Australian Spitfires

[rldunn]

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

[Frank Olynyk]

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.

[Nicholas]

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.

[Franek Grabowski]

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.

[Jim Oxley]

Originally Posted by rldunn

Another important source of evidence are the wrecks of Japanese a/c shot down (in particular the paucity of the same) over Australia.
RLD

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.

[rldunn]

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

[Nicholas]

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".

[Jim Oxley]

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.

[rldunn]

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

[Jim Oxley]

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.