Why did the Spitfire fail over darwin?

[Stig1207]

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=4-pilots-claims

Cooper's total is 70 claims (same figure as given by Stona). Curiously, Cooper's figures don't agree with Cooper's figures either
There are some subtotals that don't add up. I got 66, counting the claims given in the '1 FW Total' column.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=5-spitfire-losses-to-enemy-action

I just realised that you wrote between '2nd March and 6th July', which makes it all the more confusing as there are only about 50 claims in this period (I didn't count the probables). OTOH, there are more Spitfires lost than your 17; Cooper's figure is 27, of which 2 are due to CSU failure, 2 force landed but repairable and 1 manoeuvred into ground.

 

[stona]

Cooper actually sums up the campaign fought by 1 Fighter Wing as a success, and I'd agree with that.

"In the end, they [the Japanese] could no longer afford to continue their campaign over Australia, because the defence was too strong, and their losses would not be worth the limited results. The air defence of Darwin in 1942-43 therefore can be considered a successful campaign for the RAAF, but the victory was one of superior Allied logistical depth rather than one of outright victory in battle. But this was typical of all successful air campaigns in World Wat II - over time, the better organised and better resourced side always prevailed, without exemption, and irrespective of kill ratios.
The RAF's Desert Air Force emphatically proved this point over North Africa in 1941-43: the Luftwaffe fighters consistently out-scored the RAF fighter squadrons in this campaign, but nonetheless failed to apply air power effectively and so lost the air battle. Certainly, an air campaign could never be won in the Japanese fashion: by an interrupted program of on-again off-again raids, and the merely sporadic if sometimes sharp losses that these occasioned."

Cheers

Steve

 

[taly01]

My 2 cents, Spitfires were propagandised as an uber plane to bolster home moral during the dark early years of WW2 for the British Empire, the reality of their performance is still good but the myth dies.

The Spitfire V tropical was quite an ordinary mid-war fighter by 1943, probably why the UK gave some to the "2nd" front in Australia, while they kept the Mk.IX for themselves!

 

[stona]

The Spitfire V tropical was quite an ordinary mid-war fighter by 1943, probably why the UK gave some to the "2nd" front in Australia, while they kept the Mk.IX for themselves!

The agreement to send three fighter squadrons to Australia was secured in May 1942 (when Australia's Minister for External Affairs, Dr Herbert Evatt, was in London for inter-governmental talks).
That's a month before production of the Mk IX even started. It didn't enter service with the RAF until July 1942, and then with just one squadron.
There were plenty of problems supporting the tried an tested Mk V in Australia, it wold make no sense at all to send a new Mark, only recently entering service with the RAF, to the other side of the world.

The version of the Mk V with the Merlin 46 was probably the best fighter the RAF had available, at the time, to deal with high flying Japanese bombers. It is certainly not the case that Australia was sent aircraft that were considered in any way second rate. They took over from a couple of P-40 (Kittyhawk) squadrons, nos. 77 and 76.

Cheers

Steve

 

[RCAFson]

There's a reason that the USAAF was flying reverse LL Spitfire Vs all through 1943.