Re: Australian Spitfires
 

JoeB, Spitfires over Darwin only covers the Australian side of the air war over Darwin. The book is not about claims v's actual's (whch is always an area of contention).

The book presents (without fanfare) the true side of the Spitfire effort over Darwin from the Australian point of view; the limitations of the aircraft in that environment, it's losses and the reasons why, and the life that the flyers led in such a remote part of Australia. It doesn't in any way try to portray the Spitfire as a 'great' fighter, in fact it understates it to a degree.

But it does dubunk factually many of the myths of the Spitfires poor performance.

I agree that it would be nice to see a book that deals with both the Japanese and the Australian sides in the battle over Darwin - and indeed one that also does the same for 1942 when the USAAF were based there. But nothing has been put into print yet - although there is something in the throes I gather.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

JoeB

With respect I think you need to read the book before drawing conclusions about it. In fact I did not claim it as "definitive". I stated that it is a very balanced Australian perspective and I recommended it to Graham.

For the record I am not particularly "a Spit fan" but I am very interested in the RAAF's air war and this was a part of it very ably described, from the Australian perspective, by Jim Grant. As such it certainly deserves consideration as a scholarly study and definitely adds more to our factual knowledge about the RAAF operational use of Spitfires than the simplifications you have repeated here. To dismiss it as merely "adding color" or to ignore it because it does not include Japanese claims/losses does a great disservice to Mr Grant. There are so few books on the Darwin Spitfires that it would be "rather surprising" for anyone with a serious interest in the subject to ignore Mr Grant's study.

I agree that it would be nice to have the accurate claim/loss records from both sides and to hear the answers to the questions posed by Mr Dunn. Would they be "definitive" in assessing the Australian use of the Spitfire? Well, no, because air warfare is never just about the machines used in it and, however much factual information is included, any historical study is always subject to bias, interpretation and debate. This is true still of the Battle of Britain where a wealth of factual material from both sides is available. The bias is as inherent if one sets out predetermined to demonstrate an inferiority in the Spitfire as if one sets out to demonstrate its superiority.

In the words of Ivan N Kozhedub: "No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist" and, I might humbly add, the rest of the orchestra, the conductor and even the concert organisers.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Joe et al

1. JAAF Type 100 (DINAH) recce a/c did not begin to fly recon missions over Australia until Nov 42. USAAF P-40s (49th FG) thus had no opportubity to intercept them. During the period when RAAF Kittyhawks defended Darwin recce mission were flown but weather was generally bad no doubt interfering with intercptions. The Japanese navy recce unit was not then (late 42/early 43) equipped with the Type 100 but did fly successful recons with its Type 2 land recce (J1N1) a/c during the early Spitfire period. In the New Guinea-area both P-38s and P-40s succeeded in shooting down Type 100 recce a/c during 1943. Recce missions over Australia continued even after losses were suffered in early to mid-43 and in fact continued until the summer of 44.

2. The Japanese did not change tactics during the course of the campaign but flew a mix of "air annihilation" operations and escorted bomber missions throughout. Despite Caldwell's claims for "light bombers" (sometimes called larger aircraft, fighter-bombers or KATES) on the 2 March 43 mission, there were only Zero fighters involved. Fifteen provided cover to 6 others that strafed Coomalie Creek afld. No Japanese a/c were lost. Guide planes were used in this mission to aid the fighters in navigation. Other fighter sweeps took place on May 10th (Millingimbi); 22nd June (JAAF); and, Sept 7th.

3. The Japanese conducted night bombing operations prior to the arrival of the Spitfires, most notably from Nov 42 to Jan 43. During these ops Kittyhawks successfully intercepted and destroyed one bomber. The change to night ops in Aug 43 by navy bombers was associated with the dispersion of their escorting force (Air Group 202) in small flights throughout the region in an air defense posture. As of July 43 both Air Group 202 and Air Group 753 (bombers) were far stronger than they had been in March. In terms of numbers they were more capable of offensive ops in Sept than they had been in March. Air Group 202 did assemble forces for ops over Australia twice during Sept 43 but under a joint army-navy agreement they were generally required to provide defensive cover to a large number of disperesed locations.

4. Darwin was a "backwater" of the larger Pacific conflict. One example of this is that as of early 1943 Air Group 202 was not authorized to receive the latest model Zero. Its T/O authorized only the model 21 and model 32 not the latest model 22. The only type a/c it received from new production in early 43 was the Nakajima-built Zero model 21. This was essentially the same a/c the Japanese had introduced in China in July 1940. Although a "backwater", Darwin was on Allied territory and the Japanese press made much of raids there. From March to Sept 43 Darwin was actually raided in daylight much more frequently than the more important targets of Port Moresby and Guadalcanal. Whenever the Japanese raided Port Moresby or Guadalcanal they suffered heavy losses. In the middle of 43 the Allies went over to the offensive. This included offensive action in the Aleutians (beginning May 43), the first raid in northern Japan from Alaska (July 43), and particularly the South Pacific offensive beginning 30 June 43. These strategic events plus the arrival of a group of B-24s (380th BG) capable of hitting wide-ranging targets "north of Australia" forced the Japanese into a permanent defensive posture.

The above is just an outline but essentially factual and not opinion or conjecture. Hope it is helpful.

RLD

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Also with respect I repeat, that in the 21st century, books that attempt to cover any period of WWII air combat history without accounting the actual losses of the other side, as well as the actual enemy units, their organization, strategy, tactics, operational conditions and handicaps etc., are severly limited. I didn't say not to read them, but several posts implied, "here's the real story". Without the J information, that's simply impossible.

Also let's start realistically with where Western perception of the Pacific Air War has generally been most flawed (and this includes Allied efforts in many cases, not solely the Spitfires defending Darwin by any means). The severe defiict has generally been on the side of Japanese information, the common problem is definitely not "oversimplifying" based on too heavy reliance on Japanese info.

On the guy who plays the fiddle, it's fine, but first get the total real story of what happened. Again much conventional wisdom about the Pac war IMO proceeds to the fiddle v player part without the right foundation of total facts. To go off topic a bit with your quote by Kozhedub, it could be applied to the air units he flew with or his own claims in GPW. What's was the claim accuracy ratio there? I don't know. I've closely studied Soviet claim accuracy in the Korean War (which included Kozhedub as a senior leader though not combat pilot) and found it to be quite low. "Balanced" accounts from their side bear relatively little resemblance to what actually happened, does it mean don't read them? no but it's important to realize. Others may not accept my statement about that war, again a debate for somewhere else if they don't, but the point is if those facts can't be found and agreed to begin with, the 'guy who plays' v 'fiddle' part tends toward angels dancing on the head of a pin, IMHO.

I doubt plane and other factors can ever be fully separated, but stuff like the losses on each side really happened, likewise the units on each side (when were Type 100's used, etc), likewise why per their accounts and logically based on their *real* losses did the Japanese use day and night tactics v. N Aus in 1942-43?: pretty obviously, availability of fighters for escorted raids v. other needs at different times, not losses in escorted daylight raids. The Allied fighter force at Darwin in '43 (and '42 to a lesser degree, though the real J fighter losses were a bit higher in that case) was enough to prevent *unescorted* daylight raids, and present a risk to recon planes no doubt, but whether it accomplished greatly more is open to debate.

Joe

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Er . . . . OK. I agree that factual losses (and linking actual losses to claims) for both sides is fundamental. But the starting point has to be available and accurate records. For the RAAF we have these - for the IJN/JAAF less so. Also let's not forget the implication of each force's practice in categorisation of damage/loss and eventual fate - an area where much may be concealed.

Grant's book is not a defence/promotion of Spitfire superiority, but an analysis (amongst other things) of why they were not more effective in air combat. This transcends the simplistic judgement of whether Zeros were better than Spitfires because it makes clear that the Spitfires were operated at a technical and tactical disadvantage on several counts. Hence the holistic element I stressed. The study is therefore still important to a full understanding of the situation, even without the accurate Japanese records. The discussion was not about generalisations on the limitations of 21st century books but about this specific book, which, not having even read, you appeared to dismiss by those generalisations!

The violin (not fiddle) analogy is merely about why one on one assessments of aircraft (technical) superiority are fruitless. Much will depend on the pilot and the tactical situation. That is all. A classic example of this is Schilling's AVG P-40 thrashing Brandt's RAF Buffalo, an incident much touted by the anti-Buffalo/British faction but about which 'Kitchie' Bargh's recent biography throws new and surprising light.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

But, who says accurate (from their viewpoint) Japanese accounts don't exist for many episodes of the Pac War? That's also a common conjecture it seems. Available, OK, it's sometimes surprising how in the "hi tech modern" world basic language and culture barriers are still an obstacle. OTOH most of the best two sided books on the Pac War I've read were written by non-Japanese speakers (AFAIK) who nonetheless perservered to get that info. Another aspect from what I've read is that Japanese info accessed in English is usually not literally original records but often from Japanese official histories written well into the post war period, such as the Senshi Sosho (~"war history collection" 102 volume series) including info from original records. Maybe Rdunn could comment on the details of the historiography, but I know of no contention from scholars on the topic that those histories are seriously inaccurate for the periods and campaigns for which they give detailed operational info, which is quite alot of the war though not all.

I'm not familiar with the particular aspect of AVG you are referring to, whether Schiller himself outflew a Buffalo in some practice fight, or said the AVG did much better than Commonwealth units in SEA in the same period against the JAAF. The latter is a fact. However, ironically the book best documenting that fact, "Flying Tigers" by Ford was (and its author was) very unpopular with Schilling, a prolific internet poster in his last years. Because though the AVG had by mid '42 very much the measure of the Japanese fighters they faced (~3:1 real ratio v strictly JAAF fighters all in Dec '41-June '42, far better than other Allied units of the time), they shot down a lot fewer than they claimed (though not especially worse on average than other Allied fighter units of the period in that regard). Schilling insisted the Japanese records Ford used were "inaccurate" and "incomplete" but that was fairly obviously his conjecture based on his subjective recollections, and personal feelings about having AVG claims questioned. That's seems to be the case when records are challenged in most cases, especially by veterans of the actual combats. We want to and should respect them, and understand why they feel that way, but there are still too many lines in too many books saying "the enemy records don't admit these losses" when there's no evidence the supposed losses happened except claims. Wrecks are sometimes mentioned as evidence, almost uniformly without actual documentation of specific cases that prove the enemy loss records incomplete. That's a common factor in four of the cases we've touched on: the main topic, Commonwealth in SEA, AVG in China, Soviets in Korea. I've seen general statements in published works on each of those that wreck finding proved the enemy understated losses, but nothing that shows such statements to really pan out in any of the cases.

Once again, far back up in this thread sources are cited (chapters or articles, not whole books) detailing the OOB, claims and losses of the Japanese in fair detail for the Darwin campaign; no real evidence they are seriously incomplete AFAIK.

Joe

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Are you sure about that? That is certainly what we have been conditioned to believe by many writers. Dan Ford does not analyse RAF claims or combat reports in any detail and there are some major inconsistencies in the accounts of several of the RAF/AVG encounters with Japanese formations. Many of the RAF records for the period are missing and then there are those persistent rumours of RAF personnel "giving" claims away to AVG members. Is there any actual proof to confirm that downed Japanese aircraft were the result of AVG rather than RAF attacks?

Schilling was very anti-British. Some AVG books do not even mention RAF aircraft taking part in well known AVG/JAAF encounters, even when they most definitely did. Bargh's biography throws some light on this but I'm afraid the Flying Tigers deserved fame and attendant mythology has long over-shadowed the situation even for British writers.

Some Japanese Darwin loss records have been mentioned. But are they accurate? Are they complete? I remain sceptical about that.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Nicholas

Capt. Terauki Kawano (Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force, ret.), working for the Military History Department, Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies, wrote a monograph (The Japanese Navy's air-raid against Australia during the World War Two) based on access to Japanese unit records available at the NIDS archives giving details of losses by JNAF units involved in attacks on Australia. In particular his sources included the unit combat records (kodochoshos) for Air Groups 202 and 753 for the Spitfire period. Historians generally recognize these as the best available evidence of Japanese losses. They are the unit commander's record of the action prepared immediately after the mission was completed. I would say anyone with access to this monograph or the source records on which it was based has a complete and accurate record of Japanese losses for these units over Australia.

The losses mentioned in certain published sources such as Hata & Izawa's book on Japanese fighter units seem to track closely with the data in the monograph mentioned above.

Scepticism is often good but it makes no sense to reject the best available data on a subject. In the case of the Zero versus Spitfire confrontation, we have the basic data on claims and losses. It makes no sense to ignore it or draw conclusions without considering it.

RLD

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Thanks. Perhaps then you might post them here as JoeB has already requested? Scanning the posts above I can see only references to fighter losses and these do not seem to be directly from the source you mention. It would be helpful to confirm these but also to introduce bomber and recce losses, including damaged aircraft if known.

Notwithstanding the pedigree of the source you mention my scepticism is rooted in the extreme nature of Japanese wartime propaganda and the prevailing command psyche of the Japanese forces which was to deny reverses. In addition the quality of unit records is dependant on local factors and mistakes or ommissions are not unknown. I agree that these records should represent the best available but their 100% accuracy and completeness is not to be assumed.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

While the monograph previously mentioned is certainly the most convenient and comprehensive list of Japanese losses over Australia, it is far from the only authoritative source. Other sources include intercepted Japanese radio messages (one of these gives a comprehensive report of month by month losses, by a/c type, in the Japanese 13th Air Fleet), POW interrogation reports, and captured documents. Another important source of evidence are the wrecks of Japanese a/c shot down (in particular the paucity of the same) over Australia.

With regard to Japanese propaganda, it really doesn't seem that terribly different than Allied practice. They overclaimed wildly on many occasions and their official communiques reported these claims as fact. They sometimes delayed announcing major shipping losses and in a few cases tried to completely obscure defeats such as the Battle of Midway. They routinely announced aircraft losses of which they thought the enemy had knowledge, i.e., those lost over enemy territory. They did not routinely announce a/c crash landing at base or in friendly territory though they might mention them as damaged. I believe this is basically similar to US and British practice. You can best understand Japanese propaganda by reading their official communiques. They did have some peculiarities. Many aircraft weren't merely shot down but "crash dived into an enemy objective." Aside from such stylistic differences their communiques were about as reliable as Allied communiques.

Obviously it is important to have access to records but also to understand how they were created and used. Official communiques were summaries based on a headquarters report to Tokyo. Kodochoshos were the fighting unit's own record of action. Action summaries were also prepared by headquarters for internal military use, other reports were prepared for logistics and replacement purposes. Examples of all these type reports exist. In short, while difficult, it is quite possible to determine relevant losses with considerable accuracy.

One wonders how many fuel starved Spitfires had a bullet hole in a fuel line or fuel tank.

RLD

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Would it be possible to give the title, author, publisher and date of publication of the Bargh biography referenced earlier in this thread?

Further, would it be possible to give the same details (plus language) for the Japanese report/book/monograph on their losses in Australia? Is this part of the Japanese Monographs series published in the 1950s at the direction of MacArthur?

Frank.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Of course, here it be:

'Ketchil' - (A New Zealand pilot's war in Asia and the Pacific) by Neil Francis published by Wairarapa Archive, New Zealand, 2005. Now in second printing.

ISBN 0-9582617-0-9

Wairarapa Archive
79 Queen Street
Masterton
New Zealand

Also may still be available via the Aviation Bookshop in the UK:

http://www.aviation-bookshop.com/hub.htm

(The Aviation Bookshop is a very reliable retailer with excellent, friendly service)

Recommended for anyone interested in Buffalos and Burma with some excellent first time published photographs from private collections (Buffalos a plenty, Hurricanes & AVG P-40s). Mr Francis wrote the biography in close association with Vic Bargh and there are some real gems within. Bargh witnessed the Schilling/Brandt dogfight and makes some interesting comments about it and about RAF Buffalos. Also interesting comments about 'Bloody Shambles' from one who was there.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

I think Nicholas nailed some very important points. Currently we have a fashion to add any information on opponents, not depending on how accurate they are. I am terrified reading that some work is not good only because it does not contain information on the other side. Still, in most cases we do not have enough information to make a general view of particular air battles not to mention detailed cross checking who downed whom.
About half a year ago, I and Wojtek Matusiak published an article dealing with the very subject. I think everyone agree that the most complete and most easily available records are those of RAF and subordinated Allied forces. The general conclusion is that despite existing various level records, actual list of losses cannot be easily established and there are still plenty of question marks. Of course, losses involving loss of personnel are most easy to deal with, but those when various damage categories were applied are often very difficult ones. Based on those findings, I would put very much doubt to any published Luftwaffe loss lists, mainly because of unavailability of technical diaries/reports as well as unability to trace life of particular airframes.
Given the mentioned Kodochoshos, they certainly are sources worth of further research, and I doubt if they are any more unreliable than contemporary Allied reports, but I am afraid, this is still not enough to draw any definite conclusions. Personally, I would like to learn how Japanese bureacracy worked and how various losses were recorded. Perhaps this is explained in some Japanese books, but be realistic - this knowledge is practically limited only to Japan, and will be for several years, until translating software will make substantial progress. And please have in mind that even Japanese have problems reading original documents.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

This comment can be quite misleading, so some clarification is deserved.

If one reads the actual combat reports of No.1 Spitfire Wing it's evident that almost all combat took place over water. This is in part due to the location of Darwin (the most common target) on the coast and the fact that it was rare for the Spitfires to be in a position to attack (ie gain sufficient altitude and up sun position) before the Japanese force was retiring. The phrase 'enemy engaged off Bathurst Island' occurs with monotonous regularity.

Very few wrecks have been found on the Australian mainland - whether they be the P-40's of the 49th FG, No.1 Wing or Japanese aircraft. It would be misleading to use this as a guide to the success or failure of any of the combatants from the three nations who fought over Darwin.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Jim

I don't agree. Actually there is a fairly strong relationship (on the order of .5) between reported Japanese losses and wrecks found. Furthermore, my point was that this was just one additional bit of evidence along with many others that tends to show the credibility of Japanese data cited in the mentioned monograph. Was there a one to one relationship between losses and wrecks? Certainly not. If the Spitfires shot down the number of aircraft claimed, there surely would have been more Japanese wrecks found (there is a very weak relationship between Spitfire claims and wrecks found!). Very few Spitfires went 'missing.' Their crash locations are known to a high degree. I think your criticism takes my point completely out of context. However, if it offends you I withdraw it and still believe there is no reason to doubt that Japanese records tell their loss story equally or more accurately than Allied records tell the Spitfire loss story.

Your point about claims over the water is a generaliztion that merits comment. On several missions almost all the action (and there were heavy Spitfire claims) was over land many miles from the sea. Why were insufficient wrecks found to support claims on these occasions? Of course the answer is because the claims were incorrect. The wrecks found supported the losses suffered not the losses claimed!

RLD

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Perhaps you are not familiar with the nature of the NW territories. Even inland the absence of wreckage is not conclusive. In fact some Spitfires reported missing in these actions were not located until the 1980's.

RAAF records list the fate by serial number of every single Spitfire taken on charge, by date, location and cause (if known). They accurately record shoot downs and losses caused by air combat damage. Are there exactly corresponding Japanese records to this level of detail? If not, I remain sceptical about the completeness and accuracy of their records and admissions.

To your comment "One wonders how many fuel starved Spitfires had a bullet hole in a fuel line or fuel tank" one might legitimately add "or not".

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me Rick - especially one as knowledgable as you. However I would be very interested to know where you got that figure of 50% on Japanese losses as opposed to wrecks found. How many wrecks have been found? Who/What was the source? To know that you would first have to know what the actual figure was for Japanese aircraft lost on operations over Australia in the period February to November '43. And I haven't seen you post any actual loss figures for that period.

As far as my statement that most actions occurred over the sea is no more than a generalisation.....well that is wrong. One just has to read the reports available at the AVM to know that that is in fact correct. Yes there were several actions that took place over land near Strauss and Bachelor airfields, but they can be counted on two hands. That leaves almost 45 raids that were interecepted over the sea. I think that is quite conclusive.

In fact this can be best illustrated by examining Spitfire losses due to enemy action, where the pilot either bailed out or was shot down. The figures are tabled below.

Losses Over Land (TOTAL 9)
A58-2: 6/43, 18m SW Bachelor
A58-29: 6/43, 4m NW Adelaide River
A58-32: 7/43, nr Strauss Field
A58-79: 7/43, 30m N Fenton
A58-101: 3/43, 2m W Picnic Point
A58-153: 9/43, 4m N Pioneer Creek
A58-172: 7/43, 35m W Bachelor Field
A58-227: 9/43, 15m W Strauss

Losses Over Sea (TOTAL 15)
A58-3: 5/43, W Millingbimbie Is,
A58-9: 3/43, N Darwin
A58-12: 5/43, 30m W Point Blaize
A58-17: 5/43, 20m SW Peron Island
A58-33: 7/43, nr Anson Bay
A58-34: 5/43, 30m N Darwin
A58-37: 6/43, Anson Bay area
A58-53: 6/43, 10m W Fog Bay
A58-61: 6/43, nr Anson Bay
A58-66: 5/43, 60m W Darwin
A58-67: 5/43, 60m W Darwin
A58-80: 7/43, Anson Bay area
A58-89: 5/43, 10m N Darwin
A58-92: 3/43, 25m NW Point Charles
A58-107: 6/43, nr Vernon Island

The Spitfire losses indicate that over 63% were lost at sea, 37% lost over land. That's perhaps the best indication of where the bulk of the action took place, and is more accurate than the 50% quoted above.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Jim

The number of wrecks found March - Sept 43 (period of day raids) was six. Source: Allied Air Forces, SWPA, Inelligence Summary No. 144. In addition to wrecks Allied intelligence also recovered debris and documents from a/c that went down in the sea, for example, the Type 100 recces that were shot down in Feb and Mar 43 both yielded documents. One of the six wrecks mentioned was actually found in the water.

Examples. March 2, 43; Japanese record of loss - nil. Wrecks found - nil.

March 15, 43; Japanese record of loss - 2 Zero. Wrecks found - 1 Zero.

Other dates follow this pattern.

Rick

Re: Sources
 

According to Dr.SHINDO Hiroyuki the most accurate primary sources of information on the Japanese air units involved in the attacks on Darwin may be found in the military history archives of the library of the National Institute for Defense Studies (Bôei Kenkyûjô), the research institution of the Japan Defense Agency (Bôeichô). This is located in Tokyo and is open to the public.

To quote him:
By far the best and most impressive set of primary sources concerning the Japanese operations against Australia are the action reports (kôdô chôsho) of the naval air units involved. The action reports of the 1st, Kanoya, Takao and 3rd Air Corps from December 1941 through October 1942 are complete, as well as those of the 753rd Air Corps from November 1942 through July 1944 and the 202nd Air Corps from November 1942 through October 1943. In addition, the action reports of the air units on the aircraft carriers Akagi, Hiryû and Sôryû, which took part in the initial 19 February 1942 raid on Port Darwin, have also survived; the reports of the Kaga are missing, however. These contain the daily action reports of each air corps in great detail, listing in a series of tables the action which occurred (e.g. reconnaissance, aerial combat, bombing); date; mission; commander; number of each type of plane (e.g. fighter, bomber, scout) taking part; ordinance carried; results (e.g. shot down, forced landing, types of targets bombed); timeline for each mission, including the bases flown from, times of departure and return; the times certain objectives were flown over or actions occurred; and damage and casualties incurred. In addition, the name and rank of each pilot and aircrew involved, the formations of the flights, and the fate of each aircrew (such as killed in action, wounded, or missing) are given in a separate table. While these reports are also handwritten in Japanese, they fortunately are quite legible. The action report for each day was written up at the end of the day, except in a few cases where the original was lost and had to be recreated later, usually from memory. These are all on microfilm, and every mission flown by naval aircraft against Australia through the fall of 1943, when such attacks ceased, may be reconstructed in nearly every detail by using these records. As is the case with any such records, however, it is probably preferable to check the results of the aerial combat or bombing reported therein with Australia records for greater accuracy.

Now if only we can find someone on the Japanese side to write their story, get together with an author who can combine it with the detailed records already available on the Australian side, put it all together in English, and we would have the ultimate story of the air conflict over Darwin. Not only would we have the personal side of things for each side, but we would have how each side saw the conflict based on what they observed and thought they saw, and what actually did happen.

It could be the ultimate book. Ahhhhh......if only. :)

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

As previously noted, the kodochoshos ("action reports" as mentioned in the quote above) have been summarized in English. Material is currently available to tell the story of the Zero versus Spitfire and other aspects of air action over Australia. Unfortunately as shown in this thread of comments, there seem to be folks who will question whatever information challenges their preconceived notions.

Information from downed aircraft, radio intercepts, POWs and other sources which are not necessarily available at NIDS (or to Japanese researchers generally) also provide valuable information on Japanese operations. No one source provides all the answers. Western writers/historians have generally failed to exploit wartime intelligence sources such as those just mentioned much less overlooking original sources from Japan. While this might have been acceptable a few decades ago, recent recantations of inaccurate information (even if providing interesting detail from the Allied side) can only be considered shoddy history and over-priced book selling. On the other hand, if the reader enjoys the book and thinks he has paid a fair price, good for him.

RLD

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Hi Rick,

I have been looking through the list of Japanese Monographs here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/monos/guide.html#II-1
till I'm going blind. And I still can't see which one of the 185 deal with air operations over Northern Australia.

Could you please put me out of my misery and say which one it is? Then I can get it through either the AWM or the AJRP. Cheers. :)

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Oh, come on Rick. Call a spade a spade! What are the "recent recantations of inaccurate information"?

The tone of superiority so typical of some American researchers and writers is not worthy of you! Any disagreement, it appears, must be "put down" with a patronising sneer. Poor children, they know not what. Please don't you go down this route too - please respect the other guys view even if you don't agree with it. You won't change his mind with the intellectual equivalent of a battering ram.

"As is the case with any such records, however, it is probably preferable to check the results of the aerial combat or bombing reported therein with Australia records for greater accuracy."

Oh yea! What makes the Japanese records so accurate and the Australian records so inaccurate? A "preconceived notion" maybe?

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Wel, I don't have to prove anything. In fact the points you articulate above reinforce exactly why I'm sceptical about the admitted Japanese losses!

Eight twee .303s

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

I think we have beaten this one to death. Some will never accept data that does not accord with their opinions.

"Recantations": such as Graham Boak's in this very thread (and on many other occasions) and more than one internet article and book.

"Monograph": not the post-WW2 "Japanese Monograph series" but Capt. Kawano's monograph as mentioned in a post earlier in this thread. Jim, if you missed the cite to Kawano's monograph you have missed a good (though not perfect) summary of available Japanese data.

Apparently some of us are so hasty to post a questioning or opposing reply (possibly me, too), we fail to absorb the other guy's point. Whether this comment is accurate or otherwise, I think I'll sign off for now. I remain bemused at how emotional (as in contrary to fact and reason) this issue remains.

Good wishes guys.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

RLDunn,

Could you supply details of the monograph by Capt. Kawano? Where and when was it published? Any suggestions on how to obtain a copy? Is it in English or Japanese? Is it part of a series, and if so, how can one learn details of the other monographs?

Can you also give details on obtaining the English language summaries of the kodochoshos that you mentioned?

Frank.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Frank,
The Monograph that Rick refers to is, believe a stand alone effort. Captain Teruaki Kawano (Retired MSDF) prepared the Monograph on August 29, 1997 whilst he was with the Military History Section National Institute for Defense Studies, 2-2-1 Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo Japan.

As I understand it it is a English summary of the kôdô chôsho (action reports) of the Air Groups involved in the '43 raids. The actual kôdô chôsho themselves are only available in Japanese. Until I see them I cannot say one way or the other how accurate they are, but 15 pages does seem rather brief.

However here in Oz there is a historical research group that goes by the name of 'Australia Japanese Research Project'. It is officially funded through the Australian War Memorial and includes many notable Australian and Japanese historians. They have a number of articles available to the general viewer, many absolutely fascinating. Their site is here:
http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/ajrp2.ns...e?OpenDocument

I have written to them asking if they have the above monograph and if it is possible to obtain a copy. I will post here when/if I obtain any more information.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Jim,
Thanks for the information on the monograph. I hope you can get more details, and find out how to obtain a copy.

Nicholas,
Thanks for the information on the Bargh book. I am trying to obtain copies; Aviation Bookshop does not list it.

Frank.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

This Western writer, at least, has based what could laughingly be termed his "career" on wartime intelligence and radio interception sources. The Luftwaffe is my area but I have noticed recently that there is a mass of Japanese material in the Government Code & CIpher School's files in the British National Archives. Go to their website www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and browse through the various HW file series.

I haven't gone into this material, but there seems to be a great deal of it.

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Frank

I obtained my copy from Aviation Bookshop by special order - drop them a line - I'm sure they can help.

Regards
Nicholas

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Hi Frank,

I found the book on Art Centre Bookshop www.booksnz.com but don´t know yet if they still have it in stock.

Cheers
Peter

Re: Australian Spitfires
 

Oh yeah, I forgot. We musn't challenge the American history of WWII or we might get shot down in flames by anonymous "aces" with six nifty .50s.

(I know the saying about opinions and how everyone has one too).

Try reading the posts again, carefully, (they are in English) and you might even understand they have nothing to do with "reputations" or "hunches".

Then find another target to bully.

Copies of Vic Bargh's book Ketchil
 

Just Books - a NZ based e-trade bookshop - has copies of Vic Bargh's book 'Ketchil' available.
http://www.justbooks.co.nz/search.ph...archtype=Title
I bought my copy from there a few months ago. It was processed and delivered to me in Oz in just over a week - so they're quite prompt.
...geoff