preceded by such maneuvers as to give us sufficient warning to meet it. That is the Zekes directly above must either turn on their backs and attack vertically downwards, a difficult shot and easily avoided; loop fully as they are credited with doing so freely, thus going behind us, or losing height to turn onto out tails, in either case giving us sufficient warning. When abreast of No. 1 section E/A, I dived to attack at a steep angle from full beam breaking to the rear in a wide climbing turn to port and was followed into the attack by the rest of my formation. No. 3 section of the enemy, the top cover, appeared slow to appreciate the significance of the move and failed to get position behind us in time to be dangerous.

No. 1 E/A section moved herein to intercept us directly, but were not successful in doing so, and the break to the rear gave us enough clear air momentarily, to sustain the altered position, and at the end of the zoom I found I was well up in height in relation to the Zekes which had lost height after us. A diving head-on attack was refused by a Zeke who broke downward before coming to range. This was repeated in the case of another Zeke a few minutes later. I observed several Zekes firing on me and took momentary action, others not seem may have fired, but the shooting was bad despite liberal use of tracer, and the attempts at correcting aim were poor. Engaging in turns with a Zeke at about 180 mph IAS and pulling my aircraft as tight as possible, the Zeke did not dangerously close, until the speed began to drop, about the completion of the second turn. Breaking severely downward to the inside of the turn I experienced no difficulty in losing the Zeke. My engine cut momentarily in this maneuver. I observed Zekes to loop, to half roll and fire while on their backs, which, though interesting as a spectacle seemed profitless in dogfighting.

During the engagement I saw a Spitfire diving away with a Zeke on its tail. The Spitfire appeared to be gaining distance.
When leaving the combat area, I dived steeply away and was followed down in a dive by a Zeke. At a speed in excess of 400 mph IAS the Zeke did not close the distance and gave up quickly, though supported by several of his kind. The Zekes appeared to be armed with M.G. and 30 mm cannon.
To summarize, in view of the whole circumstances surrounding the brief engagement, and despite the fact that both height and numbers favored the Zekes, I regard the Spitfire as a superior aircraft generally, though less maneuverable at low speeds. In straight and level flight and in dives the Spitfire appears faster.
Though the angle of climb of the Zeke is steeper, the actual gaining of height seems much the same, the Spitfire going up at a lesser angle but at greater forward speed - an advantage. No difficulty was experienced in keeping height with the Zekes during combat. I believe that at altitudes above 20,000 feet the Spitfire, in relation to the Zekes will prove an even more superior aircraft in general performance.

It must be remembered however, that the Japanese pilots had been airborne for a very long period and their efficiency must necessarily be impaired by consideration of fuel conservation and fatigue.



(Signed) a. (?) h. or k. Caldwell,
Wing Commander,
Wing Commander flying,
No. 1 Fighter Wing,
R.A.A.F Darwin
 

I just wonder about the 5871 claims for the ETO, since most would seem to have to stem from the Battle of France and till the end of the BoB.

Schweik said:
yes but that is true for all fighter types in WW2. All sides overclaimed at pretty similar rates.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the subject is the Hurricane.
 
Stig1207 said:
I just wonder about the 5871 claims for the ETO, since most would seem to have to stem from the Battle of France and till the end of the BoB.



Yes, but the subject is the Hurricane.
Click to expand...
Supposedly, 11500 claims and 10410 confirmed, Hurricane got 55%, Spitfire 33%. I know what you're getting at, its rather high for the 1939/41 period and maybe even a handful in 1942. My guess would be halve the number confirmed. It includes Battle of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz, Dieppe plus any other minor ops. It must be at least 2000 for everything excluding Dieppe and other minor ops.
 
Last edited:
parsifal said:
Caldwells report on the spitfire V vs A6M3 Hap
(transcribed by our own Greg_P)
Click to expand...

That was a great description. Imagine the brass balls of Caldwell attacking underneath one of the flights of Zeros with 10 or 15 minutes of fuel in his tanks and still 40 miles away from base.

I recently read a biography of the man, which included several of these incidents in Darwin but not in all that detail. Quite gripping.

The Darwin experiences really helped me understand the problem with the short legs of the Spit in that area and the need for good radar / spotter web etc. They usually spent most of their fuel flying around trying to find the enemy, and then climbing up to sufficient altitude to attack from a good position. In this encounter Caldwell took a calculated risk but he had to get a win. And he did.

S
 
Caldwell was an atypical "bold and old" pilot. Unfortunately many of the problems experienced by the RAAF Spitfires can be traced back to his leadership and choice of tactics. Caldwell was a "big wing" advocate, and he wasted a lot of time trying to attack the IJ formations en-mass rather than as sections, using hit and run tactics. The RAAF Spitfires had a lot of problems with CS prop hydraulics freezing at high altitudes and wasting time with big wing tactics exacerbated them. Also he initially declined to use the 30 gallon slipper drop tanks, with disastrous results.
 

The point of this is, if a Zero manhandles a Spit V from 0-20,000 feet, how does a 20-40 mph slower Hurricane with a slower climb rate stand even a remote chance? It doesn't.
 
pinsog said:
The point of this is, if a Zero manhandles a Spit V from 0-20,000 feet, how does a 20-40 mph slower Hurricane with a slower climb rate stand even a remote chance? It doesn't.
Click to expand...
Hawker Sea Hurricane: Development
I think you'll find that Eric Brown thought that the Sea Hurricane IIc might just be a good match for for A6M3. It had had individual exhausts, just an arrestor hook and could do 342 mph, so it was as fast as a Hurricane IIa. It also had 16 lbs boost allowed so was very fast low down.
 
Last edited:
pinsog said:
The point of this is, if a Zero manhandles a Spit V from 0-20,000 feet, how does a 20-40 mph slower Hurricane with a slower climb rate stand even a remote chance? It doesn't.
Click to expand...

So you've proven that the F4F-4 was completely defeated by the Zero... Ditto for the P-40.

The RAAF tests only confirmed that anyone who could calculate wing loading already knew, which is that you can't dogfight a Zero and had to use other tactics, to defeat it. And, as I've pointed out, the RAAF tests handicapped the Spitfire by not allowing the use of overboost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Vultee Vengeance operational procedures used by 82 Squadron RAF in British India 1943
Replies
2
Views
542
MorrisOxford
Bomber Command, World War II (1939-45); and the lies and corruptions of Geopolitics
Replies
17
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Z
Weather limitations in carrier aviation in the interwar and WWII eras
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
5K
Thumpalumpacus
A
Did the British Air Ministry consider 0.55 in (14 mm) guns?
Replies
15
Views
1K
Reluctant Poster
R
M
100-octane fuel in the RAF in 1940
4 5 6
Replies
107
Views
7K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Menu
Log in
Register