Thanks for clarification of the arrival date of the 1st Spitfires in Australia; it seems it took RAAF some 8 months to conduct 1st combat sorties (Feb 1943)?
Clarifying on spitfire deployment to australia, i would reccommend the following link plus the AWM archives, both of which contain a great deal of information on this issue. I cant locate the AWM links, but here is the link to the ADF serials site:
Welcome to ADF Serials
Spitfires were first shipped to Australia 27 sep '42, but were not handed over to the RAAF until the end of november. Modifications to make them suitable for tropical operations were needed (dont know what that entailed) and not all of the shipment arrived until mid to late october. The arrival of the spits to the SWPac TO was shrouded in great secrecy......at that time Allied aircraft of all types were being decimated by the japanese and great things were expected of the spits. the RAAF wanted to hit with maximum force and surprise, so they took their time in deploying the aircraft.
There were other limitations of the type that caused considerable concern at the time. There was an acute shortage of airfield space in the forward areas, and those that were availablle were all rough, dirt strips. Moreover at the time of their arrival, the threat of invasion was very real, so in effect all of australi was a war zone. The relatively fragile undercarriage and narrow tracks were a cause for concern....
On receival of this batch of 60 aircraft, the spitfires were first handed over to an OTU (no2 I think), before allocation to 1st Fighter Wing.
In the air fighting over Darwin, the Spitfire was unable to get the better of the Japanese Zeroes or Oscars that fought against them. Tese aircraft of the 5th and 48th Air divisions plus the aircraft of the 201st (I think....working from memory) Naval Air Wing were very experienced pilots, and in my opinion, the Australians simply used the wrong tactics against them. Spitfires in Europe had found the best tactics against aircraft like the Me109 was to get into a turning battle. this was absolutely the wrong thing to do against the japanese, and I think it took the CW and British forces somewhat longer to work this out than the American units, who were issued specific orders in october not to engage in that way with the Japanese.
Against other types the spits were quite successful, as were the hurricanes in the CBI, but the Spits also suffered heavy attrition from landing and t/o accidents and simply running out of fuel.
If I've decyphered the 1st part right, the said country is the UK, the same country that out-produced 3 main Axis forces (in numbers of planes) for a better part of the war, 1941 included?
Allies were on the strategic defensive at this time, but in some Tos, like western Europe, were more or less forced to go on to the attack, to reduce the pressure on their allies (Soviets in particular). Was an expensive excercise. Similar issues in the Far east...
Nothing wrong with that - if brass thinks they have abundant number of fighters, how come they're not having a vast numerical advantage over it's enemies? If Hurricane was such a good fighter from late 1941 on, how come Nates Oscars (let alone MC 202s and Zeroes) are racking it's kills so easy? Someone say it's about pilots with low time - who needs to provide trained manpower? Somebody else will say it's lack of early warning - were Japanese known for their radar stations, directing their fighters?
Dont think anyone said it was such a good fighter. However there is no evidence that it suffered a heavier attrition rate than anyone except perhaps in the CBI. The allies throughout 1940-41 were suffering heavy attrition for all types, in all TOs. Hurricanes, Spitfires, or any other allied type were not exempt from that problem.
Allied problems were multiple, and you have hit on some of them. But it simply is untrue that the Spits and hurricanes were suffering heavier attrition than other types at this time.
Finally, we boil it down to the trained manpower - the pilots in unnecessary jeopardy. Was it a bigger mistake to send them into hands of LW in 1941-42 over France Low countries, or to seat them into Hurricanes produced from 1942 on?
I suggest you study military strategy a little more before attampting this kind of judgement. Have a look at Lees conduct in the seven days battles, and you will work out the reasoning for the RAFs success, in spite of its losses in 1941. Despite fighting a series of battles that individually were heavier in losses for them, it was overall successful in the objectives of those battles, particaullrly the tactical battles over france and the low countries in 1941-2. without that sacxifice the LW would have been in much better shape to fight in 1943-4 than it actually was. RA would have had time to rectify the numerous problems that its suffered from.
And finally, once again, we find sweeping, yet unsubstantiated claims about Hurricane loss rates being much higher than other aircraft. Statements made without a shred of supporting evidence.....
Deliveries were surely made. Two or three wings worth of airplanes pilots, sent within 3 months in one destination, are not same thing as two or three squadrons sent at the same place during the same time, and that was how it happened.
As for sending the planes to Egipt, my take is that Axis tanks were not parked at the surface of Atlantic, nor the Indian ocean - that can confirm the Spitfires delivered to Australia.Not at all sure what this means, but my guess is that you are tryiung to say why did they not send massive amounts of Spits overseas......well the main reason was logistical. Put simply, the Spit was a Highly specialised type made for one purpose really, and it did that very well. The hurricanes of 1941-2 were more durable, and more general purpose, plus they were not considered as essential to the main TO. Sending out two or three squadrons in 1941 to Egypt required an enormous effort in terms of shipping, something in very short supply. sending out specialised aircraft that cant do two or three things on the same airframe is a luxury unable to be afforded at that time, plus they were not considered necessary anyway, because the hurricanes and curiss aircraft were filling the roles quite adequately anyway.