Yuku free message boards

As for airsuperiority, a dogfight is very essential a capability of any fighteraircraft for this role, since it not only has to shoot at bombers, but the escorting fighters as well. The Spitfire was perfectly designed for this sort of role and did not need to operate far from its bases.

Compared to USN aircraft, the undercarriage of the Supernmarine Seafire is the same as of the more volumeous F4F and FM-2 Wildcat, which was prefered by both the USN and Royal Navy for their "seaworthiness" and extensively used on CVE's throughout the war. No difference here with the more agile Seafire, who was superior to this tubby, underpowered plane in speed, climing, firepower and turning. The more easy to maintain engine was not so much an issue, since all pilots, both USN and FAA knew the often troublesome radial engine was prone to damage due to its large intakesurface, which often acted as a vacuumcleaner and was prone to jamming. Radial engines wrk much better, as the Rolls Merlin family and especially the Griffon's had shown. (Why did the US see to put a Merlin into the P-51 otherwise?)

If the Spitfire was not succesfull, then why did the USAAF puchase this aircraft from Brittain in the War??? The shortcommings of their own inline engined fighters was the main reason for this, with the troublesome Allison engines of the first batch of P-51's and the older P-40's. Putting a Rolls Roys Merlin ito the airframe possibly made it the best US fighter ever and certainly the most famous and gracefull one.

The need for the more tubby USN fighters to stay with the radial engine was not its reliability, but more to make maintenance more easy for those onboard the aircraft carriers, since all planes had basically the same enginedesign and shared components, so less different parts were needed. Efficiency was more a reason than perfomance.

In a way the larger USN fighters were more effective, since they fought all combatmissions of the Pacific War, while the FAA did only a very few mission. Pound fo pound, the sheer bulk of numbers made the difference, not the quality. In dogfights with equal pilots, the A6M variants were equal or slightly superior to the F6F and clearly superior to the F4F/FM2. Since the IJN lacked skilled pilots after Midway, this was not seriously a disadvantage for the Allies, but more for the IJN. The Spitfire was superior in almost all aspects to the A6M variants, something less well known to most, since they never met in combat. Only the climbing of the A6M was slightly superior to the Spit, but it was outturned and outrun by the sleek Supermarine fighter, as well as outgunned.

The Spitfire was originally the compedetor of the Messerschmitt Bf-109 and also the Fw-190, against which there was an armsrace to outwith every next model throughout the war. Had the Spitfire not be so addaptable, it would have been replaced by its compediting designs of Hawker, but these were somewhat disapointing in almost every single time, so the Spitfire always came out a winning design. (The Germans also made use of both inline and radial engines, but their best planes always had an inline engine of either Jumo or BMW design)

The only real US advantage was their enormeous industrial output, so they could alway outbuild any opponent. Also they had more men available as cannonflesh in the cockpits of their aircraft. The pilots were good, but could, if needed, be sacrificed and replaced by others. British and Japanese could not so easilyt waist skilled aviators, due to lack of men. In some way the USA were on the same terms as the USSR, simply outnumbering the opponent with both men and materiel, while quality was only secondary to the main objective.

Indefensive operations based on Australia in 1942-43 the Spitfire generally suffered from a higher loss rate than the other Allied fighters involved. This was largely so because of its poor operational range - Spitfires often being drawn too far away from their base and consequently running out of fuel over the sea.

In the war with Japanland-based Spitfires gave their main service on the Burma front supporting the British Fourteenth Army, and in the south-west Pacific operating as part of General Macarthur's forces. Spitfires of the Australian Air Force were in action from early 1942 onwards - primarily in defensive operations against Japanese air raids, and most notably in the defense of the northern Australian port of Darwin. In 1942-3 the majority of the Spitfires in front-line service in the Far East were Mk Vs. Later in the war these were largely replaced by the superb Mk VIII, generally acknowledged to be the best production Spitfire variant as regards its handling qualities when airborne.
Itwas in operations in defence of Darwin that Spitfire pilots first became aware of the exceptional maneuverability of the Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero. In their many European actions with the Luftwaffe's fighters Spitfire pilots had always enjoyed superior maneuverability - at least as regards their aircraft's rate-of-turn in level flight. It was a shock to the Allied
air forces to discover that the Zero could easily out-turn their own fighters, and combat tactics had to be revised.
Indefensive operations based on Australia in 1942-43 the Spitfire generally suffered from a higher loss rate than the other Allied fighters involved. This was largely so because of its poor operational range - Spitfires often being drawn too far away from their base and consequently running out of fuel over the sea.


Thenaval version of the Spitfire - the Seafire - was never a fully satisfactory carrier-based fighter, being a relatively fragile aircraft with very limited endurance, and having a very narrow-track undercarriage which led to many landing accidents.
For all this it remained a very effective aircraft in combat, one of its advantages over the Hellcat and Corsair fighters of the
Allied fleets being the superior range and destructive power of its 20mm Hispano cannon.
TheSeafire III, the variant which saw most action in the Pacific, was first delivered to 899 Squadron (in Belfast) in March 1944. In July 1944 this squadron embarked on the escort carrier Khedive for operations in the Mediterranean based on the strategic island of Malta.
By1945 the Seafire was serving in the Far East, with eight squadrons operating from six carriers. By the end of hostilities in August 1945 there were 12 squadrons in front-line service, four equipped with Mk IIC Seafires, eight with Mk III Seafires. All these Seafires were powered by Merlin engines generating between 1,340 and 1,640 hp (999 and 1223 kW).
TheSeafire saw much action operating from the carriers of the British Pacific Fleet during the Iwo Jima and Okinawa campaigns, and in the final operations against the Japanese mainland - primarily in defending the fleet from the intensive kamikaze attacks which dominated this, the final phase of the naval war.




The first ever recorded encounter between an Australian Spitfire and a Zero is clouded, since it is not actually coinfirmed by either side.
"Famous desert ace Clive Caldwell got a Zero and a Kate on March 2 1943 and tw months later he destroyed two more (can anybody tell what kind of a/c? and date) and on June 30, 1943 he shot down another Zero for his final and 28.5 kill.
From "Allied Aces of WWII" by William N. Hess."

But:
"On May 2d he flew with 452 Squadron and again engaged fighters (A6Ms of 202). He claimed a HAP and a ZEKE. None were lost though seven were damaged.
I believe Caldwell's claim on the 30th may have been a bomber as six bombers but only two fighters were claimed that day. The bombers were type 1 attack bombers from 753 Ku and none were shotdown outright but one bomber crashed near its base."