Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The results per each side's loss records were very heavily in favor of the Zeroes. They downed around 28 Spitfire V's v. 3 A6M's and 1 Japanese Army Oscar (they flew one of the raids).
The Spit losses *do not* include heavy operational (fuel and engine failure) losses they suffered, *in addition*. See Price "Spitfire V Aces" for one account of this.
1. The Ki-46's were lone recon planes. It accomplished a military purpose to down them of course but didn't reflect on the Spit's capability v the Japanese fighters. When it comes to escorted bombers, one can say the escorting fighter is at a disadvantage (we had to protect the bombers, not worry about fighter-fighter exchange ratio!); or the attacking fighter is (we had to shoot down bombers, not worry about fighter-figher exchange ratio!), and both somewhat contradicting arguments have been used. But clearly it also benefits either fighter force in a prolonged escorting bombing campaign to attrite the other fighter force, and in contrast you are unlikely to actually accomplish the primary mission of attacking/defending the bombers if the other fighter force has the heavy upper hand in exchange ratio. As in this case, it adds info to list the bombers losses too, thanks; it also shows the Japanese bombers suffered pretty light losses, which must be viewed as a byproduct of their fighter superiorty. We know from other cases (eg. Guadalcanal) that those same J-bomber types suffered heavy losses when their fighters could not maintain the upper hand as they did at Darwin 1943.1. To be fair the Japanese were usually escorting bombers, which the Spitfires attacked, so the enemy bomber losses should be included too.
They amounted to
6 Ki 46
1 Ki 49
5 G4M
2. Again to be fair they do not include those losses that are specifically attributed to accidents etc. In many cases the text does not make clear the cause of the loss (and in many cases it probably wasn't known)
as I understand it, the spitfire MK VII was designed specifically to fight the Zero both the mark VII and Mark IX were superior in speed and kept high air speed making use of dive and climb tactics that the zero could not match, also the zero and zeke tended to become sluggish at very high air speed alolowing the spit to follow them.
I don't think you've read accurate accounts then. The Spitfires did terribly in fighter-fighter exchange, and didn't actually shoot down many escorted Japanese bombers either, see the specific losses on each side listed in posts above on this thread. Many Spit losses were mechanical but known operational losses are excluded from the losses given above. Some unknown cause losses on missions v Zeroes could have been operational, some of the handful of Zeroes and single Type 1 (Ki-43, Oscar) lost in the whole campaign might have been operational too. But no plausible unbiased accounting of loss causes would make the fighter exchange ratio less than several to one against the Spitfires (if it 'on principle' rejects one side's loss accounts while accepting the other's it's non unbiasedFrom what ive read Spitfires did quite well defending Darwin considering the circumstances, they had a massive area to cover without the aid of a radar network, outnumbered flying 2nd hand mkvs with volks filters. Most losses were due to mechanical difficulties.
From what ive read Spitfires did quite well defending Darwin considering the circumstances, they had a massive area to cover without the aid of a radar network, outnumbered flying 2nd hand mkvs with volks filters. Most losses were due to mechanical difficulties.
Escort fighters get the tactical advantage over the interceptors.
Mk VII was a very high alt interceptor, designed to fight things like the ju86 not the zero, and the IX was a recon variant.
Your probly thinking of the VIII, which was pretty much a normal fighter version of the VII deployed to the far east due to its improved range, or the Seafire XV first griffon seafire.
if you're on your own and you meet 1 zero you're outnumbered
As I mentioned (I think) the direct source was Albert Price's book "Spitfire V Aces", but AFAIK those numbers originally come from the relevant volume of the Japanese official history, 'Senshi Sosho'. There used to be an Aussie website listing them by mission, same source, same numbers, but it was taken down.JoeB, I'm interested in your sources for Japanese losses over Darwin could you please enlighten me on this document as I would be most interested in reading it. Also do you know of the Japanese losses and claims on the 10th of May 43? 457 sqn claimed 2 Zero's destroyed and 1 probable. This was a strafing attack against Millingimbi Is. I would be most interested.
I'll be the first to admit my suspicion about the Japanese account of the Darwin raids, however saying that, I'm not out to prove the spitfires to be the superior machine. All I want is an accurate list of Japanese losses, both bombers and fighters.It's obviously still a senstive topic. There's clearly a strong desire among some to believe the Spits did better than the Japanese accounts indicate they did, or as I referred a tendency to question Japanese loss acounts but not Allied ones, which seems biased. We don't absolutely know that that J official history account is true and complete,
If you read the ORB's of the spitfire squadrons it is obvious that they give an honest record of their losses and the causes for those losses sustained whilst on operations. I personally don't doubt the validity of their reports, I just wish we had similarly accessable documents from the Japanese side.but we don't absolutely know the Spit units didn't massage some of their combat losses to add to the large tally of their operational losses. I'm not saying they did, but who can prove they didn't?, IOW why set the standard or proof any differently in one case v the other. I think it's most likely that loss results reported by each side are approximately correct and mainly complete, not necessarily exactly correct and 100% complete on either side, but the Spit v Zero outcome wasn't anywhere close to even, a few more Zero losses isn't going to basically change it.
Thanks for that info, however Price is wrong regarding the Spitfire, it never actually landed instead P/O Little smashed into the ground whilst dogfighting a Zero, amazingly he walk away with only scratches and some bruises!Anyway according to same source, Price, 1 Zero failed to return from the May 10 '43 mission, one of only perhaps 3 or 4 downed by the Spits in the whole campaign. And according to that book one Spit was a writeoff from combat damage on landing, so according to respective side's accounts that was the best outing landbased Spits ever had against actual Zeroes.
You and I in particular aren't worlds apart on this, but I have encountered what I view as obtuseness about this episode on the part of some. I'm no partisan for the JNAF particularly, I lived in Japan for a bit, read the language a little, but latter is mainly from studying Korean, and the Korean War is my real focus of air war research, I've mainly just read books about WWII.I'll be the first to admit my suspicion about the Japanese account of the Darwin raids, however saying that, I'm not out to prove the spitfires to be the superior machine. All I want is an accurate list of Japanese losses, both bombers and fighters.
If you read the ORB's of the spitfire squadrons it is obvious that they give an honest record of their losses and the causes for those losses sustained whilst on operations.
yes you're right, rushed posting, I was thinking of the mk V and MKVIII, after a bit of reading up, it was the MK VC used by the RAAF and the 1 RAF Sqn in the defence of Darwin, when the dive and climb method was used in 1943, and then the MK VIII was introduced in late 1943 with the retractable tail wheel and the stomburg carburetta that allowed negative G without the engine cutting, and that was superior to the Zero exept in the turn (although still inferior in all manouvers at low speed), these were used in the defence of Burma in 1944 mainly against the Oscar and the occasional Zero. In both cases once the tactics had been worked out the Japanese ultimatley failed in gaining air superiority despite very heavy losses on the allied side.
It seems that many of the spitfire victories were due to catching the enemy pilot unawares either diving out of the sun or due to fatigue, also some US pilots were of the opinion that the Zero pilots were a bit too predictable.
How is that? Please explain why you think so. After that I am sure someone will explain why that is not true.
Besides the obvious fact that one on one is not outnumbered....
Yea - and he shot down 26 of them!I quote
"If your alone and you meet a Zero, run like hell. Your outnumbered"
Capt Joe Foss