From: jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen)
Subject: Re: Death of Admiral Yamamoto
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:23:41 GMT

fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:

>In article <jwb.713660118@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au> jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) writes:
>>bomber was ambushed by 17 P-38 Lightnings and shot down. [It took 34
>>days for the Japanese to recover his body from the jungle. It was cremated and 
>>the ashes returned to Japan for a state funeral.]

>I read that the flight consisted of 4 Lightnings; 17 seems a bit high.

Well, Bergamini said 18, but one crashed on takeoff. Since they had to fly about
400 miles to the ambush, and they knew they would have to deal with the 
escorting fighters, it is unlikely that as small a number as 4 would have
been sent.

>>
>>A fine story, but totally devoid of fact. There were *no* Spitfires at
>>Singapore. The Japanese pilots might have thought it was Spitfires they
>>were shooting down (Bergamini, being a journalist, never revealed his
>>sources) but the few RAF planes in Singapore were obsolete Brewster
>>Buffaloes and Vickers Wildebeestes.

>Actually, I believe there were Hurricanes there.

I think the Hurricanes had been withdrawn before Dec 1941.

>>The first appearance of the Spitfire in the Pacific war occurred in March
>>1943, when the 452 Squadron of the RAAF returned to Darwin with its
>>(Mark III?) Spitfires after service in Britain. The Spitfires, which
>>were by far the most manoeuverable Allied fighter, had no trouble
>>flying circles around the Zeros they encountered.

>"Flying circles around"? Doubtful. The Zero was a very lightly armored plane,
>and would no doubt have been all over any Spit' foolish enough to try to
>out-turn it. While the Spit WAS (a bit) more manueverable than the early Me 109s
>it was not more so than the FW 190 series, which was NOT a match for the Zero
>so far as "dog-fighting" was concerned. The Allies gained considerable success
>against the Zero by using their advantage in rate-of-climb (for some of the
>later Allied planes; the early Allied fighters couldn't climb as fast), OR by 
>diving on it from above (something the early-to-mid war Spits could NOT have 
>done; the Merlin carbs tended to conk out in a dive, a fact the 109s took full 
>advantage of in the European war).

>The Spit DID have a better(very slightly) rate of climb, but, especially the 
>early Spits, were not nearly as well armed, their only guns being wing-mounted,
>and therefore not providing a as stable a firing platform. 

>In short, while the later model Spits were probably better than the Zero, those
>available around the time of the fall of Singapore were outclassed or matched
>in the areas it had superiority vs the German fighters; rate-of-climb below 
>~23,000 feet and manueverability.

The records of 452 squadron show that they achieved about a 4:1 kill ratio against Zeros, usually in scrambling against incoming planes, which is hardly an
ideal environment. The Mark3s were not exactly Battle pf Britain machines; they
had cannons, fuel injection, etc. 452 Squadron were veterans of many sorties
against the Luftwaffe over France and Belgium. Also Squadron-Leader
"Killer" Caldwell's pilots certainly had a lot of advantages over
the relatively undertrained rookies that the Japanese Navy was resorting to.
The Zero's manoeuverability was largely a function of pilot skill, as they
were one of the Sopwith-inspired unstable fighters. For a rookie, it was
an effort just to keep them level.
-- 
Jim Breen                           JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University. 
PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia (ph) +61 3 573 2552 
(fax) +61 3 573 2345  AARNet/Internet:jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au