Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Spitfires in Middle East, why the delay??

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by aussiebrit (U13851320) on Monday, 13th April 2009

  I have been reading "The Right of the Line" by John Terraine and " Together we Stand" by James Holland.
  Both writers comment on the delay in sending Spitfires to Malta and the Desert Airforce in the Western desert.James Holland is quite scathing of the Air Staff.
  
  Malta. This island survival was most important to the British holding onto the Suez canal.
  Why did it take so long to send Spitfies to this island, the first shipment flew of the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle in March 1942, only 15, but they made a difference and when 47 more flew of the USS Wasp in April 1942 they turned the tide in favour of the defenders.
  
  Middle East.The first Spitfires arrived in the ME in May 1942, Conningham and Tedder had been asking the Air Staff for them since July 1941.
  
  Surely Fighter Command could have spared 3 or 4 squadrons of Spitfire V's out of the 60 sqds that had over 800 available for the defence of Great Britain, I have read that Spitfires were being sent to Russia!! very cold up there!!
  AVM Conningham had only Kittyhawks, Tomahawks and Hurricanes to combat the Luftwaffe and to support the 8th Army, they were OK under 10,000 ft, but were a sitting target for ME 109 F and G models that had the speed and height to bounce them.Some Spitfire V's would have made a difference.
  Even by the May / June 1942 Gazala battles Conningham had only No 145 Squadron equipped with Spitfires and by October 1942 he had only three squadrons of mark V Spitfires.
  The Air Staff according to the writers used the excuse that there was not suitable airfields to accomodate these aircraft and the lack of suitable air filters and there narrow under carriage prohibited there use.
  The badly bombed airfields on Malta certainly did not decrease there performance.
  Why did Churchill and Portal allow this to happen??
  
  I am interested in members thoughts on this matter, I think I have the facts right,I apologize for any errors you may find.

  Link to this forum: Spitfires in Middle East, why the delay??

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 13th April 2009

  aussiebrit
  At first glance it does seem strange that we did not send the improved fighters to Malta, however I think that you might perhaps not be fully aware of the overall conduct of the war at the time. The British were totally stretched in 1942. Simply put, we were hard pressed in the Atlantic and in all the other sectors of the world's oceans which required Naval escort and the sea route to Malta was a particularly hazardous one. We were also recovering from the effects of the Battle of Britain/Blitz, loss of manpower etc. The Spitfire was not an easy aircraft to maintain nor particularly easy to land with it's narrow undercarriage and did require modification to operate in the dessert and the P40 was simply outclassed by the Me109 but nevertheless did stirling work. The Hurricane had just about reached its limit by 1942 but might have served with distinction in the Malta siege but another of our problems was trained pilots. Then there was the problems of supplying fuel, munitions and food to the Island. I'm afraid that we were simply overcommitted and reliant on imports that had to be protected. Aircraft were sent to the Soviet Union but this was a political decision simply because we were desperate to keep them in the war. Had the SU surrendered what then? Lastly why didn't Hitler see the significance of the Malta in his plans? Was he overstretched as well?

  Link to this forum: Spitfires in Middle East, why the delay??

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 13th April 2009

  aussiebrit
  
  It was a matter of priorities - in the Middle East the principal opponent until the end of '41 was the Italian Air Force, not the Luftwaffe. On the other hand, air defence of the UK was paramount, and operations into France in the second half of '41 seemed a more likely way of diverting the Luftwaffe from the Eastern Front (the fact that it didn't succeed doesn't change the factors taken into account by the Air Staff and the War Cabinet at the time)
  
  On the basis that the RAF had air superiority (just) during both Operation CRUSADER and the Gazala battles, it would appear that the Air Staff's decisions were correct.
  
  The logistics of getting aircraft to the theatre were huge, and the Spitfire was not good at rough field or carrier ops - the attrition rate from landing accidents was prohibitive and only sustainable later in the war because of the numbers available.
  
  similar factors applied to the Far East as well; I thought you were going to mention the row over how long it took to get a Spitfire Wing to Darwin.
  
  Cheers
  
  LW

  Link to this forum: Spitfires in Middle East, why the delay??

  Report message3

Back to top