Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have said about a dozen times that a Spitfire based in Europe with no filter and high boost etc would have been a different story BUT THE SPITFIRES THAT WERE USED BY THE RAAF WERE INFERIOR TO THE ZERO, even inferior to the captured Zero that didn't even have over boost. I never said a Zero was better than a Spitfire mark IV or anything else. I said the Spitfires delivered to the RAAF and fitted with the dust filters and run at 9 psi were definitely inferior to a Zero as confirmed by the 2 test pilots that flew them. It was 28-5 in favor of the Zero, why didn't they turn up the boost if that would have magically worked? What altitude can you get 16 psi boost?Seriously mate, the RAAF spitfires were fitted with high altitude merlin 46's rated at 9psi boost pressure not Merlin 45's running 16psi, as posted by SR6 with only 9psi the 46 was giving away 500hp at the test altitude, the RAF had cleared all Merlin marks to 16psi in Aug '42 and were running 18psi Feb '42, do you think that running less boost in '43 than the Merlin XII was 1940 could be the reason the V's performance was down to the Zero's level?.
All good but one incident like this doesn't mean much. I'd like to know specifics, units, speeds etc. Hopefully you can find this reference.
Again, one incident doesn't mean this was a common occurrence.
View attachment 645341
Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story
By age 21, Capt. Tilley was an Ace combat pilot! By age 21 Capt. Tilley had received a DFC, 7 Air Medals, and a Campaign ribbon with 7 battle starswww.kilroywashere.org
View attachment 645354
I found the Spitfire VIII story somewhere else. I'll add the link so you can read before and after. I don't cherry pick stuff to try to win an argument, I'm interested in finding the real story so I want you to be able to read everything. Notice the page number 193 so you'll know about where to go.
I said the Spitfires delivered to the RAAF and fitted with the dust filters and run at 9 psi were definitely inferior to a Zero as confirmed by the 2 test pilots that flew them.
Well considering how many mechanical failures they had I'd dispute how ''new'' they were, they always seemed to be outnumbered also.As were the SpitfiresSee my post above.
Over Darwin the tactics were the same as the BoB, priority targets were bombers, that explains why 19 of the 26 Spitfires lost were shot down while engaging them.It's worth noting in these interceptor clashes that the role of the interceptor is not specifically to be better than the fighters defending the bombers, but to be better than the bombers, as obvious as that might sound. Obviously, if the escort fighter is superior then the interceptors have work to do to avoid combat with them, but their aim is to shoot down the bombers, not just to tackle the fighter escorts.
I'll include a note that I left in another thread about the Bf 109E during the Battle of Britain, which had superior altitude performance compared to the Spitfire I and Hurricane I, Bf 109s accounting for a higher number of RAF fighters than vice versa, achieving a 1.2 to 1 kill ratio in favour of the Bf 109, but the clincher is that the RAF accounted for a greater number of enemy aircraft than the Luftwaffe did, achieving a nearly 2 to 1 kill ratio, which resulted in unsustainable losses the Luftwaffe could ill-afford to lose.
Yes you have numerous times starting with post 1,243, you might try reading reply 1,305, puts your 26-1 kill ratio into perspective.I never said a Zero was better than a Spitfire mark IV or anything else.
Depends on which Zero and which Spitfire, you repeatedly claim the Zero in your test, but that trial was done with a later variant of the Zero to the A6M2s that the Aussie Spitfires first encountered, which tends to blur your evidence a bit. Not all Zeros were equal, just like not all Spitfires were.
It's also worth remarking that despite what basic performance trials revealed between the two types, Spitfires regularly tackled the Japanese in combat and came off better in 1943. In March 1943 a force of nine B5Ns and 16 A6Ms were intercepted by 54 Sqn, with the loss of three Japanese aircraft and no Spitfires shot down, with ace Clive Caldwell credited with one kill. 54 Sqn's first kill was a Ki-46, as was 457's. On March 22, a force of 22 G4Ms escorted by 27 A6Ms was intercepted, in which six G4Ms and two A6Ms were shot down for the loss of four Spitfires. This was before the disastrous raid on 2nd May, in which 13 Spitfires were lost, five of which were shot down, the rest through mechanical failure.
Following the usual inquiry and public bashing of the Spitfire in the press, favourable results began emerging, on 20 June, 25 bombers escorted by a large number of A6Ms was intercepted and 16 enemy aircraft were shot down for the loss of two Spitfires.
The last major air incursion the early Capstans were involved in over Darwin was an odd one in which a single Ki-46 was escorted by no less than 20 A6Ms, the Japanese clearly getting tired of their recon birds being shot down. The final tally was seven enemy aircraft shot down for the loss of four Spitfires.
Well considering how many mechanical failures they had I'd dispute how ''new'' they were, they always seemed to be outnumbered also.
What is your source for these combat results? They don't tally too well with RAAF Combats in NWA
Escorts have to be delt with whether they are Zeros, P38's, P47's, P51's, Me109's, or Wildcats. If a pilot is so stupid that he just ignores the escort to go after the bombers then he deserves to get shot down. Two exceptions to that in my opinion are 1. defending a carrier, if they sink it you have no home to return to 2. If you have a BIG performance advantage over the escort ME262 vs P51, or in this case maybe a P38, P51, P47 or Spitfire VIII or IX (none of which were available) vs a Zero. Otherwise you have got to have at least some of your number engage and tie up the escorts.Over Darwin the tactics were the same as the BoB, priority targets were bombers, that explains why 19 of the 26 Spitfires lost were shot down while engaging them.
Kill ratio was 28-5 not 26-1. I will say it one more time: the Spitfire V with the tropical filter was in fact inferior to the Zero it fought. I don't care what they had in Europe, or how much boost it made or how fast it climbed or how fast it was in level flight because it was not the Spitfire model that was shipped fo Australia so it is irrelevant. I have said repeatedly that the Spitfire was a fine plane especially the Spitfire VIII and IX on up. A Spitfire VIII or IX or XIV would likely have done fantastic, but they weren't there. They were using a Spitfire V with a tropical filter and under 20,000 feet it could do virtually nothing better than the Zero according to the 2 test pilots that flew them head to head. If it had a 4000 ft height advantage then it could boom and zoom the Zero but virtually any 2 contemporary fighters could do that to each other.Yes you have numerous times starting with post 1,243, you might try reading reply 1,305, puts your 26-1 kill ratio into perspective.
Escorts have to be delt with whether they are Zeros, P38's, P47's, P51's, Me109's, or Wildcats. If a pilot is so stupid that he just ignores the escort to go after the bombers then he deserves to get shot down. Two exceptions to that in my opinion are 1. defending a carrier, if they sink it you have no home to return to 2. If you have a BIG performance advantage over the escort ME262 vs P51, or in this case maybe a P38, P51, P47 or Spitfire VIII or IX (none of which were available) vs a Zero. Otherwise you have got to have at least some of your number engage and tie up the escorts.
When said bomber is literally about to drop bombs on your home, and families there in, the escorts perhaps take a slightly lower tier of importance.If a pilot is so stupid that he just ignores the escort to go after the bombers then he deserves to get shot down