Spitfire mk VB/Seafire vs Zero

[Micdrow]

Your welcome parsifal and a very interesting read, thanks

Like you I tend to beleive that the RAAF used the wrong doctrine when first fighting the Japanese. As you said they where lead by ETO theater doctrines and not pacific. Aircraft where totally different including conditions. Its been awhile since I researched pacific theater though when I did I found that finding exact numbers of losses on the Japanese side seemed very hard to find.

Part of this was due to the construction of the zero. How many damaged zero's never made it back due to combat damage will probably never be known for sure.

I should go back through the Australian Archives. They did a lot of fighting with the Oscars also but I don't remember seeing any info about them there. Might be worth a search again of the Archives.

 

[parsifal]

Australian report frequently appear to refer to what were actually Oscars, as zeroes. Both A/C have similar profiles at a distance. The units in my page extract identify the japanese formation deplyed in the Darwin, which suggests that at least a portion of A/C identified as "Zekes" in the combat repports are more than likley "Oscars".

 

[Micdrow]

You may find this report of interest also parsifal, link below.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/japanese-attack-darwin-10736.html

 

[HoHun]

Hi again,

>And there is another thing to consider - the fuel fraction of both types is quite different, with the A6M carrying relatively (and probably absolutely, too) more fuel than the Seafire.

Here is another graph on relative turn performance.

I have added a graph for the A6M2 at what I consider an equivalent fuel weight as for a fully-fueled Spitfire V. Gain: about 1.5 degrees per second.

Additionally, I have added a graph for a fully tropicalized Spitfire Vb running at +9 lbs/sqin, which appears to have been typical at least early on.

You can see that the difference in sustained turn between the two types at equivalent fuel load is 6 degrees per second. That means the A6M2 can make good 180 degrees in just 30 s ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[JoeB]

One raid seems to indicate the loss of eight spits, to what I later found, tentatively, to be the loss of just 3 Zekes/Haps. Another dogfight later that month (May), saw the loss of three Zekes to just one Spit, but I have not researched the Zeke losses as thoroughly for this engagement, so they may just be claimed losses, and not confirmed losses.

Those would be claims, reported Japanese fighter losses were only 4 Zeroes and one Army Type 1 (Oscar) in the whole 1943 Darwin campaign, March-September 1943. Those losses, as given in Senshi Sosho ('War History Series' the Japanese official history), have also appeared in print in a number of non-Japanese books. One example is "Spitfire V Aces" by Alfred Price in the Osprey series, and another recent excellent book on all air ops over and on the peripheries of Australia, with full two sided accounts, is "Soleil Levant sur L'Australie" by Bernard Baeza. Also the English translation of "Japanese Naval Fighter Unit and Aces of WWII" and the abridged English version of "Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units and Their Aces", both by Hata and Izawa, give the names of pilots lost in that campaign.

The following is a compact chronology per Price, but the Japanese losses are the same in other references, and pilot names are from Hata/Izawa except as noted. Price has a couple of dates wrong too that I noticed. The Japanese fighter opponents were Zeroes of the 202nd Air Group, in all except one combat, as noted, and it's only incidents that included Japanese figthters:
March 2 '43: Spits claim 2 Zeroes and a 'Kate' (none present) for no loss; Japanese claim 3 P-39's and Buffaloes (none of either type present!) for no loss.
March 15: Spits claim total 9 for 4 Spits lost; Japanese claim 8 defending fighters for 1 Zero lost (PO2c Seiji Tajiri) and 8 'Betty's' damaged.
May 2: Spits claim total 7 for 5 Spits lost or probably lost to enemy action out of 14 total Spit losses; Japanese claim 21 without loss, though 7 each Betty's and Zeroes were damaged.
May 10: Spits claim 2 Zeroes v one Spit damaged beyond repair; Zeroes caught from above while strafing lose 1 (PO Kunio Sakai, wreck found) plus 1 crashed on the way back (PO Tadao Yamanaka). 'Soleil' has more detail on this incident from Japanese side than I'd seen seen before.
May 28: Spits claim 3 Betty's for loss of 2 Spits; Japanese claim 4 v. 2 Betty's lost (first bomber losses of the campaign) and 1 crashlanded on return.
June 20: Spits claim 9 bombers and 5 fighters for 3 Spits. This raid was the only one by the Japanese Army: they claimed 9 Spits for loss of 1 'Oscar' (1Lt Shigeto Kawata) of the 59th Sentai and 1 'Sally', plus 2 Sally's and 2 Lily's forcelanded near base.
June 28: Spits claim 2 bombers and 4 fighters for 2 Spits crashlanded; JNAF claims not known, 1 Betty crashed on landing, another and 3 Zeroes damaged.
June 30: Spits claim 7 total for 5 Spits to e/a + 2 to engine failure; Japanese claim 16 Spitfires for 1 Betty crashlanded.
July 6: Spits claim 9 for 6 Spit to e/a + 2 to engine failure; Japanese claim 14 Spits for 2 Betty's lost, 2 crashlanded and 2 Zeroes damaged.
Sept 7: Spits (intercepting heavily escorted 'Dinah's') claim 5 Zeroes for 3 losses; Japanese claim 13 Spits for 1 Zero lost (PO1c Yoshio Terai).

Joe

 

[Micdrow]

Great info there Joe!!!

 

[parsifal]

Joe

I agree, your research is very impressive, and i mean absolutely no disrespect, but the figures and some other things are causing some disquiet for me

I can and will put together an accurate list of RAAF losses for the specified time period you have nominated. Your list is very close to what I believe are the actual losses, but still think there are a couple of errors.

I cannot be nearly as certain as you about Japanese losses, and am the first to admit that my data and research are crumby when compared to your stuff. however, what you are saying is not gelling with a lot of other sources

For example, you mention that the sdsole resistance was the 202nd Kokutai. This is not the case, In fact an analysis of just one airfield in the area, Babo (at the end of the VogelKop peninsula), reveals the presence of the following units at various times

Japanese Units Based At Babo
202nd Kokutai (formally 3rd Kokutai - Zeros) early 1943 - March 1944
311th Hikotai of the 153 Kokutai - (A6M3-5 Zeros)
753rd 732nd Kokutai - Betty (possibly based)
JAAF 7th Air Division
61st Sentai (Ki-49 Helen)
24th Sentai, 1st Chutai (Ki-43-II Oscar) Sumatra May 1943 to Dagua
34th Sentai (Ki-48 Lily) 1943
59th Sentai (Ki-43-II detachment) Malang 3-43 - 4-43 to But maybe longer
70th 73rd Dokuritsu Chutai (Ki-45 Nick)
45th Sentai (Ki-45 Nick) 16 arrive February 19, 1944 to Wakde
75th Sentai (Ki-48 Lily)
25th Special Base Unit (Betty Topsy Transports)

RAAF sources say that there were about 330 aircraft in the T/O, from elements of both the 23rd AF of the IJNAF and the 7th AD of the JAAF.

I am suspecting that the losses you are quoting are just those that relate to the 202nd, when in fact there were a lot of other units in the area. If there were a lot of other formations, it follows that there were a lot of other losses as well.

Determining Jap losses is an extremely difficult affair, and for that reason I would much prefer a co-operative approach to the problem, rather than getting into some P*ss*ng competition about who knows more. Who knows, we may all learn something from our collective knowledge.

I have to go, but will try and put that list of RAAF losses, and claims made in a couple of hours

 

[parsifal]

Tentatively, I think losses in the theatre for the allies were as follows

Mar 15: 3 Spit (AR619, 620 BS 231)

Apr 19: 2 Hudson (A16-183 197)
Apr 26: 1 Beaf (A 19-59)

May 2: 8 Spit
May 4: 1 Beaf (A 19-60)
May 9: 1 Beaf (A 19-72)
May 19: 2 Hudson (A19-28 29)
May 28: 2 Spit

Jun 4: 1 B-24 (USAAF)
Jun 22: 2 Beaf (A19-62, 113)
Jun 23: 1 B-24 (USAAF)
Jun 30: 3 B-24 (USAAF)
4 Spit (BR 528, 490, 530 EE 670)
Jul 24: 1 Beaf (A 19-62)
Jul 26: 8 Spit

Aug 14: 1 B-24 (USAAF...was salvaged)
Aug 21: 2 Beaf (A 19-62 113)

Sep 7: 3 Spit (EF 558, LZ 884, BR 549)
Sep 9 : 1 Boomerang (Bombed)

 

[Wildcat]

Parsifal, this is what I have for Spitfire losses due to enemy action in this period.

Mar 15 :- 452 sqn - 2 spits
54 sqn - 2 spits

May 2 :- 457 sqn - 1
452 sqn - 2
54 sqn - 1
Plus a further 10 a/c lost due to fuel or engine problems.

May 10 :- 457 sqn - 1 (hit the ground whilst dogfighting)

May 28 :- 457 sqn - 2

Jun 20 :- 452 sqn - 2

Jun 30 :- 452 sqn -1
54 sqn -4

July 6 :- 457 sqn - 3
452 sqn - 1
54 sqn - 1

Sep 7 :- 452 sqn - 2
54 sqn - 1

 

[DauntlessDriver]

Hmmm... lookin' at this... I would suspect that the "boil-down" is this...

The Spitfire Mk.V is more maneuverable than the Zero at low speeds... but the Spitfire is heavier than the Zero... how is this so? I would think lighter means less maneuverable in a fight.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Spitfire Mk.V is more maneuverable than the Zero at low speeds... but the Spitfire is heavier than the Zero... how is this so? I would think lighter means less maneuverable in a fight.

What makes you think the Spitfire Mk.V is more maneuverable than the Zero at low speeds !!!!!!

 

[parsifal]

Parsifal, this is what I have for Spitfire losses due to enemy action in this period.

Mar 15 :- 452 sqn - 2 spits
54 sqn - 2 spits

May 2 :- 457 sqn - 1
452 sqn - 2
54 sqn - 1
Plus a further 10 a/c lost due to fuel or engine problems.

May 10 :- 457 sqn - 1 (hit the ground whilst dogfighting)

May 28 :- 457 sqn - 2

Jun 20 :- 452 sqn - 2

Jun 30 :- 452 sqn -1
54 sqn -4

July 6 :- 457 sqn - 3
452 sqn - 1
54 sqn - 1

Sep 7 :- 452 sqn - 2
54 sqn - 1

Thanks Wilcat. Your figures are pretty close to mine. Do you have total figures for the Darwin theatre (ie all types).

Also do you have any estimates on Japanese losses in this period a well. Thats the $64 question really, and one that nobody wants to tackle.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Driver,

>The Spitfire Mk.V is more maneuverable than the Zero at low speeds... but the Spitfire is heavier than the Zero... how is this so? I would think lighter means less maneuverable in a fight.

You're right with the latter ... with regard to the former, let me try to explain the diagrams: In the turn rate comparison, the main thing is to get a high sustained turn rate at whatever speed, which means that you have to look for the peak of the graphs.

How far to the right the graph runs below the peak mainly determines how much energy and power reserve there is for an instantaneous turn ... if you pull into an instantaneous turn at a faster speed than that for the maximum turn rate, you'll gain a bit of turn rate while speed decays.

Once you've reached maximum turn rate, there is no quick pulling back to increase the turn rate anymore unless you can sacrifice some altitude for that.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[JoeB]

For example, you mention that the sdsole resistance was the 202nd Kokutai. This is not the case, In fact an analysis of just one airfield in the area, Babo (at the end of the VogelKop peninsula), reveals the presence of the following units at various times

Japanese Units Based At Babo
202nd Kokutai (formally 3rd Kokutai - Zeros) early 1943 - March 1944
311th Hikotai of the 153 Kokutai - (A6M3-5 Zeros)
753rd 732nd Kokutai - Betty (possibly based)
JAAF 7th Air Division
61st Sentai (Ki-49 Helen)
24th Sentai, 1st Chutai (Ki-43-II Oscar) Sumatra May 1943 to Dagua
34th Sentai (Ki-48 Lily) 1943
59th Sentai (Ki-43-II detachment) Malang 3-43 - 4-43 to But maybe longer
70th 73rd Dokuritsu Chutai (Ki-45 Nick)
45th Sentai (Ki-45 Nick) 16 arrive February 19, 1944 to Wakde
75th Sentai (Ki-48 Lily)
25th Special Base Unit (Betty Topsy Transports)

I am suspecting that the losses you are quoting are just those that relate to the 202nd, when in fact there were a lot of other units in the area. If there were a lot of other formations, it follows that there were a lot of other losses as well.

Determining Jap losses is an extremely difficult affair...

Babo is in Irian Jaya, ie. western New Guinea in the then Dutch East Indies. The raids to the Darwin area were flown from Timor, only place within reach of the Darwin area by even the long legged Japanese single engine fighters. There was more than one thing going on, elements of the 202nd were also used in Western NG before and after the Darwin operations.

But I'm not assuming the 202nd was the only fighter unit involved over Darwin or by some extension claiming it was the only one anywhere in the Dutch East Indies. I'm quoting specific Japanese descriptions of each Darwin raid, which specifically say it provided the escort, giving the number of planes in each case, on the specific dates in my summary above except one, the JNAF raids. That other raid, June 20 1943, was by the JAAF, escorted by the 59th Sentai, lost 1 'Oscar'. Altogether those include each date on which the Darwin Spits recorded combats with Japanese fighters (they intercepted unescorted recon a/c etc on some other days). Neither the Navy nor Army say they did any of those missions jointly (w/ exception of 202nd's escort of Army 70th Ind Chutai 'Dinahs' in Sep '43) and they very rarely did, so no plausible reason to assume that.

Most of the other units you mentioned were not fighters. I did mention the losses of non-fighters over Darwin in the list. The 753rd AG was the 'Betty' unit in the Navy raids, the 61st and 76th Sentai's provided the bombers on the Army's single escorted raid.

Of the other fighter units you listed:
24th Sentai: defensive duty in Sumatra, then action v 5th AF in Western NG (where Dagua is), no battle credit for Darwin, which 59th did get, see Hata/Izawa "Japanese Army..." pgs. 125 and 154.
Ki-45 units: the Spits didn't claim to encounter any twin engine fighters
153 Kokutai: was an E13A 'Jake' recon seaplane unit for at least most of its existence, the pacificwrecks.com site where that list came may have that wrong, anyway 202nd was the Navy fighter unit in Timor escorting Navy raids on Darwin.

The other fighter unit in the immediate area was the 934 Kokutai, Type 2 Float Fighters (A6M2-N 'float Zero' or 'Rufe') which engaged Beaufighters in defensive fighter-fighter missions on a number of occasions in that period but didn't meet Spits.

I don't see any good reason so far to doubt that the 202nd AG (and 59th Sentai on that one occasion) were the only fighter units met by Spits over Darwin. I think the best course for further learning about the Japanese side of things is to read the sources mentioned above which give that info. Fresh eyes so to speak on that might lead to more convincing arguments why to doubt the basic completeness of those accounts. Or alternatively positive evidence of other Japanese losses or involvement by other units would be more convincing.

Now, in my frank opinion, doubt about the completeness of those Japanese losses mainly, though implicitly, rests on the idea the Spits couldn't have overclaimed that much. But plenty of WWII fighter units overclaimed that much and more, including Brit/CW ones in some other cases, and certainly the Japanese did; in this case 202nd and 59th were credited with around 110 Spits v 31 (or perhaps fewer) actually downed.

On Spit losses, I just quoted Price to give general picture of claims and losses on each side, my main point was the Japanese fighter losses, which I cross referenced a few other places. He has 31 ostensible Spit combat losses, plus other non-combat ones on combat missions. I'm sure "Soleil" throws more light on that, very detailed on both sides; so far I just skimmed through for new info on Japanese stuff. Might be worth remembering though, we're assuming all the Japanese losses were due to combat. Their accounts don't actually say *that*.

Joe

 

[Wildcat]

Thanks Wilcat. Your figures are pretty close to mine. Do you have total figures for the Darwin theatre (ie all types).

No, I haven't looked into that as of yet.

Also do you have any estimates on Japanese losses in this period a well. Thats the $64 question really, and one that nobody wants to tackle.

Again no, the only losses I have are the ones JoeB provides! I'm hoping that French book gets translated and becomes available here.

Babo is in Irian Jaya, ie. western New Guinea in the then Dutch East Indies. The raids to the Darwin area were flown from Timor, only place within reach of the Darwin area by even the long legged Japanese single engine fighters. There was more than one thing going on, elements of the 202nd were also used in Western NG before and after the Darwin operations.

I was always under the impression that most of the Darwin raids were only staged through Timor, the a/c coming from bases further away, such as Babo. I think this is what Parsifal was gettin at.

Joe, on Aug 10, 1943, F/O Young and P/O Coombes of 452 sqn claimed one Pete destroyed and one damaged in a combat off Millingimbi Is. What unit would they be from? From the floatplane base at Taberfane?
Also after the 2nd May raid, 4 Beaufighters from 31 sqn were dispatched to attack the Japanese strike force once they landed at Penfoei, this they did claiming 2 fighters and 2 bombers left burning. I don't suppose you have any info about these claims regarding whether these a/c were actually destroyed or merely damaged.

 

[slaterat]

You have to be willing to keep an open mind when cross referencing claims/kills from WW II. Sometimes you might not believe or like what you find.
Overall I suppose the average unit overclaimed 100%,but it can vary greatly. Some units and pilots claims can be verified at 80%+
As a general rule the larger the fight the greater the overclaiming. The AVG did some shocking overclaiming in Burma too, that was often matched by their JAAF opponents.


Slaterat

 

[parsifal]

we are kinda stuck, I guess. One thing is clear, the spits over Darwin suffered relatively heavy casualties. Would they have done better if equipped with the other RAAF mainstay of the time, the Kittyhawk?

 

[HoHun]

Hi Parsifal,
>Would they have done better if equipped with the other RAAF mainstay of the time, the Kittyhawk?

With regard to the Spitfire tactics, I read a couple of comments on these by USAAF pilot Clay Tice, who flew P-40s with 9th FS (I believe) from Darwin. Clay typed these on Avsig forum while reading a book by the title "Spitfires over Darwin". (Unfortunately, I don't have his original posts anymore as the program that stored them ate the database.)

The comment I best remember was something like: "I'm glad we did not have any combat experience like the British and just scrambled at the first sign of danger, attacking the Japanese flat-out with no regard for formation tactics."

Apparently, the Spitfire outfit thought it could apply the lessons learned in the Battle of Britain, and they were not ready to listen to the pilots who already had experience fighting the Zero. They seem to have favoured radar over coast watcher reports though radar was unreliable and did not have the range of the coast watcher network, and along with the delay caused by assembling their formations, this usually left them in a poor position for an intercept.

At least, that's what I remember from that Avsig thread some ten years back - I'm sorry I can't offer anything more specific, but as the database is gone, I have to rely on my imperfect memory.

On a more general line, when I Clay Tice about their tactical doctrine of the time, his answer showed that the tactical expertise of Chennault's Flying Tigers was not transferred to Clay's unit at least. He was also unaware of the results of the evaluation of the Akutan Zero and commented that if the USAAF ever distributed the report to the combat units, it certainly did not reach him.

Another Pacific War veteran, MF Kirby (P-39 and P-38), commented that their hit and run tactics were not the result of tactical training (which had only consisted of tight "welded wing" formation training and one-versus-one dogfighting between aircraft of the same squadron) but rather out of "fear". In my opinion, that was a very modest way of telling the audience that the pilots in his squadron independendly assessed the relative strengths of US vs. Japanese fighters and recognized that dogfighting was not going to yield results.

It's my impression that both Clay's and Kirby's units frequently relied on "drag" tactics against Japanese fighters (when equipped with the fast P-38 - they were not very confident in the speed advantage of the earlier types).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[parsifal]

Thankyou HoHun

What are "Drag tactics"

 

[Wildcat]

Apparently, the Spitfire outfit thought it could apply the lessons learned in the Battle of Britain, and they were not ready to listen to the pilots who already had experience fighting the Zero. They seem to have favoured radar over coast watcher reports though radar was unreliable and did not have the range of the coast watcher network, and along with the delay caused by assembling their formations, this usually left them in a poor position for an intercept.

AFAIK there were no Coast Watchers in the Darwin area from 1943 onwards. There were CoastWatchers on Bathurst Is in early 42, however they were only utilised until the Radar sites were up and running. I believe Radar was the only form of early warning from Jan 43 onwards.

Would they have done better if equipped with the other RAAF mainstay of the time, the Kittyhawk?

I guess we'll never know, when RAAF P40 squadrons defended Darwin from Aug 42-Jan 43 they never encountered Zero's and all the Japanese raids were conducted by night during this period. Dick Cresswell from 77 sqn downed a Betty during one of these night raids. However when the 49th FG defended Darwin with P40's I have the following claims.

22 Mar 42 - 1 C5M Babs PO Shigiki Mari and PO Shinobu Nagasawa killed.

28 Mar 42 - 2 Apr 42 - 2 Bettys and 1 Zero for 1 P40 lost

4 Apr 42 - 2 zeros and 3 Bombers for 2 P40s lost

25 Apr 42 - 8 Bombers and 3 Zero's (PO1c Shiro Murikami killed)

27 Apr 42 - 3 bombers and 4 Zero's for 4 P40's lost

13 Jun 42 - 2 Zeros ( WO Katsuji Matsushima and Mikio Tanikawa killed) for 3 P40's lost.

14 Jun 42 - 4 Zeros for 1 P40 lost

15 Jun 42 - 6 Zeros for 2 P40's lost

16 Jun 42 - 1 Bomber and 1 Zero for 3 P40's

30 Jul 42 - 6 bombers and 3 Zero's for 1 P40 lost

23 Aug 42 - 7 Betty's and 8 Zero's (Lt Tanadsune Tokaji, PO Nobutoshi Furukawa, PO Isutzo Shimizu and PO Yoshijuki Hirata killed) 1 P40 lost.