Malta Spitfires

[Wez]

Now I'd always thought that the initial reinforcement of Malta with Spitfires were Vb's because that was what was in production at the time and that later reinforcements were Vc's with some Vb's because, well, that's what were in production at that time.

Now, according to a post in the possible Airfix releases for next year, it seems that the Vb's were preferred because it was lighter, yet most of the profiles I've seen are of Vc's.

Is this because there's just more profiles of Vc's or were the Vc's more prominent?

Wez

[Test Graham]

The initial deliveries were Mk.Vcs, among the very first such. Later deliveries were split between Vb and Vc. I suspect the comment was mine: I've seen no contemporary statement to that effect but the Mk.Vb was a somewhat lighter airframe - and weaker. Many of the profiles are of the earlier deliveries which offer more controversial alternatives for the colour schemes. I hadn't realised that few of the later profiles show the Mk.Vb but that may be just chance - or perhaps misidentification.

As for production, I suspect Castle Bromwich continued producing the Vb for some time after Supermarine had switched to the Vc - which was also built at Westlands. As the mass production site, generally CB took some time to adopt later production standards, if they did at all.

[tonyot]

Generally speaking,....I would say that the very first batch of Spitfire`s for Malta were Vb`s, but then Vc`s became more prominent through until the end of 1942 when Vb`s began to appear once more. I`ve not checked through the serials to check the variants and have only judged this by viewing photos.

There I have stuck my head above the paraphet,......OPEN FIRE!!!!!

cheers

Tony

[Edgar]

It was possibly a combination of things; Malta needed cannon, especially breech parts (from what I've been told,) and the Vc could carry four, only two of which were to have ammunition supplied (at 60 rounds per gun.) The "extras" were supposed to be unloaded on arrival.

Malta had no need for Brownings, having plenty in stock, but, if enough cannon couldn't be found to satisfy the requirements for four, the Vc would still have to carry two, plus ammunition; this begs the question, would the Vb have had to have two Brownings, as well, even if Malta didn't need them?

There's also availability to consider; when Malta got its first Spitfire delivery, they made it plain that they weren't happy with the big under-nose fairing, because it made the airframes too slow, due to drag. It was pointed out that they had to have tropicalized Spitfires, with their bigger oil tanks, because of the long distances they had to fly, and there was a risk of running short during the delivery flight.

In August 1942, it was decided to rely on 170 gallon tanks, and fly Spitfires direct from Gibraltar; in late October 1942 Park was desperate for conversion sets to turn his Vs back into "temperate" mode, due to the superiority of the 109G.

In November he was told that he would be getting his first delivery of IX, direct from Gibraltar.

Edgar

[Wez]

Thanks all for the responses, it all becomes clear now (and yes Graham it was your comment which got me thinking).

So now I have further questions...

My understanding is that the Vc's were delivered with 4 cannon of which 2 got removed to provide spares as described by Edgar, but, were the Vc's only fitted with cannon or did they have .303 machine guns too?

Were the Vb's operated with a mix of cannon and machine guns?

If the Vc's were operated with 2 cannons only and the Vb's a mix of cannons and machine guns, wouldn't the Vc's be lighter than the Vb's? After all, the structural differences shouldn't weigh as much as an additional couple of machine guns in each wing?

Wez

[Test Graham]

Tony is right that the first 31, delivered from HMS Eagle in three batches, were Mk.VB. The following 200 (approx) were Mk.VC. For and after Operation Pinpoint they were a mix of Mk.VB and VC, mainly Mk.VB, up to around 390 total for 1942. Add 16 Mk.VC Specials flown directly from Gibraltar. Excuse imprecision, the table I'm looking at was not fully "weeded" and there is still some doubt about a few serials. So overall about 1/3 or slightly less were Mk.VB. I would expect to see a few more profiles.

Although stated in several places, and very sensible, the "spares" story about the extra cannon is possibly mythical. Although the universal wing was designed to be suitable for a range of armaments, the Air Ministry were looking for a standard of 4x20mm on all RAF fighters (with six for the next generation) and the Admiralty were looking for the firepower of 4x20mm for use against the armoured shadowers in the Arctic. So early plans were for production with four cannon. I don't know the date at which this intention was abandoned but it is unlikely to be before actual performance/handling trials with an early aircraft. However, if the specific intention behind this delivery of early aircraft was indeed to provide spares, then they didn't inform Malta of this. Laddie Lucas at Takali is on record as saying that extra cannon were only removed after initial flying from Malta had displayed performance and handling penalties (as they would). At least one squadron not at Takali retained the four cannon for some time, as shown by the publicity photos of Barnham's aircraft after he became an ace. So the cannon were not immediately (if at all) removed at either Spitfire operating base. Unlike the standard fitting on the c wing, it was often (if not always) the inner cannon which was removed, uniquely to Malta, which does not suggest pre-planning at the AM.

If it was confirmed that the outer machine guns were retained on the Calendar/Bowery deliveries, this would be strong evidence for the spares story as being the likelier. However, this hasn't been made clear in the accounts I've found. Though the talk is of the bays being filled with personal items, this could be just the ammunition bays. It would seem easier, on the Spitfire, to fill empty gun bays than the long thin ammunition bays, but unless I've missed something the comments do not distinguish between them.

[Edgar]

Malta's Vcs had the inner gun removed, because that was the position in which they fitted the (mostly internal) mechanism for dropping bombs; once dropped, the only item left was a narrow "rail." The bombs' steadies were just rods, which fitted inside the wings, and into shallow holes drilled in the bombs (bet that job was "interesting,") and dropped away with the bombs.

Edgar

[Test Graham]

Thanks Edgar: the bomb carriage is another modification that is linked specifically to Takali and 249 Sq in the various texts. Again, it isn't made clear whether only a subset of the island's Spitfires were so modified, but that would appear sensible.

[Edgar]

According to a report by Group Captain Wynter-Morgan, in November 1942, 19 Spitfires had been modified to carry bombs, and others imply that it was usual to send a mixed force (the Germans had been ignoring fighter sweeps, but did tend to react if they received bombs, as well.) Hurricanes had been tried, but were judged to lack the necessary performance to defend themselves, when the bombs had gone.

Supermarine weren't impressed by Malta's modification, judging it to weaken the wing too much, and the Air Ministry favoured a "Kenley mod," which used a single 500lb bomb under the fuselage, rather than Malta's pair of 250lb under the wings.

Edgar

[Wez]

Thanks again, I think the story of Malta's Spitfire's is a fascinating one in its own right and something I shall have to look deeper into.

Wez

[-Neu-]

Interesting discussion. Not much I can add except to note that recently Ian Roy McClennan, probably the last Malta Ace passed away earlier this month.

http://acesofww2.com/Canada/aces/maclennan.htm

[tonyot]

Some great information there,...cheers lads.

I believe that Malta was the first place to employ Hurri-bombers too,...by fitting Beaufighter under wing bomb racks to the Hurri Mk.II,...maybe the ever inventive Sqn Ldr. Louks had a hand in it? He was the fellow who upgraded the Sea Gladiators, first with the armour plating behind the pilot, then `added boost' on the engines which were later upgraded to accept the three bladed Blenheim props, plus he also conducted 6 gun experiments on the Glad`s (although Gloster had already proposed this and had conversion kits available if customers required them). He also `tweaked' the blades on the DH propellers of the early Hurricanes by altering the angle of the blades to give them a better climb rate in return for a longer take off run and was also responsible for the lightweight recce Hurricanes,.....plus maybe lots of other things too? The Spitfire bomb racks have a whiff of his ingenuity all over them?

Cheers

Tony

[gingerbob]

On the subject of Vb/Vc production, it goes something like this:

Supermarine completed the first Vc (temperate) in Oct '41, and deliveries proceeded slowly until Jan/Feb '42, when they delivered their last bs and the rate of cs jumped (diminishing again in July). Supermarine's last Vcs were delivered first week of September.

Westland delivered their first Vc in Apr '42, and had switched entirely by June. (They'd only built 140 Vbs, and 50 Mk.Is.)

The first Vc delivered from Castle Bromwich, in May '42, was rejected by A&AEE with numerous quality issues. They did not deliver another until August, and very few until October. The last Castle Brom Vbs were delivered as late as December '42.

Vc production (or rather delivery) ceased in Aug '43 at Castle Brom, and in October (or so) at Westland. My data for Westland is not as good as for the others, but I'm confident that it is pretty accurate.

bob