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

[pinsog]

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.

I agree that the untrained/unpreparedness of the Europeans and the US against the Japanese early on is almost impossible to comprehend. But, when both the Australian test pilots say
"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"
Then that tells me that a Hurricane doesn't belong in the same sky as a Zero or KI43.

I'm not a Hurricane basher or a Spitfire basher. The US didn't have a fighter that could outperform the Zero, Spitfire or 109 at that time. (Well we had like 20 P38's, but they were all stationed in the most important front of the entire war, Alaska...)
I think with 2 equal pilots meeting on equal terms, the KI43 should whip a Hurricane every time unless the KI43 pilot makes a stupid mistake

 

[RCAFson]

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.

As I've pointed out, an analysis of Ki-43 versus Hurricane combats will show that in the majority of case the victor had an altitude advantage. The fact that the victor typically has an altitude advantage is a universal truism for air combat. What other Allied fighter can expect to win when caught low and slow?

 

[pinsog]

As I've pointed out, an analysis of Ki-43 versus Hurricane combats will show that in the majority of case the victor had an altitude advantage. The fact that the victor typically has an altitude advantage is a universal truism for air combat. What other Allied fighter can expect to win when caught low and slow?

I understand that the Hurricanes were many times caught at a disadvantage, I get it, I read the book. But in an equal fight, with equal pilots, it had no advantages. The Hurricane was no faster in level flight, it climbed slower, it was less maneuverable. What can it do? Can we agree a Spit V is considerably better than a Hurricane? If a Spit V is better than a Hurricane, by a lot, and a Spit V is outclassed by a Hap below 20,000, then what can a Hurricane do?

 

[parsifal]

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.

The RAAF tests don't support that claim. it showed that with the wrong tactics, the spitfire was at a disadvantage. Apply the right tactics, as was done after June and the Zeke was outclassed.

ive always held the opinion that No1 TFW was thrown into battle on the basis of lessons learnt in the ETO and MTO. In these TOs the Spitfire's strong points were its dogfight capabilities. What few experienced pilots that were attached to 1 TFW from March through to July seem to have carried those preconceptions with them.

Once the lessons of the ETO had been "unlearned" as well as new unit leadership installed, the unit fairly quickly dealt with the Japanese intruders over Darwin in an effective way.

So I don't understand your claim that the spitfire was outclassed, or nearly outclassed by the Zeke, with no qualification to the statement. the spit was never outclassed by the Zeke. it suffered a rough time initially for the reasons outlined already, but once these were understood and allowed for, the spitfire was pretty much untroubled by the Zeke. this was borne out by the excellent performance and service the LF MkIII Seafires were able to deliver in 1945

 

[pinsog]

The RAAF tests don't support that claim. it showed that with the wrong tactics, the spitfire was at a disadvantage. Apply the right tactics, as was done after June and the Zeke was outclassed.

ive always held the opinion that No1 TFW was thrown into battle on the basis of lessons learnt in the ETO and MTO. In these TOs the Spitfire's strong points were its dogfight capabilities. What few experienced pilots that were attached to 1 TFW from March through to July seem to have carried those preconceptions with them.

Once the lessons of the ETO had been "unlearned" as well as new unit leadership installed, the unit fairly quickly dealt with the Japanese intruders over Darwin in an effective way.

So I don't understand your claim that the spitfire was outclassed, or nearly outclassed by the Zeke, with no qualification to the statement. the spit was never outclassed by the Zeke. it suffered a rough time initially for the reasons outlined already, but once these were understood and allowed for, the spitfire was pretty much untroubled by the Zeke. this was borne out by the excellent performance and service the MkII Seafires were able to deliver in 1945

I'm getting that from the 2 guys that flew them against each other ina mock dogfight
"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"
That is from the 2 test pilots.

I agree 100000% that a 1945 Spitfire with a RR Griffon would outperform a Zero. But a Spit V vs a Zero in a test by 2 allied pilots did not do as well

 

[pinsog]

Guys, I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm not bashing Hurricanes and Spitfires, the US didn't have the equal of the Spitfire at the time in question. I fully believe a Zero or KI43 was the equal or better than any fighter on planet earth in 1942 except for the FW190. 2 allied pilots in a test said this:
"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"

Not sure how you argue with the 2 men that flew them against each other and said that. If the Spit V "does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances" then how can you argue that the Hurricane was it's equal???

 

[RCAFson]

I agree that the untrained/unpreparedness of the Europeans and the US against the Japanese early on is almost impossible to comprehend. But, when both the Australian test pilots say
"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"
Then that tells me that a Hurricane doesn't belong in the same sky as a Zero or KI43.

I'm not a Hurricane basher or a Spitfire basher. The US didn't have a fighter that could outperform the Zero, Spitfire or 109 at that time. (Well we had like 20 P38's, but they were all stationed in the most important front of the entire war, Alaska...)
I think with 2 equal pilots meeting on equal terms, the KI43 should whip a Hurricane every time unless the KI43 pilot makes a stupid mistake

This was the US summary of mock F4F-4 combat versus the A6M2 (not the superior A6M3 which with clipped wings could roll much better and was faster with a superior engine):

Zero vs F4F-4:

The Zero is superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1000ft and is superior in service ceiling and range...
...In dive the two planes are equal with the exception that the Zero's engine cuts out in pushovers. There is no comparison between the turning circles of the two airplanes due to the relative wing loading of the Zero. In view of the foregoing, the F4F-4 type in combat with the Zero is basically dependent on mutual support, internal protection, and pull-outs or turns at high speeds where minimum radius in limited by structural or physiological effects of accelleration (assuming that allowable acceleration on the F4F is grater than that for the Zero). However advantage should be taken where possible of the superiority of the F4F in pushovers and rolls at high speed, or any combination of the two.

Yet we know that the Hurricane (especially the IIA) could do everything better than the F4F-4, and ditto for Spitfire V (in spades), yet the F4F-4 was the mainstay of the USN till mid/late 1943 and fought the Zero to a draw.

 

[Kevin J]

I understand that the Hurricanes were many times caught at a disadvantage, I get it, I read the book. But in an equal fight, with equal pilots, it had no advantages. The Hurricane was no faster in level flight, it climbed slower, it was less maneuverable. What can it do? Can we agree a Spit V is considerably better than a Hurricane? If a Spit V is better than a Hurricane, by a lot, and a Spit V is outclassed by a Hap below 20,000, then what can a Hurricane do?

Hawker Sea Hurricane: Development
If we're talking about a Spitfire Vc TROP with the Merlin 46 high altitude engine with boost not allowed vs a Sea Hurricane IIc with 16 lbs boost allowed then as Eric Brown says a dogfight with an A6M3 would be an interesting match.

 

[Kevin J]

Guys, I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm not bashing Hurricanes and Spitfires, the US didn't have the equal of the Spitfire at the time in question. I fully believe a Zero or KI43 was the equal or better than any fighter on planet earth in 1942 except for the FW190. 2 allied pilots in a test said this:
"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"

Not sure how you argue with the 2 men that flew them against each other and said that. If the Spit V "does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances" then how can you argue that the Hurricane was it's equal???

I think that the RAAF problem with their Spitfires was the Merlin 46 engine it had. Perhaps they would have been better off installing the Merlin 32 that the FAA had in their Seafire LIIc. Basically the RN had figured that their Merlin 46 powered Seafire IIc was crap and re-engined them with the Merlin 32.

 

[pinsog]

This was the US summary of mock F4F-4 combat versus the A6M2 (not the superior A6M3 which with clipped wings could roll much better and was faster with a superior engine):




Yet we know that the Hurricane (especially the IIA) could do everything better than the F4F-4, and ditto for Spitfire V (in spades), yet the F4F-4 was the mainstay of the USN till mid/late 1943 and fought the Zero to a draw.

The only thing I can come up with is 1. The F4F-4 was extremely tough. Very good armor, radial engine, very good self sealing tanks 2. The 50 BMG (love it or hate it) was the best choice of weapons to fight a Zero (vs light hitting 30's and slow firing limited ammo 20mm 3. In bad conditions (Guadalcanal) with limited resources the P&W radial was easier to keep running than a Merlin (Merlin being a better engine when on a clean airfield in Britain) edit: 4. Zero, thankfully had a high speed rolling problem that could be exploited (I'm glad they didn't use KI43's instead of Zeros. There is NOTHING an F4F-4 could do the shake a KI43)

US Navy pilots could shoot, they were specifically trained for deflection shooting so they made the most of any shot they had at anyone in range

Best I can come up with. Everyone, including me, still looks at the specs between F4F-4 and Zero and scratches their head.

 

[Schweik]

Yet we know that the Hurricane (especially the IIA) could do everything better than the F4F-4, (snip) yet the F4F-4 was the mainstay of the USN till mid/late 1943 and fought the Zero to a draw.

We don't actually know that though, in fact I would consider the notion that the Hurricane was in any way superior to the F4F a radically outlier position.

One test and the opinion of two test-pilots doesn't prove the Hurricane was inferior to the A6M, but unlike with the F4F I don't see any combat history with the Hurricane to contradict that opinion.

Regarding Darwin, I gather the Spitfire experience there is controversial and a consensus will probably elude us here, but I just read a biography of Caldwell, one which was not particularly sparing of criticism of the man, and it pointed out some of the rather severe mechanical problems they were having with the Spitfire. Among others when the aircraft were shipped, apparently they had drained the coolant out but not put in an anti-corrosion agent, and the cooling systems were corroded and were routinely failing. They also appeared to have a major problem with the ammunition being manufactured in Australia with a large percentage being oddly sized.

Another problem was that gun heaters were corroded or blocked, or weren't even installed (this being a tube leading from the engine to warm the guns and keep them from freezing at high altitude)

Whatever the causes, you can look at the initial Spit V interceptions of Japanese formations over Darwin and see that most of the Spits lost were due to mechanical failure or running out of gas. The latter is attributable to the short range of the Spit V and the lack of radar or any other kind of warning net for the Spits. Per the wiki on the 2 May 1943 raid:

"In the 25-minute engagement, the wing shot down between six and ten Japanese aircraft for the loss of five Spitfires. Five more Spitfires also made forced landings due to fuel shortages and three broke off after suffering engine failures;"

So that is 5 lost in combat to 8 lost to fuel or engine problems. Caldwell also noted that one of his squadron leaders attacked bombers right beneath a flight of zeros, against orders.

Caldwell is also the one who changed the tactics and got things working, so again I'm not sure it's appropriate to blame him.

There seems to have also been some kind of communications breakdown in that the No. 1 Wing seemed to have to relearn some lessons already figured out by the the earlier Australian P-40 squadrons and the USAAF 49th FG previously using their P-40s.

S

 

[parsifal]

I'm getting that from the 2 guys that flew them against each other ina mock dogfight
"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"
That is from the 2 test pilots.

I agree 100000% that a 1945 Spitfire with a RR Griffon would outperform a Zero. But a Spit V vs a Zero in a test by 2 allied pilots did not do as well

The observations made by these pilots appear to be on the basis of the "European experience", wherein the spits ability as a dogfighter at low speed and relatively low altitude were considered its best attributes. These are precisely the preconceptions that got 1 TFW into trouble over Darwin, combined with Caldwells absurd opposition to the use of the slipper tanks. They were not test pilots incidentally.

The official test carried out at about the same time produced a contrary view which I will repear for you to think about:

"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".

The Spit V was not outclassed here. if speed was kept high and manoeuvres were undertaken in a high G environment, the Hap could not compete. If the manoeuvres were carried out at low speed , the Zeke held the advantage. It was found in these tests that the Zeke could not keep up with the Spitfire in a sustained climb. it had a steep angle of climb but it lost speed too much.

 

[Schweik]

The Spit V was not outclassed here. if speed was kept high and manoeuvres were undertaken in a high G environment, the Hap could not compete. If the manoeuvres were carried out at low speed , the Zeke held the advantage. It was found in these tests that the Zeke could not keep up with the Spitfire in a sustained climb. it had a steep angle of climb but it lost speed too much.

I think this is true- the phenomenal maneuverability of the Zeke / Hamp / Hap / Zero just kind of freaked out Allied pilots and officers for a while in 1941-1942.... they had talked themselves into the superiority idea and it bit them in the ass.

Kind of like the Germans re: the Russians though not nearly as harsh of a lesson in the long run...

 

[pinsog]

The observations made by these pilots appear to be on the basis of the "European experience", wherein the spits ability as a dogfighter at low speed and relatively low altitude were considered its best attributes. These are precisely the preconceptions that got 1 TFW into trouble over Darwin, combined with Caldwells absurd opposition to the use of the slipper tanks. They were not test pilots incidentally.

The official test carried out at about the same time produced a contrary view which I will repear for you to think about:

"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".

The Spit V was not outclassed here. if speed was kept high and manoeuvres were undertaken in a high G environment, the Hap could not compete. If the manoeuvres were carried out at low speed , the Zeke held the advantage. It was found in these tests that the Zeke could not keep up with the Spitfire in a sustained climb. it had a steep angle of climb but it lost speed too much.

The Zero climbed at a steep angle, the Spitfire at a shallow angle, the amount of altitude they gained was about the same. I read a British test between I think Hurricane and 109 where it was the other way and the steeper climb was claimed to be better. The test between the SpitV and Zero said at 27,000 the Spit V climbed better and dived better but neither was enough to avoid getting shot, tactically insignificant.

 

[RCAFson]

I think that the RAAF problem with their Spitfires was the Merlin 46 engine it had. Perhaps they would have been better off installing the Merlin 32 that the FAA had in their Seafire LIIc. Basically the RN had figured that their Merlin 46 powered Seafire IIc was crap and re-engined them with the Merlin 32.

The Merlin 32 would have been far better for low altitude combat, but the Merlin 46 was used by the RAAF because they wanted to counter high altitude IJ bombing raids and the Merlin 46 had a FTH of ~22k ft @ 9lb boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Merlin_46_47_Power_Chart.jpg

However this handicapped it below 20K feet unless the pilot used overboost, which at 17K ft would provide nearly 200hp more than using 9lb boost. ETO based pilots had been using 16lb boost since early 1942:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-ratings_3jan42.jpg

Spitfire V/Merlin 45 with 16lb boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-ratings_3jan42.jpg

and ETO Spitfire V pilots were encouraged to use it when encountering the Fw190 and 109F/G

 

[pinsog]

Another Zero and KI43 advantage, the view. They had exceptional visibility out of either plane, about like sitting in a lawn chair in your driveway.

 

[pinsog]

Below 20,000, well below 15,000, the P40 could reasonably fight with a Zero, but the P40 with any kind of altitude could dive away. The Spit V vs P40E dogfight test showed that the P40E could disengage from the Spit V at will by diving.

 

[Greyman]

Full aileron deflection is typically not possible at high speeds.

Very true but most of the entries in the test are well below what was possible (or what could be counted on for general dogfighting).

 

[RCAFson]

The only thing I can come up with is 1. The F4F-4 was extremely tough. Very good armor, radial engine, very good self sealing tanks 2. The 50 BMG (love it or hate it) was the best choice of weapons to fight a Zero (vs light hitting 30's and slow firing limited ammo 20mm 3. In bad conditions (Guadalcanal) with limited resources the P&W radial was easier to keep running than a Merlin (Merlin being a better engine when on a clean airfield in Britain) edit: 4. Zero, thankfully had a high speed rolling problem that could be exploited (I'm glad they didn't use KI43's instead of Zeros. There is NOTHING an F4F-4 could do the shake a KI43)

US Navy pilots could shoot, they were specifically trained for deflection shooting so they made the most of any shot they had at anyone in range

Best I can come up with. Everyone, including me, still looks at the specs between F4F-4 and Zero and scratches their head.

As I've pointed out the Ki-43II didn't appear until mid 1943. The Ki-43 had a lot of limitations.

If you want to know how the F4F-4 succeeded, then look at the tactical situations in which they encountered the Zero. If we provide the F4F pilots with Sea Hurricanes/Seafires and put them into the same tactical circumstances they have to do better.

 

[Schweik]

The test between the SpitV and Zero said at 27,000 the Spit V climbed better and dived better but neither was enough to avoid getting shot, tactically insignificant.

Definitely do not agree with that. The Spit may not have had sufficient dive acceleration initially but probably had at least 100 mph superior dive speed which was definitely tactically significant and without a doubt helped prevent getting shot.

It may not save you if the enemy plane is right behind you already shooting (in which case other things also have to be done) but if you have any distance a dive can quickly allow you to extend and separate. The low maximum dive speed of A6M and Ki 43 was their main tactical flaw - more significant arguably than the (original) lack of armor or self sealing tanks. The Ki-43 may not have had the same problem as the A6M with stiffening control surfaces but was considerably more fragile and vulnerable pulling out of dives, several Ki-43s shed their wings pulling out of dives in fact and this was widely known among JAAF fighter pilots.

This i.e. (Split S and strait down) is in fact the main escape maneuver they used with almost all Allied fighters against Ki -43 or A6M- the high speed climb wasn't always possible though it was a nice option to have if you had it. The only fighter that pretty much strictly used high speed climbs was the P-38 because of the problems they had with a power dive (especially the early types before the dive brakes)

S