Jimmy Thach and Jimmy Flately

[Jim Oxley]

These two men arguably did more to advance a solid, practical combat doctrine than any other single pilot in the USN in the early stages of the war. They literally taught the VS squadrons how to fight and win using what was generally considered to be a second rate aircraft ie the F4F-4; by concentrating on sound tactics, teamwork, the durability of the Grumman and the high standard of gunnery.

To my mind both men fall into the same category as Boelcke and von Richthofen as original military thinkers. Their doctrines became the core of USN air combat training - Thatch's tactic the 'Weave' and Flatley's defining treatise "The Navy Fighter'.

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Jim Oxley

These two men arguably did more to advance a solid, practical combat doctrine than any other single pilot in the USN in the early stages of the war. They literally taught the VS squadrons how to fight and win using what was generally considered to be a second rate aircraft ie the F4F-4; by concentrating on sound tactics, teamwork, the durability of the Grumman and the high standard of gunnery.

Hello Jim,

I would like to make a suggestion, without rejecting your argument. The Wildcat may have been seen as "second rate" by some, but objectively it was not very far behind the Zero technologically and in some respects distinctly superior. The F4F's engine was significantly more powerful, for example. It is worth mentioning that both aircraft were behind their European contemporaries. The Zero's armament was similar to that of the Bf 109E and shared the 109's problems. The Zero scored its most famous successes against early-war aircraft, such as the Hurricane and the Buffalo, so the Wildcat pilots were in a better position than some of the Zero's other opponents.

Regards,

Paul

[CJE]

You'd better ask the famous "Churchill Wing" what happened over Darwin.

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by CJE

You'd better ask the famous "Churchill Wing" what happened over Darwin.

Hello CJE,

Well, what did happen over Darwin does not invalidate the fact of the Zero's inferior performance Inexperienced pilots in unusual circumstances can negate a technological advantage, but not for long.

Regards,

Paul

[Graham Boak]

What happened over Darwin was linked to the unusually high altitude of the intercepts. This led to a (well-known) technical failing in the type of propeller used and jamming of the cannon. When both worked, the Merlin 46-engined Spitfire Mk.Vc had a distinct superiority over the Japanese fighters despite being the overweight dragmaster of the Spitfire family. You can certainly add inexperienced pilots and poor leadership, which didn't help. Anthony Cooper's Darwin Spitfires is a highly recommended read although to my mind he rather pulls his punches when it comes to criticism.

The Seafire Mk.IIIs that were successful against the A6M on the final day of the war were basically much the same airframes as those maligned over Darwin, but it seems rather less is made of that.

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

What happened over Darwin was linked to the unusually high altitude of the intercepts...

The Seafire Mk.IIIs that were successful against the A6M on the final day of the war were basically much the same airframes as those maligned over Darwin, but it seems rather less is made of that.

Hello Graham,

Thank you for your well-informed contribution. I've got a chance to respond at last!

'Darwin Spitfires' is a very good book, which is on my to-read list. Anthony Cooper, the author, also has a great companion website. One of the Appendices highlights the issue of CSU failure that you mentioned, see http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index...e-csu-failures . I wonder whether the Merlin 46 encountered other problems at high altitude, given that it had a single-stage supercharger. Cannon failure seems to have also occurred frequently on Spitfire Vs in the later stages of the Libyan campaign, it is mentioned several times in the second volume of 'Mediterranean Air War'. More broadly, there was an unusual combination of issues affecting the combat efficiency of the Darwin Spitfires, as you emphasised.

You are right about the Seafire III's, but I think you would agree that they were substantially improved versions of the basic Spitfire V design. According to my notes from Donald Nijboer's Osprey title, the Seafire L.III had a Merlin 55M with a cropped supercharger impeller, automatic boost control and a four-blade Rotol propeller, which substantially improved its performance at low and medium altitudes. It also had an improved 'c' wing with a streamlined design and belt-fed cannon, as well as the lighter Hispano Mk V, on later production airframes. These two sets of improvements made the L.III a rather better aircraft than the Vc, even if they shared a common airframe.

The basic point remains true, that even the Vc, with all its flaws, could fight the Zero and other Japanese fighters effectively, while the later Seafires were distinctly superior, at least at the altitudes at which they were designed to operate.

Regards,

Paul

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

In fairness it should be pointed out that in addition to the malfunctioning propeller CSU, the leak-prone coolant system and the non-functional armament that plagued the Spitfire fighters of 1 Fighter Wing, RAAF the experienced pilots of the 202 Kokutai of the IJNAF were another factor to be considered in regards to what happened over Darwin.

Horrido!

Leo

[Paul Thompson]

Originally Posted by Leo Etgen

Hi guys

In fairness it should be pointed out that ... the experienced pilots of the 202 Kokutai of the IJNAF were another factor to be considered in regards to what happened over Darwin.

Hello Leo,

That was a very significant factor, you are right to draw attention to it. The issue is that the A6M3 Model 22 did not have a margin of technical superiority over the Spitfire V. If it had, it is possible to speculate that the RAAF would have suffered considerably greater losses. The Fw 190A-5/U8 flown by 1./S.A.Gr. 128 would be an example of an Axis long-range fighter which was technically superior to the Mark V. Of course, there is the problem that the A-5/U8 did not quite have the range to reach Darwin from Japanese bases, as far as I understand.

The main point that I wanted to underline in this part of the discussion is that the Japanese never possessed substantial technical superiority over the Allies, unlike the Luftwaffe in the early years of the war in Europe.

Regards,

Paul

[GuerraCivil]

One interesting but somewhat little handled detail is to evaluate the performance of Allied P-40 units vs. Zero. The P-40 B Tomahawk saw actually very little action against IJNAF as most available Tomahawks of USAAF Far East Air Force were destroyed on the ground. Flying Tigers did quite well vs. Oscars of IJAAF but Oscar in my opinion was in many respects inferior plane compared to Zero. The IJAAF would have probably made it better with denavalized version of Zero.

The P-40 E Kittyhawk/Warhawk saw more action vs. Zeros of IJNAF but I do not know if there are any reliable combat analysis available - my impression is both sides overclaimed drastically their exploits - both sides won the most of air combats if we are to believe their claims. The comparison of loss records of both sides will probably give more reliable picture how the Allied P-40 units actually fared against Zeros of IJNAF.

Of the first Japanese air raid against Darwin on 19.2.1942 I have read that Zeros shot down ten defending P-40 E´s of USAAF without air combat losses of their own. However I have also read that P-40 pilots learned their lessons and avoided the dogfights with Zeros - that they instead tried to employ Kittyhawk/Warharwk quite a same way as the Flying Tigers did with Tomahawks. I would not be surprised if the combat statistics would show the gradual improvemet of tactics and combat skills of P-40 pilots when pitted against Zeros.

The advice of experinced USAAF P-40 pilots seems to have been ignored by Clive Caldwell when he first tried to build interception tactics with Spitfires against IJNAF raids. As a consequence the Spitfire pilots got dragged too often in dogfights - they lost the speed advantage of Spit and their plane was less nimble than Zero in turning fight. Thus the performance of Spits vs. Zeros was not so impressive when defending Darwin.

The technical performance of the plane is a important asset, but I think that it goes to tactics and combat skills which ultimately decide the combat. The combat pilots with better tactics and skills can win an enemy with technically superior equipment if the technical difference is not too big. The Zero was in many respects better plane than Wildcat but I think that the tactics of US Navy pilots proved to be better in the long run. The Wildcat pilots had also the advantage of better radio equipment which helped the co-operation in air - the Zero pilots over Guadalcanal flew often without radios as the Japanese radio equipment was unreliable and considered for good reason just a extra weight.

The IJAAF pilots made it initially quite well with the obsolete Ki-27 against Brewster Buffalos, Hurricanes and even P-40´s. The initial success of Ki-27 pilots is a good example how better training and more improved skills can compensate the disadvantage of inferior equipment. Only when Allied catched up and found the right tactics, the outdated Ki-27 became a serious handicap for the IJAAF pilots.

[Leo Etgen]

Hi GuerraCivil

The best that I have been able to come up with after some preliminary research concerning the results of aerial combat between Allied P-40 units and Zeke fighters of the IJNAF in the early period of the Pacific War is as follows:

February 1942: 24 P-40 fighters lost in aerial combat against two Zeke fighters.

17 March 1942 through 3 May 1942: 75 Sqn, RAAF lost 15 P-40 fighters and 11 pilots while the Tainan Kokutai lost three pilots in aerial combat over Port Moresby. It should be pointed out that from 30 April 1942 through 1 June 1942 the 8th FG, USAAF which relieved 75 Sqn, RAAF in New Guinea lost 26 P-39 fighters in aerial combat while the Tainan Kokutai lost 11 pilots in aerial combat over Port Moresby.

In regards to the 49th FG, USAAF over Darwin it appears that from 14 March 1942 through 23 August 1942 the unit was responsible for the loss of 10 or 11 Zeke fighters and 12 escorted bombers while losing 19 P-40 fighters.

I hope this helps.

Horrido!

Leo