Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
Dolittle was threatened with being relieved before he agreed to it. Soldiers knew first, high brass had some catching up to do, though.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.
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.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.
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that the main reason Darwin was badly supplied was the same for which they got a hodge-podge of clapped out Spits with outdated cannon heaters.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.and yes there were ships to Darwin...but if you do not have maritime or air superiority how vulnerable are those ships??
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
People can learn mighty quick if their life depends on it. I doubt there was much the pilots didn't know already.
People lived in Darwin, so there was a supply chain in action. Ships?
Hurricanes in Burma were primarily a bomber were they not?
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.
Dolittle was threatened with being relieved before he agreed to it. Soldiers knew first, high brass had some catching up to do, though.
It is interesting that both RAAF and RAF received plenty of both Hurricanes and Spitfires armed with 4 cannons in the Far East.
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.
Really? You have to ask?What are you basing this on???
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.)
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 :