[Nicholas]

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.