|
Australian Spitfires
Having recently relocated to Australia I have been working on several projects involving Australian Spitfire operations in the Pacific. I am wondering if there is any one else that visits this forum that has an interest in this area. I would like to exchange information and hopefully find some more resource material.
Cheers Troy |
Re: Australian Spitfires
|
Re: Australian Spitfires
There is also an excellent book that covers the Darwin portion of their work.
Spitfires over Darwin - 1943 Give a yell if you need help, I've actually touched the Spit Mk VIII at Temora :-) PS. 79 Sqn worked up at Wooloomanata which is only 5 minutes away before it went to the SW Pacific |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Troy,
I am also about 30 miles from the RAAF Museum at Point Cook, If there is anything there I can help with let me know. |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Quote:
Specifically, does it have a lot of detail from the Japanese side about engagements involving Spits in the Pacific? On one now seemingly dead free site there was a breakdown of both sides' reported losses over Darwin, and showed the exchange ratio with Japanese fighters very much against the Spits, not just at first ('but tactics changes remediated' as is often said in one sided Western accounts) but throughout. Joe |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Quote:
Dont forget the Spits were there to shoot down Bombers. But the Spits did loose heavily Also many operational losses were had due to fuel & mechanical problems, the Spit wasnt at home over Darwin. The Mk Vb's also had that stupid air cleaner which saddled the thoroughbred to a brewery cart!! |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Quote:
In any case does anyone know if more such info can be had at that site, or what else you get for $20 (kind of a disturbing internet trend if it's not some pretty phenomenal info!)? Joe |
Re: Australian Spitfires
After the arrival of Spitfires in Darwin.
"The first large Japanese raid took place on 2 may when 18 Bombers and 27 Escorting Fighters were spotted.... Caldwell led the Spitfires but delayed the attack until the Spitfires had the advantage of height (approx 32,000ft !!) This allowed the attackers to bomb Darwin unmolested. When the interception took place 6 japanese aircraft were shot down, but 8 Spitfires were lost. (5 ditched after running out of fuel) 3 others were badly damaged and 2 pilots killed." Tactics changed and experience grew, 9 kills for nil losses in one day in July, 4 for no loss on one day in August. 17 August saw the last major daylight raid over Darwin, Japan changed its tactics to the occaisional night attack. Your sources need to be reviewed, only 2 Japanese Fighter losses in the period (what period??) Re the Marine & Navy Wildcats over Guadalcanal, they had an extra advantage of early warning from Coastwatchers which often enabled them to get to sufficient height. And what do Japanese records say about thier losses in these actions?? (I really have doubts about Japanese records, even worse than my doubts about the Luftwaffe records.) |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Quote:
Can you give some more details of this book, author, publisher, etc? I'm also interested in finding out more about the Spitfire operations over Darwin. |
Re: Australian Spitfires
lThe book is written by jim Grant, who actually served with No.1 Fighter Wing at Darwin as ground crew. The book was first published in 1995 by R. J. Moore with reprints in 1995 and 1996.
The second (current) edition was published by TechWrite Solutions (Vic) Pty Ltd ni 2003. ISBN 0 646 23632 6. The book has an excellent table detailing actual losses (operational and non-operational causes) as opposed to claims. The worst day of losses was on 2/5/43, when 49 Spitfires took-off to intercept 41 raiders (Raid No.54). This was the third Japanese raid that the Spitfires had been called upon to intercept since commencing operations in Darwin - the first being on 2/3/43 and the second being 15/3/43. Of the 14 Spitfires lost in combating Raid No.54 3 were ost to enemy action, 2 to unknown causes (no-one saw them go), 4 to engine failure and five to fuel shortage. Only two pilots were lost, those two who no-one saw disappear. In return No.1 Wing claimed 4 Zero's shot down, 1 Betty and 5 Zero's as probables and 1 Betty and 7 Zeros' damaged. |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Hope these help.
The back of two of the pics says, "Our kites over Borneo. 1945" Adam |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Thanks Jim, beat me to the draw.....
Having a look few a few other articles, and in a table at the end of the book, the Spits had a horrendous loss record due to "Operational " reasons. They were crashing everywhere! |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Yeah Jeff, the table at the back of the book details the loss of almost 160 Spitfires, all but 21 due to 'operational causes' eg, fuel starvation, crash landing, engine failures, crashes on take-off, collisions whilst taxing etc.
And a study of No.80 Fighter Wings' maintenance records on Morotai Island tells a similar story. Frightful wastage of aircraft due to 'operational causes'. Although arguably that the Spitfire was perhaps the greatest dogfighter aircraft of WWII, it's performance in the Pacific Theatre - Darwin, Morotai and Burma - leaves a lot to be desired. It just was not suited to such a demanding environment. |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Add to the problems the Spits had, it appears that RAAF HQ thought the correct action was to issue the new aircraft to the OTU's and then pass on the clapped out fighters on to the operational Squadrons.
Also the missions were often longer and flown at around 25-32,000ft, putting extra strain on an airframe and engine that was designed for the more civilised skies of Europe. |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Hello
in Osprey's Spitfire V aces by A. Price there is an analyze on the Darvin battles, claims and the the losses as the participated AFs (RAAF, IJNAF and IJAAF) recorded them. That's only for the major raids IIRC. Being at work cannot give details but Aussies seemed to have overclaimed rather heavily. For F4F please refer the excellent The First Team and The First Team at Guadalcanal by Lundstrom. Claims checked against Japanese records, in appendices info on Japanese formations and tactics, on USN tactics etc. Really excellent books. Only small complain I can made is that in the First Team there might be some underestimanation on the effects of USN AA. Juha |
Re: Australian Spitfires
G'day y'all--
I recently had an RAAF veteran tell me that 457 Squadron Spitfires did not have white leading edges to their wings prior to shark mouths being painted on them and that only squadron leaders had red spinners painted on their Mk VIIIs. He had no photographic proof of this only his recollection. I love getting together with veterans and hearing their stories (they are what inspire my paintings) but over the years I have found that more often than not are not correct when they say things like this. I have seen plenty of photos of 457 squadron Mk Vs and VIIIs with white leading edges and what appear to be red spinners but I just wanted to throw this out there to see if anyone had any real data especially on spinner color. Blue Skies Troy |
Re: Australian Spitfires
I can throw a bit of light on these points.
a) White wing leading edges - the initial Spitfire Mk.Vs did not have them but after the RAAF issued the order requiring their use, they probably had them painted on in late 1943/ early 1944. Unfortunately photos of the Mk.Vcs from this era are pretty scarce. The early Spitfire Mk.VIIIs in the A58-300 to 550 range initially used by 457 Sqn were mostly painted in the Temperate scheme of Dark Green/ Dark Earth uppersurfaces ( or the RAAF similar colours - Foliage Green / Earth Brown if repainting had been required ) complete with White wing leading edges. After the unit received Spitfire HF.Mk.VIIIs in the A58-600 range, they were operated in the Dark Green/ Ocean Grey schemes that they were delivered in with initially White wing leading edges. Late in the war however the White leading edges were not always painted onto replacement airframes as there was no longer an official requirement for them. Also on some machines which had previously had them, they became very worn and faded and often hard to pick up in photos. b) As for only squadron leaders having Red spinners painted on their Mk VIIIs, he is clearly mistaken with his memory on this one. Initially ALL the Mk.VIIIs had Red spinners, no matter who was flying them. Sometime in 1945, these were changed to White for 457 Sqn. I have ample photos to illustrate this point. For instance of the 3 airframes flown by Fred Inger (who certainly did not have the rank of Sqn Leader), the first two had Red spinners, the last one White. A58-419 ZP-Y 'Blondie' - Temperate scheme, no sharkmouth, Red spinner A58-615 ZP-Y - Dark Green/ Ocean Grey scheme, initially small sharkmouth, later changed to the larger version, Red spinner with White backplate. A58-672 ZP-Y - Dark Green/ Ocean Grey scheme, large sharkmouth, White spinner. HTH Steve Mackenzie Co-author Ventura Classic Warbirds #2 - 'Spitfire - the Anzac Story' |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Troy and others,
I won't add too much to this except to say few people know the Japanese were not flying the latest model Zero against the Spitfires over Darwin. The 202 Kokutai had no model 22 Zeros during most of the the period it contested the Spitfires. It had few model 32s. Almost all the Zeros flown against the Spitfire were the model 21, essentially the initial 1940 version of the Zero. Several of the posts in this thread contain errors. The last Zero - Spitfire action over Darwin occured in Sept 43 not August as one post says. In the raid on 2 May 43 mentioned in one post, the Japanese actually suffered no aircraft shot down. Much has been published on this subject yet much misinformation persists. Also regarding the comment that Spitfires were there to contest the bombers. This fails to consider that several of the Japanese missions were essentially fighters sweeps and that on other occasions certain Spitfire Squadrons were assigned to confront the fighters not the bombers. RLD |
Re: Australian Spitfires
rldunn
the Info about the Zekes is interesting, looks like the Timor Squadrons were at the end of the food chain. Comment re the Spits being there to shoot down Bombers. That was their role, the effect of a Zeke Fighter Sweeps would have been minimal. The Bombers were the main target of the defenders. Of course in a planned defence certain units would be tasked with attacking the Fighter cover and others the Bombers. The tactic worked well in the Battle of Britain. Of course this is pure disinformation. |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Quote:
Joe |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Quote:
Thanks for the info that there are others here that are more familiar than us at Japanese losses. Sadly they cant be bothered in posting their knowledge. Unless they post their irrefutable evidence, these figures will probably never be known. A PS to the comparison against G'canal. The Japs there had a limited choice of target and due to the range, a limited attack line. Over Darwin the Allied airbases were strung out over 60+ miles and the attackers a wider choice of directions to approach from. Even the fact that the raids were not as heavy and were intermittantly flown stretched out the defenders. There were also tactical errors made, the Spitfire pilots included a number of pilots recently out of training and the Spit V was not happy in the hot & dusty (or hot & wet) conditions. |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Quote:
A little more delving into the bookshelves the J fighter losses by date given in Price, Osprey series "Spitfire Mark V Aces 1941-45" (which was mentioned by another poster) are: March 15: 1 A6M; May 9: 1 A6M lost, one crashlanded on rtn; Jun 20: 1 Ki-43; Sep 13: 1 A6M. 5 total, presumably the 3 A6M's + ki-43 in the H/I books doesn't include the crashlanding. The Spit losses to air combat, probably from, or wrecked in combat damage crashlandings totals 31 in Price. Another comparison is the 49th FG P-40's defending Darwin in 1942. The Kagero series book on "3/202 Kokutai" by Pajdosz and Zbiegniewski (filling in some P-40 losses from Rust "Pacific Sweep") only gives results for the combats April 25 onward. In those it says the then 3rd Ku lost 8 A6M's and downed 15 P-40's; 3 more had been lost in March/early Apr assuming no other J losses. The overclaim ratio was broadly similar (quite high) for all air arms in both those bombing campaigns. Ignoring the apparent difference in P-40 and Spit results, and focusing on the P-40 v. F4F results (where national considerations factor out) I don't see how they could be considered really equivalent based on some special disadvantage to defending Darwin. The F4F's engaged A6M's in many tactical situations in G'canal campaign (v. med altitude bombers but also at lower alt, v carrier planes, over J convoys etc) and in the 4 carrier battles in 1942, some clear defeats for both sides in various situations, but there was a pretty clear tendency toward rough parity. The USAAF facing the A6M's in other 1942 situations didn't even do as well as they did at Darwin. Later, USAAF P-40's fought on more or less equal terms with A6M's (often in mixed forces w/ more advanced US planes). But those potentialities aside, the F4F units of 1942 performed better as a historical fact. Joe |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Hi Jeff & JoeB
2 May 1943: No Japanese losses 15 May 1943: PO1c Kuratoshi Yasuda 202 Kokutai FTR 20 June 1943: Lt Shigeto Kuwata 59th Sentai FTR 22 June 1943: Lt Kunihiko Kuroshi 59th Sentai FTR 7 Sept 1943: PO1c Yoshio Terai 202 Kokutai FTR Hope this helps. Happy New Year Brian |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Quote:
http://home.st.net.au/%7Edunn/bomboz.htm |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Not only are the 15 May and 22 June odd dates for raids, but also 7 September. A review of actions over Darwin for May shows that the only raid was on the 2 May, a disastrious day for No.1 Wing. The only other actions during May occurred at Millingimbi, an Island off the northern coast of Arnhem Land, some 275 miles east of Darwin. Millingimbi was the home of No.59 Operational Base, which was a staging and refuelling base used by the Beaufighters of No.31 Squadron on their raids over Timor. It was also used for the same purpose by the Husons on No.2 Squadron, and as an emergency landing field for the Liberators of the 380th BG, normally based south at Fenton. The Japanese were well aware of Millingimbi, and raided it several times. During May '43 they raided it on 9 May, again on 10 May, a reconnaissance flight on 23 May (which also covered Darwin) and a final raid on 28 May. On 22 June No.1 Wing was scrambled when two formations of approaching enemy aircraft were picked up by radar. The Wing spent 55 minutes flying around Darwin on different vectors from Control until recalled. No contact was made. The radar log for that day shows that the enemy formations came no closer to Darwin than Bathurst Island (80 miles north west), then turned away. The only other activity recorded between Raids 55 (22 June) and Raid 56 (28 June) was a Japanese reconnaissance flight recorded overflying Fenton airbase on the 27 June. The action on 7 September is not classed officially as a raid, as it was a reconnaissance flight consisting on one Ki-46 escorted by approximately 20 Zero's. No.1 Wing was scrambled an interception did take place approximately 20 miles off the coast. Due to radio interference and poor Ground Control direction (as to height and direction of enemy) the Spitfires arrived piecemeal down sun and below the enemy force, were bounced and a very confused fight followed. No.1 Wing made claims for 5 fighters destroyed, 4 probably destroyed and 7 damaged! Only one was confirmed. In return three Spitfires were shot down, with one pilot killed.
|
Re: Australian Spitfires
Hi guys
Although I am working on a book on Darwin, I haven't reached the 1943 period as yet, so relied on published material for my information. 'Japanese Naval aces & Fighter Units in WW2' (Hata/Izawa) states PO1c Terai FTR Darwin 7/9/43 (Appendix B, page 384); also on page 283 that PO1c Yasuda killed Dutch Easi Indies 15/5/43 (probably not an operation against Darwin, my mistake) 'Japanese Army AF Fighter Units and Their Aces' (Hata/Izawa/Shores) states (page 295) that Lt Kuroishi FTR Darwin 22/6/43. I have yet to do my own research. Cheers Brian |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Quote:
Those sources anyway agree on an A6M loss Sep 7. I'd never looked closely at the pilots lost appendices in H/I books. The May 15 must be non-Darwin as you say. The text of H/I JAAF p.41 says an attempted fighter sweep June 22 didn't make contact, consistent with what Jim Oxley just said from Allied side, so presumably the loss that day was non-combat. The losses mentioned in the Kagero book otherwise are not quite consistent with Price's but his account totaling 4 A6M and 1 Ki-43 loss seems more methodical and complete, not 100% clear from the Kagero text if claims or real losses are quoted in some cases. Joe |
Re: Australian Spitfires
In case some of you are interested in the book "Spitfires over Darwin 1943", that was mentioned in previous posts on this thread. It has recently been republished. I think it's now in it's 4th re-print and into the 2nd (updated) edition.
I've not noticed it in any Western Australian bookshops, but have just received my copy purchased directly from the publishers. Contact details as follows: TechWrite Solutions (Vic) Pty Ltd PO Box 2003, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia e-mail: spitfires@techwrite.com.au It set me back $32.50 (Aust dollars), including postage within Australia. ...geoff |
Re: Australian Spitfires
It is worth adding that one key result obtained by the Spitfires in N. Australia was blinding the Japanese effort by shooting down the previously invincible Dinah. The Japanese were unable to obtain vital reconnaissance information and hence unable to plan or assess bombing raids. The importance of these missions can be illustrated by the above reference to 20 Zeros escorting a single Dinah.
As a result of the introduction of the Spitfire the Japanese bomber forces stopped doing daylight missions and switched to night attacks, before being moved to another front where better results could be expected. This was despite its mechanical problems, operational misuse, and fairly limited success against Japanese fighters, as fairly fully described above and elsewhere. It is worth noting that Spitfire operations in extreme environmental conditions elsewhere e.g. North Africa and the Arakan, do not show the level of mechanical problems experienced in these early Australian operations. Shortcomings in the preparation and support must be strongly suspected. Later Australian use gave much less trouble, showing that it could be done in the SW Pacific, as elsewhere. |
Re: Australian Spitfires
It often helps to have some information on what the other side was doing. Japanese reconnaissance of Australia by the 70th Independent Squadron continued until the summer of 1944 when the war situation which had previously reduced their operations over Australia completely diverted them to other operations.
Japanese daylight bombing by navy bombers ended in July 43 when their escort force (Air Group 202) was widely dispersed due to the threat caused by the recently arrived 380th BG equipped with B-24s which engaged in bombing raids over a wide territory. The navy carried out two night raids in August 1943. The Japanese army (75th Flying Regiment) obtained cooperation from a contingent of navy Zero fighters and carried out a day raid against Drysdale Mission in early Sept 43. After Sept 43 the approaching monsoon season meant a sustained bombing campaign could not be mounted for some time. By Nov 43 a part of Air Group 753 was diverted to the Marshalls due to the invasion of the Gilbert Islands. The group was also sent to other parts of the Indies. By the time good weather returned in April 44 the Japanese were in no position to engage in a bombing campaign over Australia. The mission of 20 Zeros accompanied by a reconnaissance plane was not an escort mission of the recce a/c but an "air annihilation mission" by the fighters with the recce accompanying them as a guide plane. During this same period the Japanese carried out other recon missions without escorts. It helps to know Japanese air doctrine. Ascribing the end of Japanese bombing of Australia or the supposed end of reconnaissance there to action by the intercepting Spitfires to the exclusion of more pertinent factors results in a one sided and distorted view of events. RLD |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Good points Rick. And illustrates why the time is well overdue for a book on the Darwin raids be written using both sides sources. :)
|
Re: Australian Spitfires
Indeed, provided the information is used to present a balanced account and not merely to bolster the prejudices of one side or another.
|
Re: Australian Spitfires
In the interest of obtaining more real information in this matter, could Richard or others please clarify the following matters?
How many successful Japanese recce flights were carried out over the Darwin area before the arrival of the Spitfires? How many Dinahs were lost to Allied fighters during these missions? (Or other recce aircraft, if such were used.) How many successful Japanese recce flights were carried out over the Darwin area after the arrival of the Spitfires? How many Dinahs were lost to Spitfires during these missions? How many Japanese fighter sweeps were carried out over the Darwin area before the arrival of the Spitfires? If so, how many such sweeps were carried out before the arrival of the Spitfires? How many such sweeps were carried out after the arrival of the Spitfires? Was it normal to have a Dinah accompanying fighter sweeps? Before the Spitfires came? After the Spitfires came? How many Japanese night bombing raids were carried out on the Darwin area before the arrival of the Spitfires in Darwin? How many Japanese night bombing raids were carried out on the Darwin area after the arrival of the Spitfires? Did anything occur in the Darwin area to make it less strategically important to the Allies (and hence to the Japanese) after the arrival of the Spitfires? Did anything occur in the Darwin area to make it more strategically important to the Allies after the arrival of the Spitfires? |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Graham
I fear no amount of facts will overcome your bias. If only you had taken your own comments above seriously. Yes, many of the facts you request are available. It seems pointless to provide them, however, as you will only see in them the superiority of the Spitfire in every theater under all circumstances. I find such exercises pointless. Perhaps, I should apologize for providing any facts at all. Still, facts seem not to impress you so perhaps I haven't upset you and thus I have no need to apologize. Anyway, great that you are asking questions. Now if only you were open to actually seeking answers. If you are, go to it! Good luck. Open minded inquiry is great. RLD |
Re: Australian Spitfires
I see this as a representative case of thesis followed by antithesis leading to synthesis.
The thesis is the wartime propaganda that the Spitfire achieved wonders. Evidence that the wartime claims (tactical and strategical) were overinflated led to the antithesis that the aircraft was useless and achieved nothing. This has a clear attraction to that section of Australian opinion which delights in criticism of the poms. We are perhaps overdue for a synthesis that recognises that the introduction of the Spitfire into the North Australian theatre led to results falling well short of expectations: but results none the less. My questions were aimed at testing the following suggestions: 1. That the Spitfire suceeded in shooting down Japanese reconnaissance aircraft, where previous fighters had failed. 2. That the Spitfire led to changes in Japanese fighter tactics in an attempt to neutralise the new threat. 3. That the Spitfire led to an alteration in Japanese tactics from daylight raiding to the less accurate night bombing 4. That the Japanese decision to move their limited bomber strength to a theatre where they could be put to greater use, was not influenced by any reduction in the importance of Darwin as a target, or any new threat elsewhere that was not present at the time the bombers began their Darwin raids. The first is I believe strongly suggested by the acknowledged successes of the Spitfire against the Dinah: the questions were aimed at giving a quantitative measure, set into a proper context, rather than simply a set of claims. Numbers speak louder than opinions, and can indeed change opinions. Sometimes even those well-rooted in prejudice. The second is, I believe, uncontroversial, and was suggested by your own statements. The questions were aimed to remove any ambiguity or misunderstanding: was this fighter sweep you mentioned a previous tactic or a new one? The third is derived from the actual change in Japanese bombing tactics. Elsewhere changes from daylight bombing to night bombing has been as a result of the successes or the opposing fighters: why should the Japanese be any different? The fourth was meant to enquire into the changing strategic position. Other targets were always an attractive alternative for the limited Japanese bomber forces. If there was no reduction in the value of Darwin as a strategic target, then the actual or extrapolated power of the defence must have been an influence - if not the only one - in the decision to stop the raids. This is clearly not open to quite the same level of qualititative analysis as the other points, but some approach can be made, I am aware of your personal animosity to my suggestions. I had hoped that we could genuinely move the discussion forward. That is why I attempted to gain a set of factual information that a neutral could use to determine any effect - or lack of effect. Clearly I believe that the answers would support my position: but that position was, and is, at risk from contradictory hard evidence. If such exists, the questions should have brought it out. As the evidence from the combats and real losses have demolished the wartime propaganda. I'm sorry that you have not chosen to support your opinions with answers that would permit anyone to test the opposing arguments. You claim to have superior access to specific information - I do not argue with that - but choose instead to rely upon personal insults rather than logic. We can both play at that game, but where would that get either of us, or anyone who might be following this thread? |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Hi Graham
Do you have Jim Grant's 'Spitfires Over Darwin 1943'? If not, I can highly recommend it. It is a very balanced Australian perspective, from one who was actually there, and corrects much of the garbage about the RAAF Spitfire debut found on internet forums and websites. Part of the forward by Clive Caldwell says it all: "Any mention of Spitfires at Darwin usually brings the sort of stupid response 'Oh yes, didn't they get the hell beaten out of them by the Japs' or 'they all fell into the sea out of petrol or something'. Grant, a groundcrewman, explains in detail the several technical issues affecting the Spitfires and analyses the raids on a case by case basis. As in most air warfare the holistic nature of multiple factors belies any single factor being used as a "smoking gun" by armchair warriors. Having said that I have no doubt that being a Dinah crewman over Northern Australia was a very dangerous occupation when the RAAF Spitfires began operations in theatre. |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Your spot on Nicholas. At present Grant's book provides the most realistic assessment of the the Spitfires performance over Darwin in 1943.
There is a new book due to be released on 10 July on Caldwell titled "Clive Caldwell Air Ace". It's published by Allen & Unwin and written by my local second-hand book dealer here in Canberra. Three years in the making it promises to be the best account on Caldwell to date. And should offer some new insights into the Spitfires performance over Darwin as well. :) |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Graham
Why don't you answer the questions? 1. Do you know when Type 100 recce a/c began flying missions over Australia? If not, why do you assume previous fighters had a chance to engage them and failed? What role might weather have played in success or failure over Darwin or elsewhere? Do you know what success other types had against the Type 100 in other areas? What basis for comparison do you have? 2. What change in tactics? Do you mean fighter sweeps? As in early March, early May (Millingimbi), 22 June etc., prior to Sept 43? 3. Do you know if Japanese bombers engaged in night raids prior to the arrival of the Spitfires? If they did, do you somehow ascribe that also to the Spitfires? (hint check ops for Nov 42-Jan 43) 4. Could you possibly imagine that the strategic position in the Pacific was undergoing dramatic changes initiated with the Allied offensive in the SW Pacific that started on 30 June 43 and that Darwin was very much a back water in these strategic events? Since you don't seem to accept my answers on these sorts of questions, I leave them to you as areas of potentially fruitful inquiry. RLD |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Quote:
Thanks muchly - yes, I know about the new Caldwell book and am already eagerly awaiting my own copy! The book dealer and author you mention is also responsible for my copy of 'Spitfires Over Darwin 1943' and this forum for making me aware of the book in the first place! So double thanks! Regards Nicholas |
Re: Australian Spitfires
Quote:
No full two sided *book* on the Darwin '43 raids has appeared AFAIK, but it has been treated in print by reputable authors with the basic story from the JNAF side: very light losses of fighters and bombers on escorted raids, very much lower than what the Spitfires claimed, quite one sided fighter-fighter combat in favor of the A6M's, especially for that period of the war (although, impressions of Allied success v. JNAF fighters elsewhere ca. mid 1943 are often also *still* distorted in conventional wisdom by *still* relying on Allied claims in one sided accounts). Those sources were mentioned far back in this thread. I do see an effort to avoid that information from Spit fans; that's the thing that strikes me most when this chapter in the Spit's history is brought up various places on the internet, but this forum is supposed to be very scholarly and elite on WWII air combat history, it's rather surprising here. Questions as in one of the recent posts beyond the barebones score tally (when did Dinah's operate over Darwin, why did the JNAF discontinue escorted raids, etc), from the Japanese side, would have to be emphasized as part of completing the story. *Assuming* the answers to those questions certainly isn't a serious study, that *would be* internet junk. Rdunn: would you please answer the questions you laid out rhetorically?, I don't know the answers to all and would like to. Joe |
| All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:45. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, 12oclockhigh.net