From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Death of Admiral Yamamoto
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:35:32 GMT

In article <jwb.714007421@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au> jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) writes:
>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.

Actually, I think the number set WAS much lower (my sources are at home, though
so it might be a while before I can find them.) The point of the flight was 
to make it look like a routine flight, and patrols were usually around 4 
planes. 18 (or 17) planes that far into enemy territory would be difficult to
interpret as anything other than an ambush; we wanted to hide this fact from the
the Japanese to protect the knowledge that we had broken their code.

>>>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I think the Hurricanes had been withdrawn before Dec 1941.

Sakai writes of shooting down either Spits or Hurricanes from that time period.
(_I Fought YOu From the Skies_ Another source at home).

>>>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.

As mentioned before, the P-40s did considerably better. However, at the time 
of the fall of Singapore, the Japanese were not short of trained pilots,
the then-current Spit wasn't able to fly rings around those Zeros. The later
model Zero's (ca late '42) WERE more heavily armored, partly in response
to being blown away by the Americans' cannon. They were not as manuerverable,
and the Spit should certainly have been the better plane. Again, though, not
at the time of the fall of Singapore.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan