Combat claims by Dakotas of 46 group?

[phasselgren]

Hi,

ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY AIR FORCE: Monthly statistical summary of operations – June 1944 has info that surprised me. The Analysis of effort by type of aircraft for month of June includes the following Enemy casualties caused by Dakotas of the 46 Group: 1 Destroyed + 4 Damaged.

The Dakotas were normally unarmed but I read somewhere that some windows had holes that the troops carried in the aircraft could use to fire their machine guns. I have never seen an example were this was actually done. Another possibility is that an enemy aircraft crashed after collision with a Dakota. I have seen examples of this in Bomber Command but a total of 1 Destroyed + 4 Damaged seems very unlikely.

I made a quick check of the squadron ORBs for the Dakota units in 46 Group but found no info about combats and there are no combat reports from these squadrons in AIR 50. I have also checked Daily Intelligence/Operations Summaries for Allied Expeditionary Air Force without any luck.

I believe therefore that these claims belonged to another unit and were included under 46 Group by mistake. It would however be very interesting to hear if anybody has any information about encounters with enemy aircraft during June that involved 46 group.

Regards
Peter

[MW Giles]

I have no proof, but my suggestion is a typo in the squadron number, which has lead to the claims being mis-attributed

E.g 412 Sqn claimed 2 Destroyed and 3 Damaged in June - a typo could lead to that becoming 512 Sqn in the summary.

Have to check the fighter claims to see if they are missing

If it is a typo then it is most likely a 2TAF fighter squadron (but in 1944 that is the majority of them!)

Martin

[phasselgren]

Yes, I also believe a unit was misidentified by a typo or something similar. Maybe not from 2 TAF as 46 and 38 were separated from 2 TAF in documents like Intelligence/Operations Summaries for Allied Expeditionary Air Force.

Peter

[Buckeye30]

Peter not many photos but this ( from "TIME-Life" magazine) is an RAF Dakota on supply-drop in Burma with 2-Vickers; fighter escorts were not so available here.
Nick


dakota-burma by Nicholas King, on Flickr

[RSwank]

Here is a photo of the "porthole" windows. The center circular plexiglass plug can be "unscrewed" and removed from inside the plane.

https://www.davewilsonphotography.co.../c-47-windows/


Article on the plane includes a video from the inside of the plane (see toward the end of the
article):

\\https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...-anniversary/\

You can buy an insert if your C-47 is missing one. ;-)

https://www.paratrooper.fr/en/usaaf/...000541562.html

[phasselgren]

Thank you for these links. I made an unsuccesful search for info about the "porthole" windows before I made this post but you solved it.

I have never seen it mentioned that Dakotas were armed in Burma but I am not surprised as they were helpless if attacked when they were without escorts.

[Orwell1984]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WW2info/com...kotac47_keeps/

Another picture from the same Life series. Another shot of the window mounting and the Canadian waist gunner

[Buckeye30]

It looks like the "portholes" aren't used here, seems like the whole rectangular panel ( fifth window from the front, note Rolland's first photo) is detached as here; it would allow more movement.
What do you think ?
PS troops are West African.
Thanks
Nick


https://achillestheheel.com/wp-conte...04/bl-wa31.jpg


https://achillestheheel.com/wp-conte...04/life-11.jpg

[phasselgren]

The angel of fire must be much more restricted with the "portholes". It makes sense to remove the panels when dedicated air gunners are used.

[Buckeye30]

The opening in the fuselage in the photo with the troops is the emergency exit window, one both sides; seems too big for the guns. Don't know where else the locations could be though. I wonder how effective a rifle-calibre gun would be against a very manoeuvrable Jap fighter.
Regards
Nick