Air combat over Darwin

[bakters]

how long? you would be surprised. like I said the AVG were successful in their tactics and when the US army and navy decided to take on the Japanese in these areas Claire Chennault tried to educate them but they did not listen and tried the same old tactics they were training in....and many allied pilot fell because of it.

Personally, I don't see boom&zoom, hit and run tactics as anything separate from turnfighting. You always do it against a bomber, for example. If you have an energy advantage, you will do bnz even against less maneuverable fighter. You attack, pull up and follow up with another attack. Only the details change, the basic idea remains the same.

Similarly, you would turn against a faster enemy (diving on you) even in a 190. General ideas are the same.

how long...how long did it take for the us air force to come to the realization that bombers are not capable of defending themselves sufficiently and need fighter escort? it took until catastrophe befell them to open their eyes in many cases.

Dolittle was threatened with being relieved before he agreed to it. Soldiers knew first, high brass had some catching up to do, though.

the tactics they took into the war were a far cry from the ones they used within a year or 2. yes people learn and things like the thatch weave are evidence of that....but it took a while before they devised and adopted it. soldiers and airmen can only do what their officers allow them to. if that officer is adhering to strict protocol.....may not be a good thing.

Exactly, so what are the chances that someone sent from staff will teach frontline soldiers how to fight and actually do a good job off it? Non-zero, but I'm cynical.

and yes there were ships to Darwin...but if you do not have maritime or air superiority how vulnerable are those ships??

I suspect that the main reason Darwin was badly supplied was the same for which they got a hodge-podge of clapped out Spits with outdated cannon heaters. There were more important issues closer to home.

At least they got Spits.

 

[parsifal]

Let's put it this way - I really wish you were right. Like I wrote I love Spits, but I doubt this number within this context nonetheless. 70 claimed and 65 actually lost? Unheard of.

The 65 mentioned are the total losses as admitted in Japanese records. Japanese records don't go into detail as to aircraft damaged and then written off or DNR, often because of the chaotic conditions that existed within the Japanese networks themselves. Im using a third party and am happy to defer to superior sources, but you arent producing that, Im just seeing opinions based on what? back up your claims with some evidence other than your opinions please. .

Spitfire was designed as a defensive fighter. If it failed at this task, that's because it wasn't faultless, not because the task was inappropriate.

It faced failure in early 1943 because it was faced with a difficult task and applied inappropriate tactics in response to those challenges. I agree, the spit wasn't faultless never claimed that.

First about pilots using wrong tactics. How long does it take to gather some basic info about the enemy which you know will try to kill you? People would have to be stupid not to nose around for it. I bet they did, and I bet they knew what to do, at least roughly.

There were deep problems in the Darwin command that could only be solved slowly. It was endemic of far deeper problems that dogged the allies in that first year. Far from answering a glib, ill considered question with a glib ill-considered answer, I will recommend that you read a little, and get yourself a copy of Anthony coopers Darwin spitfires, to understand some of the issues. I will post bits and pieces myself in response to this question, because it is quite clear to me that this was a critical issue in the whole development of the 1943 campaign

Then I doubt that this marked improvement actually happened. In war there is always some pressure on showing positive results. But of course it's possible that the pilots were taught what to do better, and figured out some better ways of fighting on their own too.

Read the book

But this reminds me, there were pilots fighting Japanese in Burma in Hurricanes with expectably poor results. High charge sent them a lecturer, to teach them how to do it properly. They listened to the lecture carefully, then kindly asked the lecturer to jump into the Hurricane and simply show them.

Hurricanes in Burma were primarily a bomber were they not?

People can learn mighty quick if their life depends on it. I doubt there was much the pilots didn't know already.

Many of the pilots of 1 FW had fought in the ETO, where the Spitfires ability as a manoeuvre fighter stood in well against the opposition in that war. When you've learnt methods that time and again have saved you, and you don't understand the nature of your opponent and their strengths, I think it would be unlikely that pilots would try other things easily.

but again, read a little and find out rather than making assumptions.

People lived in Darwin, so there was a supply chain in action. Ships?

Darwin was a dusty and sleepy little town of under 5000 people before the war. There were two or three ships per year delivering essential items, and a bullock track connecting to the south. There was an unsealed track from alice to the south and a single line rail to Adelaide. After the attacks in February 1942, the seaborne route was closed down and reliance on the track ordered. however the track was not all weather, so for 4 months of the year, from early November through to February this supply route also shut down.

efforts were put in hand after Fenruary 1942 to upgrade the track, which began to improve the situation by September 1942. This work continued through to the end of the war, such that by July 1943 the Australian High command considered that an all weather overland supply line did exist. it was the major engineering feat of the SW pacific to build that link, constructed in a similar vein to the great northern highways to Alaska and the Burma Road. difficult engineering solutions to difficult supply problems, that eventually were solved

 

[Greyman]

Hurricanes in Burma were primarily a bomber were they not?

The Hurricane II was the primary British fighter until some time in 1944 when they had good numbers of the Spitfire VIII in.

 

[tomo pauk]

It is interesting that both RAAF and RAF received plenty of both Hurricanes and Spitfires armed with 4 cannons in the Far East.

 

[Greyman]

But this reminds me, there were pilots fighting Japanese in Burma in Hurricanes with expectably poor results. High charge sent them a lecturer, to teach them how to do it properly. They listened to the lecture carefully, then kindly asked the lecturer to jump into the Hurricane and simply show them.

Was this the W/C Paul Richey episode? I have a bit of his 'loose minute' via one of Christopher Shores fantastic books;

"...

It is considered, however, that the Air Staff has played ostrich for long enough in this matter of the respective points of the Hurricane and the 01. If everyone, from the pilots to the AOC-in-C is agreed that 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.

Rather let this be our line: The Japanese fighters have good and bad points. Our own fighters have 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. On the other hand, in another kind of fighting we should come off best. This is borne out by experience: the Japs can dogfight 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 enables them to do this if we try to dogfight them. On the other hand, one short 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 dogfight. We will only attack from above, diving and firing a short burst before climbing again. If we are caught out and are below the Japs or at their level we will immediately take steps to reverse the situation by diving away and climbing up again before attacking. We will defeat the Japs by cleverness.

It is suggested that talk along these lines would encourage our pilots as well as help them, for they will see that their problems are understood by the Air Staff and not, as they appear to think at the moment, merely ignorant."

 

[bobbysocks]

Dolittle was threatened with being relieved before he agreed to it. Soldiers knew first, high brass had some catching up to do, though.

actually Doolittle was not in charge of the 8th when that decision was made. he assumed command in jan 44. it was not a threat to a commander but was the losses from the Schweinfurt/Regensburg raids in oct 43 that brought about a 180 way business was to be conducted ( and that was something the RAF tried to warn us of from the start ). Doolittle's approach was completely different that Spaatz....I doubt Doolittle had to be threatened to do anything.

 

[Aozora]

It is interesting that both RAAF and RAF received plenty of both Hurricanes and Spitfires armed with 4 cannons in the Far East.

AFAIK, relatively few C winged Spitfires were delivered with four cannon, and most of those that were delivered had two of the cannon removed before flying operationally. One South African squadron used four cannon Spitfire VCs in the Mediterranean; I don't believe the RAAF routinely used four cannon Spitfires operationally, albeit more research is needed.

Attached are some reports on the cannon problems noted in this article

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Personally, I don't see boom&zoom, hit and run tactics as anything separate from turnfighting. You always do it against a bomber, for example. If you have an energy advantage, you will do bnz even against less maneuverable fighter. You attack, pull up and follow up with another attack. Only the details change, the basic idea remains the same.

What are you basing this on???

 

[gjs238]

What are you basing this on???

 

[Aozora]

Attached is a report on the RAAF Spitfire VC performance; it is notable that the RAAF only used +9 lbs boost, even though +16 lbs WEP could be used by the Merlin 45 by 1943 (see Spitfire Mk V AA.878 Report) Thus, there is a strong possibility that the RAAF didn't use the Spitfire VC's full performance during the Darwin raids. Page 1 of the report states that the limitations used were as per the engine handbook. This article doesn't mention that +9 lbs boost was the maximum used.

(NB: The pages are faded and could be hard to read, being in that purple ink that was sometimes used.)

 

[GrauGeist]

What are you basing this on???

Really? You have to ask?

 

[Aozora]

Attached is another, more comprehensive report of the A6M3 "Hap" versus the Spitfire VC: the conclusions:

1. Spitfire was able to evade and out-manoeuvre Hap by combining high speed and High "G".

2. Spitfire requires minimum speed of 250 m.p.h to maintain manoeuverability advantage.

3. Hap was able to evade and outmanoeuvre Spitfire by manoeuvering at low speeds.

4. Stresses placed on both aircraft were not measured; however, the Hap pilot considers his tolerance in reference to blacking out to be above the average.

Note that the pilots did not swap aircraft during the tests.

 

[pinsog]

Attached is a report on the RAAF Spitfire VC performance; it is notable that the RAAF only used +9 lbs boost, even though +16 lbs WEP could be used by the Merlin 45 by 1943 (see Spitfire Mk V AA.878 Report) Thus, there is a strong possibility that the RAAF didn't use the Spitfire VC's full performance during the Darwin raids. Page 1 of the report states that the limitations used were as per the engine handbook. This article doesn't mention that +9 lbs boost was the maximum used.

(NB: The pages are faded and could be hard to read, being in that purple ink that was sometimes used.)

Wow. Just looked over the info for the Spit V tropical version. Top speed up to 15,000 feet the Spitfire V tropical wasn't any/or much better than a Wildcat for top speed. Climb rate wasn't very good either. No wonder the Zeroes at least held their own

 

[Hiromachi]

Spitfires in Australia used Merlin 46.
http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=the-vokes-air-filter-controversy
http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=performance-of-spitfire-vc-tropicalised-version-2

 

[Aozora]

Spitfires in Australia used Merlin 46.
http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=the-vokes-air-filter-controversy
http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=performance-of-spitfire-vc-tropicalised-version-2

The Merlin 46 had a slightly bigger supercharger impellor and improved altitude rating cf the Merlin 45, otherwise there was no difference. Both engines were capable of using +16 lbs supercharger boost = 1,415 hp @ 14,000 ft for the 46. The fact that the RAAF apparently limited the rating to +9 lbs boost, meant that in effect the pilots fighting around Darwin were limited to a performance similar to Battle of Britain era Spitfire Is. The ability to use +12 or +16 lbs boost could have made a difference in combat conditions.

BTW That set of performance charts in the 2nd link are the same as those I've already posted.

 

[Hiromachi]

The Merlin 46 had a slightly bigger supercharger impellor and improved altitude rating cf the Merlin 45, otherwise there was no difference. Both engines were capable of using +16 lbs supercharger boost = 1,415 hp @ 14,000 ft for the 46. The fact that the RAAF apparently limited the rating to +9 lbs boost, meant that in effect the pilots fighting around Darwin were limited to a performance similar to Battle of Britain era Spitfire Is. The ability to use +12 or +16 lbs boost could have made a difference in combat conditions.

The lack of mentioning in flight tests doesnt mean that machines were limited to standard boost only as well.
This is what I found in my files, the covering and report :

 

[tomo pauk]

Thaks to the people contributing here

 

[parsifal]

Here are some of the chapters to the book Darwin Spitfires

View attachment Darwin Wing - Introduction.pdf

View attachment Darwin Wing Chapter 1 - Playing Catch up.pdf

View attachment Darwin Wing Chapter 2.pdf

 

[Aozora]

The lack of mentioning in flight tests doesnt mean that machines were limited to standard boost only as well.
This is what I found in my files, the covering and report :

Thanks for that; interesting that +12 lbs boost was still being used although +16 lbs was available.

Attached is 1 Wing's ORB for may June 1943: nothing new or out of the ordinary, but interesting as an historical document.

 

[Hiromachi]

Well, there is Air Ministry directive from August 1942 titled "How to make full use of the performance of the Spitfire V, VI IX" which indicates Spitifres since that time were modified to give +16 emergency boost. Author made it clear that this should be known to pilots, and that if used for combat only, there was no risk of engine failure.
I'd be surprised if one, whole year later this would not be known or used by RAAF.