Australian Spitfires

[Jim Oxley]

Good points Rick. And illustrates why the time is well overdue for a book on the Darwin raids be written using both sides sources.

[Graham Boak]

Indeed, provided the information is used to present a balanced account and not merely to bolster the prejudices of one side or another.

[Graham Boak]

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?

[rldunn]

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

[Graham Boak]

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?

[Nicholas]

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.

[Jim Oxley]

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.

[rldunn]

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

[Nicholas]

Originally Posted by Jim Oxley

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.

Hi Jim

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

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

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,

"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.

I think this was asked, and not answered previously. Does this book include information from Japanese sources? I don't think any work on WWII air combat can be viewed as "definitive" if it does not account the other side's losses and tell the real story in those terms. First hand accounts without such info can add "color" as one part of studying any given chapter of the war, of course, can't be definitive.

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