# Battle of Britain without Hawker Hurricane; pick another fighter



## Jerry W. Loper (Jan 26, 2012)

It's the summer of 1940. The RAF and Luftwaffe have the same organization and equipment as in real history but with one exception. The Hawker Hurricane does not exist. You get to equip those squadrons with another fighter with 2 requirements: (1) it's an Allied nation fighter, not Axis - no German, Japanese or Italian planes, and (2) it's a plane that was in operational service in the summer of 1940 - no P-51 Mustang or F6F Hellcat - and nope, you can't fill in those squadrons with extra Spitfires. What fighter would you pick?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 26, 2012)

Hawk 75?

but i don't think this is probable, w/o hurricane an other uk design gone in production


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 26, 2012)

Since you've put Hawker Gloster out of work, you're left with a (Merlin-engined) Tornado, or sending two factories-worth of men to work in the mines.


----------



## DBII (Jan 26, 2012)

Ok, I will play how about a P40?

DBII


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 26, 2012)

DBII said:


> Ok, I will play how about a P40?
> 
> DBII



I second that.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 26, 2012)

A _Merlin-_powered P-40 ... yes. 

MM


----------



## muscogeemike (Jan 26, 2012)

The P-36 actually did OK in French service and the Brits were already using it - but I would agree - the P-40. The Brits tried the P-39 and didn’t like it; might consider the P-38 - not the export version the RAF evaluated - but the latest model in US service.


----------



## chris mcmillin (Jan 26, 2012)

To answer the question, I pick P-40 and P-36. About 500 each.

An aside;
I always wondered how many people;
a) Do not understand the difference between or know that there were, low altitude and high altitude Merlins.
b) P-40F's had Merlin engines.
Chris...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 26, 2012)

"... I always wondered how many people;
a) Do not understand the difference between or know that there were, low altitude and high altitude Merlins.
b) P-40F's had Merlin engines."

Gosh, Chris, I'll bite. How many?

MM


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2012)

No need to be picky. Purchase whichever aircraft type is available in quantity. They are both as good or better then the Hurricane.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 26, 2012)

I once wrote quite a detailed ‘what-if’ about the potential outcome of the Hawk 75 replacing the Hawker Hurricane as one of the two mainstays of the RAF from 1937 onwards. Unfortunately, my laptop harddrive died last year, taking the piece with it (all 50-odd pages of it), as well as all the supporting data I’d collected, including original French and UK performance tests for Hawk 75s and Mohawks and manuals. 

Procurement and production:

I’d posited that Hawker goes bust in 1935 or 1936, leaving the Hurricane stillborn and the RAF casting about for a new fighter. It decides to purchase several hundred Hawk 75s – under the name Mohawk - from the US and also acquires licences to produce the aircraft and the R-1830 engine (probably fanciful, I know).

Imported Mohawk I/II are broadly similar to the Hawk A-1/A-2: 950-1050 hp R-1830-SC-G engine, 6 x .303, top speed of around 300-310 mph at 12,000 ft, climb of 5.8-7 minutes to 15,000 ft. 

My alternative history would have Mowhawk II production in the UK commencing in late 1937, with about 400 aircraft delivered by the outbreak of war and production at a rate of around 1.2 per day over the first five months of 1940. 

This is about 50% down on Hurricane production, as I’d imagined problems with R-1830 production in the UK. This is somewhat made up for by direct imports of aircraft from the US. Production would match UK historical Hurricane production by around April/May 1940 and then actually exceed historical production – albeit only minimally – during the Battle of Britain period.

By early 1940, the UK secures a licence for the up-rated SC3-G with 1200 hp, beginning production around June-July at a rate of 2-3 per day, creating a situation broadly analogous to the introduction of the Hurricane Mk II, albeit without the larger increase in altitude performance. 


Performance vs Hurricane

From reading the various evaluations and looking at the comparative performance data, my conclusion was that the Hawk 75 was more nimble and a better dog fighter than the Hurricane but maybe would not have made as good an interceptor or bomber destroyer. 

The Hawk 75 was more pleasant to fly through the entire speed range – particularly at higher speeds. It had better lateral control and could even turn inside the famously nimble Hurricane. The aircraft would have been very good at high speed slashing attacks and its controllability was much superior to the Hurricane above 350 mph.

The Hawk 75A/A-1/A-2 were notably inferior to the Hurricane I in terms of speed at most altitudes. The Hawk 75A-2 was around 10-15 mph slower below 10,000 ft, becoming roughly equal around 12-16000 ft and then increasingly inferior above that. By 20,000 ft the Hawk 75A-2 is 30 mph slower than the Hurricane I and almost 45 mph slower at 26,000 ft.

Climb performance is also down on the Hurricane. The Hawk 75 was reportedly nicer in the climb and also climbed at a faster speed (by about 20 mph). However, time to climb is about 7 ½ minutes to 15,000 ft, about 1 ½ to 2 minutes slower for the A-2 than the Hurricane I with a constant speed prop. The A-2 was about 5 ½ minutes slower to 20,000 ft.

Additionally, the gun package is not as tight as that of the Hurricane I, as well as being a third lighter.

The more powerful A-3 and the R-1820 powered A-4 – both with 1,200 hp - were a match for the Hurricane I in speed until about 12-15,000 ft, but the Merlin-powered Hurricane proved increasingly superior as altitude increased. The A-4 was superior to the Hurricane I in the climb until 12,000 ft. 

Other factors:

The R-1830 didn't suffer from negative G cut-out the same way the Hurricane did, so there is a plus. Unfortunately, the Hawk 75 is still outpaced in terms of acceleration in a dive by the 109E.

R-1830 was very reliable and quite mature by the late 1930s and I'd expect the engine to be overall more reliable than the Merlin. The Hawk 75 was quite accessible as far a maintenance went, so it would probably be easier on ground crews than the Hurricane.

Both the Hurricane and Hawk 75 were notoriously rugged. Both had good ground characteristics and the Hawk 75 was rated as even easier to take-off in than the Hurricane, something of a positive for training.


----------



## Kryten (Jan 27, 2012)

would have to be P40 really?


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2012)

Hello
IMHO if there had not been Hurricane, and Hawker would not have designed something else instead of Hurri, British would probably have put into production Gloster F5/34 or maybe heavily mod Vickers F5/34 with another engine than Aquila. National pride, you know. Hawk 75 would not has been a bad choice, especially if one of the cowling guns had been 12,7mm a la USAAC, that would has been a plus against armoured LW bombers. IMHO its biggest problem would has been its ROC, with its speed Ju 88s would have been difficult targets but He 111s and Do 17s not so much, 109E was anyway clearly faster than Hurricane so no big difference there, against 110, difficult to say.

Juha


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 27, 2012)

Grumman Wildcat


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 27, 2012)

Is the object of the question to select the aircraft we would choose, irrespective of historical reality, or is it to come up with some realistic options/scenarios in a sans-Hurricane world? I only ask because, in reality, there was no chance of any US-built aircraft entering service with the RAF prior to WWII.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 27, 2012)

> and nope, you can't fill in those squadrons with extra Spitfires.



Damn. The only realistic option, really.

You can guarantee that if this scenario actually happened then this would most certainly have taken place. Around the time of the Munich Crisis it was Neville Chamberlain, yes, he of the 'Peace in our Time' who instigated further Hurricane orders which led to Gloster producing Hurricanes instead of Wellingtons, and the construction of Hawker's Langley facility - based on the Inskip report that stated that the RAF should become more defence orientated over a bias toward bombers led by RAF CAS Cyril Newall, so you can bet that had the Spitty been the only option it would have gone into production in larger numbers sooner.

I suspect that the British would have chosen a local option if there were no Spitfires or Hurricanes.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 27, 2012)

".... you can bet that had the Spitty been the only option it would have gone into production in larger numbers sooner."

True, no doubt, but the loss of the Hurricane would have had _some_ effect on the B of B. (See thread on B of B Turnaround Times). The Hurricanes were much easier/quicker to service maintain than the Spitfire. Granted - that came with a price - but under B of B conditions, lots of basic Hurricanes was an advantage. IMHO. 

MM


----------



## davebender (Jan 27, 2012)

I agree. 1930s Britain didn't produce enough aluminum to build additional Spitfire fighter aircraft. So any British built fighter aircraft must be made of wood (i.e. Mosquito) or fabric (Hurricane and Swordfish torpedo bomber). Or else you purchase large quantities of American made aircraft as France did.

*U.S. Aircraft Options.*
US Warplanes
P-38. Large numbers unavailable until 1941. Very expensive.
P-39. Large numbers unavailable until 1941.
P-40. Large numbers not available until 1941.
F2A (Buffalo). Was not produced in large numbers. 509 total.
F4F (Wildcat). Large numbers not available until 1941.

P-36. Available from 1938. Inexpensive.
Historical production numbers were based on export sales (900 of 1,115 total were exported). More export sales = more P-36s produced. 

P-35. Available from 1937. Inexpensive.
Another fighter aircraft whose production numbers depend on export sales. Historical efforts to market the P-35 in Europe were largely unsuccessful. A large British purchase order would cause Seversky officials to jump for joy.

So there you have it. 1930s Britain cannot build additional aluminum aircraft. If you want to purchase large quantities of American made fighter aircraft prior to 1941 the P-35 and P-36 are probably your only realistic options.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 27, 2012)

Perspective ..... 

MM


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> Is the object of the question to select the aircraft we would choose, irrespective of historical reality, or is it to come up with some realistic options/scenarios in a sans-Hurricane world? I only ask because, in reality, there was no chance of any US-built aircraft entering service with the RAF prior to WWII.



Hello Buffnut
while I agree with principle, remember Locheed Hudson. But an exception makes a rule. I agree that in real world if there had not been a Hurricane there would have been something like it designed by Hawker, Hawker would not have ignored the lucrative fighter market and had a good design team under Camm. And anyway Vickers' and Gloster's F5/34 protos were not bad fighters.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2012)

Hello Dave
P-36 was clearly better fighter than P-35.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> I agree. 1930s Britain didn't produce enough aluminum to build additional Spitfire fighter aircraft. So any British built fighter aircraft must be made of wood (i.e. Mosquito) or fabric (Hurricane and Swordfish torpedo bomber). Or else you purchase large quantities of American made aircraft as France did...



Or simply purchase aluminium from USA.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Jan 27, 2012)

During the 1930s the USA was not the largest aluminum producer. Germany was and shipping costs from Germany would be considerably lower then shipping costs from North America.

Britain began a detente with Germany during 1935. Prior to 1939 Britain could probably barter oil (from British occupied southern Iran) and bauxite (from British occupied Jamica) for aluminum ingots produced in Germany. Who knows, maybe increased trade would bring British and German national leaders closer together. Nobody wants to fight their best trading partner.


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2012)

Hello Dave
I doubt that, global trade was fairly integrated before WWI and British found hard way the downside of that when they declared war against Germany in Aug 14. in later part of 30s GB was arming against Germany, I doubt that they would wanted to be dependent on their No 1 potential enemy on such an important resource as aluminium. Of course there were exceptions like the dependence of Italian powerful boat engines, but RN didn't see MTBs and MGBs critical equipment in late 30s.

Juha


----------



## Dago Wop (Jan 27, 2012)

Dewoitine D-520


----------



## davebender (Jan 27, 2012)

Marxist France and the Soviet Union began huge military expansions during the mid 1930s. They were as great a threat to Britain as Germany was. Italy and Japan were also serious threats. 1930s Britain had no idea who they would be fighting or who their allies might be. 

Under such circumstances it makes a lot of sense to follow up the 1935 Ango-German detente with a trade agreement. Maybe the detente can become an entente. You can never have too many friends in a dangerous world.


----------



## renrich (Jan 27, 2012)

It is iffy if the F4F3 was able to be operational in quanity by BOB but if it could be, in my mind it would take over the Hurricane job admirably.


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> Marxist France and the Soviet Union began huge military expansions during the mid 1930s. They were as great a threat to Britain as Germany was. Italy and Japan were also serious threats. 1930s Britain had no idea who they would be fighting or who their allies might be.
> 
> Under such circumstances it makes a lot of sense to follow up the 1935 Ango-German detente with a trade agreement. Maybe the detente can become an entente. You can never have too many friends in a dangerous world.



Now British had clear idea that the No 1 potential enemy was Germany and that France would be their ally, BEF was designed to move to France if a war against Germany broke out and RAF and French AF had some co-operation in late 30s.

GB didn't want a war and was ready appease Germany but Germany was anyway saw as potential enemy.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Jan 27, 2012)

During 1936 to 1938 Britain and France supported opposite sides in the Spanish Civil War, which was essentially a war vs the Comintern. How could Britain be certain of France as an ally under those circumstances?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> 1930s Britain didn't produce enough aluminum to build additional Spitfire fighter aircraft. So there you have it. 1930s Britain cannot build additional aluminum aircraft.


They had enough to justify opening a new factory, just for Spitfires, at Castle Bromwich, and every bomber not built frees up enough metal for a couple of Spitfires (at least.) There was also the Civilian Repair Organisation (started pre-war) which returned hundreds of repaired metal aircraft to the front line. Maybe we had the edge because we used aluminium, not aluminum?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> I agree. 1930s Britain didn't produce enough aluminum to build additional Spitfire fighter aircraft. So any British built fighter aircraft must be made of wood (i.e. Mosquito) or fabric (Hurricane and Swordfish torpedo bomber). Or else you purchase large quantities of American made aircraft as France did.
> 
> 
> > Let's not get carried away here. The Hurricane was not "made of fabric". The rear fuselage was fabric covered. The difference may have been 100 lbs per aircraft, it was certainly under 200lbs.
> ...


----------



## muscogeemike (Jan 27, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> Grumman Wildcat



Interesting choice - the Martlet was in FAA service prior to the Battle of Brit. ending and got its first "kill" in Dec 1940. It was surly the best Naval Fighter available to GB but I don't think it would have served the RAF as well as the P-36/40 at this stage of the war.


----------



## rank amateur (Jan 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> Marxist France and the Soviet Union began huge military expansions during the mid 1930s. They were as great a threat to Britain as Germany was. Italy and Japan were also serious threats. 1930s Britain had no idea who they would be fighting or who their allies might be.
> 
> I'm sorry,but I'm affraid you misinterpret the frase 'Socialiste'. Marxist = communist. In this universe there has never been such a thing as a communist France.


----------



## rank amateur (Jan 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> During 1936 to 1938 Britain and France supported opposite sides in the Spanish Civil War, which was essentially a war vs the Comintern. How could Britain be certain of France as an ally under those circumstances?



France most certainly supported the republican side. The UK was not that outspoken. There were no British planes flying over Spanish soil. You can debate the level of democratism of the democratic parties fighting on the republican side but Franco was nothing less than a dictator.


----------



## rank amateur (Jan 27, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> Interesting choice - the Martlet was in FAA service prior to the Battle of Brit. ending and got its first "kill" in Dec 1940. It was surly the best Naval Fighter available to GB but I don't think it would have served the RAF as well as the P-36/40 at this stage of the war.



A de-navalised version of the Martlet should surely have some edge over the Hurricane? But then again at that period there must have been contacts with the Brewster company. I wonder if the Buffalo wouldn't been opted for. The first Hurricane flew in 1936? No such thing as a Martlet or a Buffalo then.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 27, 2012)

".... In this universe there has never been such a thing as a communist France." 

Just communist workers and communist unions. 

MM


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> During 1936 to 1938 Britain and France supported opposite sides in the Spanish Civil War, which was essentially a war vs the Comintern. How could Britain be certain of France as an ally under those circumstances?


 
Read the April 37 part from here H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood: History of H.M.S. Hood - Career Timeline of H.M.S. Hood, the British attitude was much more complicated than you claim.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> ... If you have tooling and expertise to make a P-36 you can make a Spitfire. The number of Fairely Battles, Blenheims, Hampdens, Whitleys and other all metal aircraft should put to rest any notion that the British were short of aluminum before the war.



You have a very good point here, SR

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2012)

Only Defiants and Battles make some 3000 examples combined, almost all prior BoB were made. That points to the number of Merlins made, too - UK was in far better situation re. engines than Germany any time in war IMO, both power-wise numbers produced. And then we add what was received via LL...


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 27, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> France most certainly supported the republican side. The UK was not that outspoken. There were no British planes flying over Spanish soil. You can debate the level of democratism of the democratic parties fighting on the republican side but Franco was nothing less than a dictator.



Spain was lucky to end up with Franco. There is a recent trend of misrepresenting the "Repubican Forces" as Freedom fighters rather than incipient communist thugs who had begun threatening Stalanist Style purges.

The standard narrative has long been that of a military coup against a democratic government and the noble Spanish people, supported by foreign idealists, heroically fighting evil “fascists.” This is a grotesque distortion of the truth, and stands as one of the most flagrant examples of how propaganda has been uncritically accepted as official history.

First, it must be emphasized that the Leftist Spanish regime at the time of the nationalist revolt was by no means a coalition of mildly progressive liberals and socialists as it is usually described, but was, in fact, a reign of Communist and anarchist terror. Secondly, less than half of the Spanish military rebelled. The government forces were also at least as well equipped as the nationalist rebels, and they had greater economic resources at their disposal.

The escalation of violence in the years after the Leftist government under a liberal Freemason came to power becomes clear when one looks at the statistics: no bombings in 1930, then 175 in1931, 428 in1932 and 1,156 in1933. Towards the end of 1933, new elections were held that resulted in a great victory for a center-Right coalition. Predictably, this led to an intensification of the violence from the extreme Left. On 1 July 1934, former Prime Minister Azaña declared, *“We prefer any kind of catastrophe to a Republic in the hands of monarchists and fascists, even if it means bloodshed.”*

This soon came to pass, and on a large scale. On 5 October 1934, an attempt at revolution against the *legally elected government was made in Asturias, on the north coast*. The revolutionary forces consisted of 20,000 socialist miners, 6,000 Communists and uncounted thousands of anarchists. After 17 days of Red terror, including such atrocities as the slaughter of 34 priests, members of religious orders and seminarians, the Army intervened. Two days of fighting resulted in 1,300 dead and over 3,000 wounded. *One of the generals in command was Francisco Franco*, who has since been criticized for having dealt too harshly with the Reds. However, at the time, anyone of normal intelligence understood what a Communist regime would mean, and realized that any attempt to establish such a regime had to be firmly nipped in the bud. The Communist massacres in Russia and during Bela Kùn’s short-lived, but blood-soaked, reign in Hungary had not yet been smoothed over and hushed up in the manner which was to become the norm in the post-war Western world.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 27, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Only Defiants and Battles make some 3000 examples combined, almost all prior BoB were made. That points to the number of Merlins made, too - UK was in far better situation re. engines than Germany any time in war IMO, both power-wise numbers produced. And then we add what was received via LL...



There appear to have been a whole line of second tier manufacturers that could have had products: Fairey, Bristol.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2012)

Would you please elaborate; perhaps you are referring to designed, but non produced engines?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 28, 2012)

> The bigger problem is that many UK factories are not used to making Monocoque fuselages, but covered tube frame fuselages. If you have tooling and expertise to make a P-36 you can make a Spitfire. The number of Fairely Battles, Blenheims, Hampdens, Whitleys and other all metal aircraft should put to rest any notion that the British were short of aluminum before the war.



Yep, couldn't agree more. I didn't realise the supply of ali in Britain pre WW2 was an issue.

The F4F/Martlett is a good choice, but I still think _before_ the war started the British would not contemplate buying a foreign built fighter over a British one. It would have to be more Spits, and yes, Mike, you are right, likely less numbers than what there were Hurris, but you can guarantee that Spit production would have been accelerated, and likely another fighter design also, during the Munich Crisis. You also underestimate what the Brits could achieve under pressure. 

A revision of F.5/34 (Gloster and Martin Baker; the mean looking MB.2)? Accelerated development of the Boulton Paul Defiant? The same of the Westland Whirlwind to F.37/35? You could also guess that the specification that became F.18/37 (which produced the Hawker Tornado and Typhoon) could have been pushed forward had nothing further come along; other than Hawker, both Bristol and Gloster produced designs for this.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 28, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Would you please elaborate; perhaps you are referring to designed, but non produced engines?



Both Fairey and Bristol were capable of producing both engines and all metal airframes. With Hawkers Hurricane out of the way the road would be clear for these two.

Im suggest something equal to a spitfire with less compund curves (no elliptical wings). The RAF emphasis on handling would still be there. Fairey probably could use the Monarch H engine but I immagine the Merlin or Hercules engine would still be a conditate.

There is also the possibillity of a Hercules engined fighter; a radial engined aircraft could scarecelly be slower than the Hurricane while also relieving Rolls Royce of Merlin production issues.


----------



## merlin (Jan 28, 2012)

Firstly - Aluminium - according to the Wilfred Freeman biography, "The Air Ministry calculated that in 1939 the aircraft programme would absorb 90,000 tons of raw aluminium per annum, whereas total British output was only 30,000 tons. British production could be increased to 41,000 tons, but the rest would have to be imported."
The Canadian aluminium industry was tapped with 100,000 tons output - with extra capacity built - so that the Air Ministry could import 60% of Canadian output.

Secondly - difficult to know where this unavailability of the Hurricance could occur!?
? In mid-40 is just too late to arrange any alternative in numbers, and what happened to the RAF Hurricanes in France?
If earlier - if there is a structural problem with the aircraft similar to the problems with the Typhon that questioned it's continued existence -
Options:
Gloster F.5/34, Boulton-Paul P.88 - seem the likeliest candidates (the Bristol 153 - didn't make the 'cut' - so I don't include it). The later the problem occurs - single-seat Defiant, US aircraft may get a 'look-in' but only if domestic suppliers can't cope! For Example 'Martlet' could have had British order before the French IMHO.
But there again - this could have happened even with the Hurricane!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Both Fairey and Bristol were capable of producing both engines and all metal airframes. With Hawkers Hurricane out of the way the road would be clear for these two.
> 
> Im suggest something equal to a spitfire with less compund curves (no elliptical wings). The RAF emphasis on handling would still be there. Fairey probably could use the Monarch H engine but I immagine the Merlin or Hercules engine would still be a conditate.
> 
> There is also the possibillity of a Hercules engined fighter; a radial engined aircraft could scarecelly be slower than the Hurricane while also relieving Rolls Royce of Merlin production issues.



Fairey was in no position to supply engines. It is one thing to build a few prototypes and test them. It is another to have 10s of thousands of sq ft (some American engine factories approached a 1/2 Million sq ft for a single factory by 1944) fully equipped with machine tools and casting/forging equipment and trained workers. It would have taken 2-3 years after a Fairey engine was selected for them to deliver them in large quantities.
The Hercules is also a no go for The BoB. Bristol just barely got it into production at the time they did. Prototypes ran great, getting the production engines to not use oil like a diesel took a while. The reason there were Merlin powered Beaufighters and Merlin powered Wellingtons was because of a lack (or perceived lack) of Hercules engines. 
Speed is another issue. Slow as the Hurricane might have been the British weren't exactly masters of the low drag cowling in 1939/40 (actually, nobody was). The P-36 had 22% more drag than the Early P-40s. You are going to need a LOT of streamlining to counter that kind of drag difference.


----------



## renrich (Jan 28, 2012)

For a number of years the Japanese, especially the IJN had a close realtionship with the UK. If the RAF had gotten their hands on a bunch of A6Ms the Jerries would have been in a heap of trouble.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2012)

So would the Japanese?


----------



## Readie (Jan 28, 2012)

renrich said:


> For a number of years the Japanese, especially the IJN had a close realtionship with the UK. If the RAF had gotten their hands on a bunch of A6Ms the Jerries would have been in a heap of trouble.



Maybe, but the Zero was too lightly armed. You would need 8 .303's at least to meet the LW on equal terms.
John


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 28, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Fairey was in no position to supply engines. It is one thing to build a few prototypes and test them. It is another to have 10s of thousands of sq ft (some American engine factories approached a 1/2 Million sq ft for a single factory by 1944) fully equipped with machine tools and casting/forging equipment and trained workers. It would have taken 2-3 years after a Fairey engine was selected for them to deliver them in large quantities.
> The Hercules is also a no go for The BoB. Bristol just barely got it into production at the time they did. Prototypes ran great, getting the production engines to not use oil like a diesel took a while. The reason there were Merlin powered Beaufighters and Merlin powered Wellingtons was because of a lack (or perceived lack) of Hercules engines.
> Speed is another issue. Slow as the Hurricane might have been the British weren't exactly masters of the low drag cowling in 1939/40 (actually, nobody was). The P-36 had 22% more drag than the Early P-40s. You are going to need a LOT of streamlining to counter that kind of drag difference.



Fairy was a large and capable engineering group, most famous for its hydraulics. It certainly had the capital, expertise and managment to get reasonable mass production going though it would need help.

The mythology of the Spitifre and Mitchell overshadows that Britiain and several capable companies such as Fairy, Westland, Bristol, Gloster.

For instance the Westland Whirlwind had stunning peformance equal to that of the Spitfire, if equiped with Taurus engines it could have been flown earlier and deliveries (October 39) could have been earlier. Gloster F.5/34 could have been in production earlier than the Hurricane and likely developed with the Taurus or even Hercules.

Of course all of thes companies could also have accessed the Merlin/PV12.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 28, 2012)

Readie said:


> Maybe, but the Zero was too lightly armed. You would need 8 .303's at least to meet the LW on equal terms.
> John



The A6M2 entered service in June 40, the Me 109F1 about 3-4 months latter. The Me 109E7/N was already in service. A6M2 might have had the marginal better of P-40s and Wildcats post Perl Harbour but speedy European fighters (The Germans would be flying Me 109G1's 5 months after Pearl Harbour) would be another matter. RAAF Spitfire V had no problem defeating the Betty's and A6M2 that attacked Darwin, earlier P-40 did well as soon as the Australians installed their own indigenous developed radar


----------



## renrich (Jan 28, 2012)

Your statements about the RAAF Spitfires and the A6M are at variance with the facts. Read "Bloody Shambles" by Shores. The A6M was as well armed as the 109s and with it's endurance it could go on station, loiter and be able to hit the German raids from above and then be on station some more. Obviously the Japanese would never supply Zekes to Britain even if they were available but if either side had them during the BOB they would have been a big asset.


----------



## johnbr (Jan 28, 2012)

Miles M 20 with radiators in wing leadingage and retractable undercarriage.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 28, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> RAAF Spitfire V had no problem defeating the Betty's and A6M2 that attacked Darwin



Sure they did.

On 3/2/43...21 Zero's escort 9 Betty's ..24 Spitfires rose up but niether side lost anything.

On 3/15/43 ...19 Betty's escorted by 26 Zero's engaged 27 Spitfire V's ..only 1 Zero is lost to 4 Spitfire V's.

On 5/2/43..18 Betty's escorted by 26 Zero's engage 33 Spitfires..all IJN aircraft returned safely to Timor but 4 Spitfires suffer CSU failures due to high throttle settings for so long,5 run out of fuel,and 4 force land. However 5 Spitfires were lost to air to air combat.

On 5/9/43..9 Zero's met 5 Spitfires ..1 Zero is lost and another crashed landed after getting back to Timor with 1 Spitfire going down to enemy action.

On 5/28/43..9 betty's escorted by 7 Zero's met 6 Spitfires with 2 Betty's getting shot down,1 crashing after returning home, and 2 Spitfires getting shot down. This was the first time after 5 raids that the Spitfires shot down an attacking bomber.

On 6/20/43...18 Hellens, 9 Lilly's escorted by 22 Ki-43's took on 46 Spitfires with 3 Spitfires being lost to 1 Ki-43 1 Ki-49.

On 6/28/43...9 Betty's were escorted by 27 Zero's met 42 Spitfires .The attackers suffered no losses to 2 Spitfires.

On 6/30/43...23 Betty's escorted by 27 Zero's met 38 Spitfires . Results were 5 Spitfires lost to 1 Betty.

On /6/43...21 Betty's escorted by 25 Zero's ran into 36 Spitfires .Losses were 6 Spitfires to 2 Betty's though 2 betty's crashed after getting back to Timor.

On 9/13/43 ..3 Dinahs escorted by 36 Zero's met 48 Spitfires with 3 Spitfires going down to 1 Zero.

Total losses= 6 Betty's/Lilly's/Dinah's , 3 Zero's and 1 Ki-43 to 31 Spitfires.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Fairy was a large and capable engineering group, most famous for its hydraulics. It certainly had the capital, expertise and managment to get reasonable mass production going though it would need help.



You might have that backwards, granted it is Wiki but: Fairey Aviation Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It took American Companies around 1 1/2 to two years to set up brand new factories from the ground up to mass produce aircraft engines. Like Ford getting over 14 Million from the Government JUST to build the factory to make R-2800s under licence from P&W, Ford management with their expertise simply duplicated the P&W main plant as close as they could. 




Siegfried said:


> For instance the Westland Whirlwind had stunning peformance equal to that of the Spitfire, if equiped with Taurus engines it could have been flown earlier and deliveries (October 39) could have been earlier. Gloster F.5/34 could have been in production earlier than the Hurricane and likely developed with the Taurus or even Hercules.



If equipped with the Taurus the Whirlwind would have been in serious trouble, Early Taurus engines being even more trouble prone than the the Peregrine and never rated in service for anything but low altitude work. 

It would be a little hard for the Gloster F.5/34 to be in production before the Hurricane unless the RAF bought a pig in a poke. It didn't begin flight trials until the Hurricane was already in service the Spitfire was in production. (in service and in production are not the same thing)


----------



## rank amateur (Jan 29, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Spain was lucky to end up with Franco. There is a recent trend of misrepresenting the "Repubican Forces" as Freedom fighters rather than incipient communist thugs who had begun threatening Stalanist Style purges.
> 
> The standard narrative has long been that of a military coup against a democratic government and the noble Spanish people, supported by foreign idealists, heroically fighting evil “fascists.” This is a grotesque distortion of the truth, and stands as one of the most flagrant examples of how propaganda has been uncritically accepted as official history.
> 
> ...


 The Spanish civil war is one of the most interesting conflicts in the 20st century but can not be seen seperate from the preceding 500 years of Iberic history. The Catalan and Bask seperations movements chose to fight on the republican side. I fail to see their reasons but they had nothing to do with the conflict at hand. Furthermore it is rather blindsighted to use the frase 'communist thugs', There must have been dozens of anarchistic, marxists, syndicalistic, Trotskist or whatever groups around that were not only batteling against Franco but also eachother. They wouldn't be your friend if you called them communist. The Spanish civil war is worth further debate, but not on this site.
To conclude this, there was no such thing as a wrong or a right side in the conflict. Just thank god you weren't born then and had to choose between evils.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 29, 2012)

historically what plane coming 2nd in the specifications win to hurricane?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 29, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> historically what plane coming 2nd in the specifications win to hurricane?


Nothing; the Hurricane had its own, unique, specification F.36/34, which became 15/36 for the develoment/Mk.I; the Spitfire was F.37/34, which became 16/36.


----------



## davebender (Jan 29, 2012)

Pierre Cot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many historians think Leon Blum's Air Minister (Pierre Cot) was a Soviet agent. Apparently Charles de Gaulle thought so also.


> He flew to London and offered his services to Charles de Gaulle's Free French movement, but de Gaulle considered him to be too pro-Communist and offered him no position.




Endorsement by the French Communist Party during 1967 doesn't help his "not a communist" reputation either.


> In 1967 he made a final return to politics when he was elected as an independent Deputy for Paris, with the backing of the Communist Party.


----------



## Elmas (Jan 29, 2012)

It has to be said that cantilever wings and D-boxes wing spars with stressed skins in aluminium were still in their infancy in early ’30s when the design of all the fighters that fought the WWII begun, as the first studies about bending and stretching of thin plates were the results of the theoretical efforts of engineers, mostly Germans, in the early 20’s.

As it seemed almost an impossible thing both to most Aeronautical Engineers and Members of Technical Staff of the Air Forces that such wings would remain attached to the airframe in a dive without the precious aid of some tiny wires, the first aircrafts with cantilever wings had safety factors much greater than effectively needed.

In particular in a cantilever wing the tickness of the wing airfoil was ( is....) extremely important: as the Moment of Inertia depends from the third power of the height, a wing with an airfoil 18% thickness is several times stiffer and stronger than one with the 12%, all other parameters (tipe and tickness of material) unchanged.

But a thicker airfoil presents, of course, much more drag, that increases with the square of the speed....

So no doubt that the first monoplanes, like the Hurricane, had very thick wing airfoils, that prevented their further developments.

And so many others of the period like the Italian A.U.T. 18 







whose designer, Ing. Felice Trojani, clearly states in his memories that “ _the safety factor of the aeroplane was too large_”.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 29, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Nothing; the Hurricane had its own, unique, specification F.36/34, which became 15/36 for the develoment/Mk.I; the Spitfire was F.37/34, which became 16/36.



so were choice w/o a comparison with others?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 29, 2012)

davebender said:


> Pierre Cot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Many historians think Leon Blum's Air Minister (Pierre Cot) was a Soviet agent. Apparently Charles de Gaulle thought so also.
> 
> 
> ...



and so?
PCF supported the government of fronte populaire, if one or more ministers were near to it there is nothing of strange

Cot commonly is reported recruited from NKVD within the war so when was minister was not a soviet agent

on Cot in francaise http://maitron-en-ligne.univ-paris1.fr/spip.php?page=articleCD&id_article=20751


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 29, 2012)

Just looking at the aircraft that the British or other Ally did buy from the USA seems to limit the possible choices to: Curtiss P-36 or P-40, Grumman F4F-3, and Brewster B239 (too few manufactured to consider seriously) or B339 versions of the Buffalo. I think the key attribute of the Hurricane, its logistical suitability, would have been difficult for any other aircraft to duplicate. I have come to believe that was its main advantage during the BoB, and that these same logistical considerations trump in importance its higher performing companion in arms.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 29, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> so were choice w/o a comparison with others?


Sometimes; the government would come up with an idea, and invite companies to tender. If they liked the design (any design,) there would be an order for a prototype. In 1931 F.7/30 was for a single-seat day and night fighter, for which 8 companies tendered 12 proposals; only 3 received a contract for a prototype, Gloster (SS.37,) Supermarine (224 ) Westland (P.V.4.) Gloster's improved design became the Gladiator, while the 224 P.V.4 flopped, so stopped at the prototypes.
Note that Hawkers were missing; Camm's P.V.3 design, which was basically a modified Fury, was rejected, so he drew up what became the Hurricane prototype, and tendered it without a specification (companies were encouraged to do this, and not just wait for the government to ask them.) 
Mitchell did the same with the Type 300, which became the Spitfire; the Air Ministry were so impressed with the two designs that they issued single specifications for them (again just for the prototypes,) then more advanced specs for them to go into production.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 29, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> You might have that backwards, granted it is Wiki but: Fairey Aviation Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It took American Companies around 1 1/2 to two years to set up brand new factories from the ground up to mass produce aircraft engines. Like Ford getting over 14 Million from the Government JUST to build the factory to make R-2800s under licence from P&W, Ford management with their expertise simply duplicated the P&W main plant as close as they could.
> 
> ...



Fairey already was an aviation company and while the early Taurus may have had teething problems that was because it was EARLY. What does trouble prone mean, more frequent service intervals? There is also nothing that prevents a radial being upgraded with two speed superchargers or even two stage multispeed. The fact that Bristol took their time with this probably has something to do with the Air Ministry focusing the Merlin and the Sptifire on High altitude fighter work.

There was I think there was time for Fairey to develop and produce the Monarch or Prince in time for WW2 if given support.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 29, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Sometimes; the government would come up with an idea, and invite companies to tender. If they liked the design (any design,) there would be an order for a prototype. In 1931 F.7/30 was for a single-seat day and night fighter, for which 8 companies tendered 12 proposals; only 3 received a contract for a prototype, Gloster (SS.37,) Supermarine (224 ) Westland (P.V.4.) Gloster's improved design became the Gladiator, while the 224 P.V.4 flopped, so stopped at the prototypes.
> Note that Hawkers were missing; Camm's P.V.3 design, which was basically a modified Fury, was rejected, so he drew up what became the Hurricane prototype, and tendered it without a specification (companies were encouraged to do this, and not just wait for the government to ask them.)
> Mitchell did the same with the Type 300, which became the Spitfire; the Air Ministry were so impressed with the two designs that they issued single specifications for them (again just for the prototypes,) then more advanced specs for them to go into production.



ty for explanation, so is probable that w/o Hurricane we have not an other British fighter only a growth of orders for spitfire


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 29, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Fairey already was an aviation company and while the early Taurus may have had teething problems that was because it was EARLY. What does trouble prone mean, more frequent service intervals? There is also nothing that prevents a radial being upgraded with two speed superchargers or even two stage multispeed. The fact that Bristol took their time with this probably has something to do with the Air Ministry focusing the Merlin and the Sptifire on High altitude fighter work.



Fairey was an airframe maker. They wanted to get into the engine business which is a whole different thing. It is one thing for a tool room to turn out a few experimental engines with some outside parts (castings or forgings), it is quite another to make hundreds of engines a month. 

The Taurus worked so well that the British were considering powering ALL Beaufort Torpedo bombers with P&W R-1830s. The Beaufort was one of the main two production aircraft to use the Taurus. One reason they kept the Taurus in the Beaufort was the first shipment of R-1830s was sunk by a U-boat. The Taurus was a 25.4 liter engine and just too small to be worth bothering with (air cooled aircraft engines do NOT make the same power per liter as liquid cooled ones) and even the later ones were rated at 1130hp at 3,500ftft on 100/130 fuel at +4.75lbs boost. Sure you could stick a two speed drive on the supercharger, you just have to subtract the extra power to run the blower from the 1130hp. Same for a two stage supercharger. Any real improvement would come at the delay of improvements to the Hercules or introduction of the Centaurus. The Hercules went through at least 5 different cylinder head designs from pre-war to post war types. 



Siegfried said:


> There was I think there was time for Fairey to develop and produce the Monarch or Prince in time for WW2 if given support.


 If by in time you mean production aircraft in 1942 or so you are right. The Monarch passed a 50 civil type test in May of 1939 and was first flown in June. It wasn't delivered to the RAF until 12th July 1941. While that may have been able to be speeded up it was not an option for a BoB aircraft.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 30, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> ty for explanation, so is probable that w/o Hurricane we have not an other British fighter only a growth of orders for spitfire


Possibly, but Camm wasn't one for giving up; if the Hurricane had been rejected, he would have designed something else.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2012)

i've interpreted the topic not in a rejected Hurricane but in a not designed Hurricane


----------



## riacrato (Jan 30, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Only Defiants and Battles make some 3000 examples combined, almost all prior BoB were made. That points to the number of Merlins made, too - UK was in far better situation re. engines than Germany any time in war IMO, both power-wise numbers produced. And then we add what was received via LL...


Power-wise I would agree for late '42 until mid-to-late '44. Production-wise probably around the same. For the rest of the war I do not see a strong advantage for either.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 30, 2012)

With a wing area larger than the B339, and a little less than the P-36A (and much less than the F4F), the Gloster's F5/34 with an engine upgrade equivalent a Wight Cyclone 1820, with ~1,000 hp, might have been a suitable domestic replacement for the Hurricane. Gloster knew what it was about in building fighters and the construction of the Gloster, being a combination of duralumin stressed skin and fabric covered ailerons suggests robustness. It seems to be roughly on a par in performance with the P-36 and perhaps Martlet I and might have proven a suitable domestically produced Naval fighter, assuming it possessed range characteristics similar to its american radial engined counterparts without a large weight gain compensated by an increase in wing area.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 30, 2012)

lend-lease p-40s mated to merlins.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 30, 2012)

riacrato said:


> lend-lease p-40s mated to merlins.



I don't believe many P-40's were in service before Spring 1941, well after the BoB. They really only began to be produced at the beginning of 1940 with initial production models coming off the line around April/May 1940. I think about 140 Hawk 81s, (export P-40B) were obtained by the RAF around the time of the BoB but of course that number is well below the amount needed to supplant the Hurricanes employed to defend the British Isles. Virtually the entire initial order of over 500 aircraft would have had to go to Britain to be available in the numbers necessary to defeat the Luftwaffe. I suspect having a non domestic aircraft in that role would have created logistical problems that would be difficult to surmount given the U-boat campaign. I would still lean to development of the Gloster monoplane as the most suitable Hurricane replacement, able to do the job and possessing similar perfomance and logistical attributes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 30, 2012)

riacrato said:


> lend-lease p-40s mated to merlins.



Dead ducks. The Merlin in question has 880 HP for take off without using the extra boost. The P-40 is too heavy to be satisfactorily powered by a Merlin III with any prospect of a performance gain in any but a few small areas and suffering a performance loss in other areas.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 30, 2012)

riacrato said:


> lend-lease p-40s mated to merlins.


Lend-lease didn't exist until March 11th., 1941.


----------



## Readie (Jan 30, 2012)

No Hurricane? 
Order more Spitfires....

If there's time before the BoB...

John


----------



## davebender (Jan 30, 2012)

I agree. However that has little effect on British ability to obtain American made war material. Almost anyone with cash could purchase P-36 fighter aircraft during the late 1930s.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 30, 2012)

But if Wikipedia is right, one wonders whether the P-36 in its early forms would have been effective operationally (and that's aside from its slower rate of climb which was critical in the BoB):

_"The aircraft's service history was marred by numerous teething problems with the engine exhaust, skin buckling over landing gear, and weak points in the airframe, severely restricting the performance envelope. By the time these issues were resolved, the P-36 was considered obsolete and was relegated to training units and overseas detachments at Albrook Field in the Canal Zone, Elmendorf Field in Alaska, and Wheeler Field in Hawaii."_

And finally, maintaining a substantial front-line force in the UK would seem rather difficult, hence why a solution from a British manufacturer would have been preferable to the UK Govt.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 30, 2012)

Readie said:


> No Hurricane?
> Order more Spitfires....
> 
> If there's time before the BoB...
> ...



My own interpretation of this thread (which seems to have spawned a number of interpretative thought-lines none of which I believe is any more or less valid) is the notion that for some reason the Hurricane is not developed and ready in the numbers that existed at the start of the BoB. Presumably the Spitfire is ready in the actual numbers. What other aircraft might have performed essentially the same role as the Hurricane? Clearly more Spitfires seems a desirable option if only because its performance is so outstanding. However, I wonder if there isn't another aircraft that might have been domestically developed to eventually perform at a comparable level and with a degree of success similar to that of the Hurricane. I tend to think contemporary US aircraft might not be suitable because of the difficult logistics and numbers required. I think it has been shown in this thread that the GB domestic aircraft industry had a number of options for aircraft development that appeared promising in the mid thirties. From these, some of the aircraft offered by their manufacturers in response to RAF Spec F5/34, especially Gloster and Vickers, stand out as potentially worthy domestic airframes whose development might have produced an aircraft if not matching the Hurricane's performance, at least sufficient to have performed credible service.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2012)

I think if the Hurricane wasn't there then the Air Ministery would have said we need a Hurricane like fighter.

I can see the Spitfire not being built but the Hurricane as a stop gap half way house is just too obvious.

One scenario is the raf go crazy for turret fighters and heavily armed twins. Or those new fangled monoplanes no match for a good biplane. Both scenarios far too much real for comfort. It was the Bf 109 that made it all possible. If the 109 hadn't pushed the envelope then the Air Ministry would have been up to its own devices and there would have been more Defiants and Gladiators than you could shake a stick at.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 30, 2012)

To replace the Hurricane you need a plane that you could have 2000 of by the end of July 1940. The American aircraft industry, large as it was in 1939-40, was a mere infant compared to what it would become. It really wasn't in a position to supply 2000 fighters from the summer of 1938 to the summer of 1940 of any type let alone planes that flew as prototypes in 1939. 

The Hawk 75 was as good as it was going to get as far as what was available and while the problems could have been fixed ( and were in the P-40 which used the same basic airframe from the firewall back) there is no reason for British factories to sit idle while american planes are purchased. American planes were purchased because Britihs production was already maxed out for the time( new factories were under construction but time was needed as was equipment for the factories and time was needed to train workers)


----------



## The Basket (Jan 31, 2012)

There was no rule saying you need a modern fighter force in 1940. The RAF was lucky that it had. Others didn't.

It is odd to think that decisions taken 6 years earlier would have unforeseen consequences.

The P-51 was a british spec airplane so buying an American fighter was certainly planned.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 31, 2012)

".... The P-51 was a _british spec _airplane so buying an American fighter was certainly planned...."

Was it ...? Or did the British purchasing commission in the US start off trying to buy North American Aviation-built P-40's but were convinced by NAA execs that they could build a better airframe fast, and they did.  My point is not to dispute Britain's perceived need to buy in the USA .... buy _what_, though?

MM


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 31, 2012)

Back in the Before Times, just out of college, I worked for a year as a test engineer at the Curtiss Wright Corporation engine plant in NJ. They told many stories of their WWII salad days. One was the story that purportedly got them out of the fighter building business. Understand this is a story told on the factory floor by plant foreman to their new hires (of which there weren't many at the time. CW having been reduced to overhauling P&W J-57s and its old J-65s (Armstrong Siddley Sapphire licensed built engines, although some W-Cyclone 3350 engines remained on test stands since the DC-7 and Super Connie were still flying). Supposedly at the start of WWII, the USAAF came to Curtis Wright with a set of specs or requests to build an army fighter to replace the P-40. (This might have been the P-60 upgrade which I had never heard of at the time). After long debate on its design, CW told the army reps. _Don't tell us how to build a fighter that something we know how to do_. The P-40 was thus the last production fighter CW built for the USA. I guess this is simply a contrast to a procurement request by a US company regarding its primary product. NA remained in business for many years after the war and of course CW slowly died after receiving the army's historically large order for over 500 P-40s. NA evidently had new ideas, whereas CW was more conservative. at least the Curtiss Airframe shop was. I got the impression the Wright engine side was more innovative and persisted for years after Curtiss airframes shut down.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 31, 2012)

The British purchasing commission bought Lockheed's proposal for a bomber conversion of the Electra 14 airliner because they could get it quickly, quickly being less than two years for a new design. Same with the fighters. And once again look at British production in 1937-1940. They were turning out a very large number of aircraft for the time. Around 2000 Hurricanes had been built before the start of the BoB, if not the Hurricane the British did have the capacity to build something else.


----------



## renrich (Jan 31, 2012)

Lend lease may not have existed until 1941 but on 11 June, 1940, the US transferred to Britain:
500,000 Enfields
129000000 cartridges
895 75 mm cannon with 1000000 rounds
316 mortars
25000 BARs
more than 80000 MGs
93 Northrup bombers
50 dive bombers

FDR was going to do everything in his power ( and some stuff outside his power) to aid Britain and that would include AC engines.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 31, 2012)

It was because the RAF won the BoB that convinced Roosevelt that supplying England would be worthwhile. Only after the BoB was material sent to England - either bought or Lend-Lease - increased.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 31, 2012)

wait 11th june is not after bob


----------



## Njaco (Jan 31, 2012)

I said bought or lend-lease. LL wasn't until 1941. Before that, its purchase orders.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 31, 2012)

The Brits bought American equipment because there was a war on and they needed more of what they had. Before the war the Brits would not have purchased foreign equipment if it could be built in Britain. As I pointed out earlier, there were plenty of fighter specifications produced around the mid 1930s, not to mention those specifically written for the Spit and Hurri. 



> A revision of F.5/34 (Gloster and Martin Baker; the mean looking MB.2)? Accelerated development of the Boulton Paul Defiant? The same of the Westland Whirlwind to F.37/35? You could also guess that the specification that became F.18/37 (which produced the Hawker Tornado and Typhoon) could have been pushed forward had nothing further come along; other than Hawker, both Bristol and Gloster produced designs for this.



Although I mentioned the Typhoon and Tornado; presuming there are no Hurricanes, there probably wouldn't be any of these either, so they are a moot point. I mentioned them because these fighters were built to that spec.

I agree with oldcrowcv63's comments in post 79, also yours, John. There'd be more Spitfires sooner. And that's not such a bad thing, is it?


----------



## Elmas (Feb 1, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> _omissis_
> I agree with oldcrowcv63's comments in post 79, also yours, John. There'd be more Spitfires sooner. And that's not such a bad thing, is it?



I can't see it so easy....

Under the skin Hurricane and Spifire were completely different aircrafts, that required different construction techniques ( by far more complicated the Spitfire), different skills from the workers (much higher those required for the Spit), in short terms a complete different industrial approach.

Is was not very easy to get it in short time.

Even if Air Ministry was hysterically asking for more Spitfires from 1938, 1939 and 1940, by May 1940 Castle Bromwich had not yet built its first Spitfire…….


----------



## rank amateur (Feb 1, 2012)

I agree. The Spit took a lot more manhours to built. Especially the wings. Replacing the unbuild Hurricanes with the same amount of Spitfires would not have been very likely. Stil I can't imagine the RAF not having a hurricane-like fighter in development by 1937 when the me109 was already in service and the threat of war seemed eminent


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 1, 2012)

Granted the Spit was a more modern design but let's not get carried away with it somehow being "revolutionary" because it was all-metal. Other RAF aircraft of the time were also all-metal monocoque construction - the Battle, the Blenheim, even the Skua! There was hardly a shortage of sufficiently skilled labour to build more Spits if that's what was needed in the late-30s. Now, would there have been as many Spits as there were Hurris? Perhaps not but there might have been enough. However, I tend to agree with some of the other posts that it was far more likely that situations were reversed - Fighter Command operating Gladiators, Defiants and a few Hurricanes with no Spitfires - had different decisions been made in the mid/late '30s.


----------



## Elmas (Feb 1, 2012)

Certainly there were other (semi)monocoque airplanes built in U.K. before WWII but it is not so true that shifting from the construction of a Skua to the production of a Spitfire is an easy task.
The jigs are of course completely different, the extruded alminium is different,as well as other thousands parts.

Every industrial production has is bottlenecks, which have to be patiently resolved one by one before a huge mass of aeroplanes can go out from the factory.

This is apparent nowadays, let alone in 1939/40:

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/pdf/December07/ChicagoTribPritchardBoeing.pdf

http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/s...ISES Readings/boeing global outsourcing 1.pdf

IEEE Xplore - Manufacturing Mayday


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 1, 2012)

Aside from its superficial resemblence to the Curtiss P-36 and Mitsubishi A6M, what I like about the Gloster F5/34 is its design heritage, like the F4F, it apparently owed much to its very successful biplane (Gauntlet Gladiator) progenitors. Without an end result (I mean an actual production aircraft, proven in combat) that heritage strikes me as a simple formula for success in both its performance and logistical attributes. I would have put money on it being a good stand in for the Hurricane. Perhaps, without a Merlin, not quite as sharpely performing but relatively easy to build and maintain, with pleasant handling for the inexperienced pilot, and perhaps engine upgrades from P&W and Wright that would have improved performance somewhat. Kind of a P-51 in reverse.  I suspect it would have made a pretty good naval fighter too.

It also seems a turretless, single seat, Boulton Paul Defiant provided a Merlin powered contender as a stand in for the Hurricane whose performace in some respects may have exceeded those of the fighter it would have replaced. With a demonstrated top speed of 360 mph and its proposed armament of 12 .303 MG or 4 20 mm cannon it certainly would have had the firepower. BPD is probably the most realistic replacement although a bit later in development and consequently only available in diminished numbers.


----------



## Readie (Feb 1, 2012)

We also have the MB2 to consider. Put a Merlin in that ? It had the firepower as well....
I also like the Venom. Again with 8 machine guns. Pity about the power plant though.
John


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 1, 2012)

Elmas said:


> Certainly there were other (semi)monocoque airplanes built in U.K. before WWII but it is not so true that shifting from the construction of a Skua to the production of a Spitfire is an easy task.
> The jigs are of course completely different, the extruded alminium is different,as well as other thousands parts.
> 
> Every industrial production has is bottlenecks, which have to be patiently resolved one by one before a huge mass of aeroplanes can go out from the factory.



I'm not denying any of that, but I am objecting to the notion that somehow the British aviation industry was stuck in "string and fabric" production methods during the late 1930s and hence building more Spits was somehow impossible (assuming no reduction in overall factory capacity etc).


----------



## Readie (Feb 1, 2012)

Miles M.20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is interesting too. 'The quick build' and presumably disposable fighter....
Shows the way some designers were thinking just after the BoB
John


----------



## rank amateur (Feb 1, 2012)

Now this is one I never understood. In 1937 Miles had the Kestrel, a modern trainer with a retractable landing gear that managed a topspeed of nearly 300 mph on an engine with only 745 hp. That must have been a decent design, so why didn't they use the wing including the retractable landinggear on the M20. The M20 had a performance that is called "adequate" but I never stopped wondering what the Kestrel (the plane, not the engine) could have achieved with a 1300 hp engine.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 1, 2012)

Regarding the Spitfire not being built in large numbers; sure, when we look at things as they happened that was most certainly the case, but this thread is about if there were no Hurricanes and what would have happened as a result. Remember, in order to facilitate the construction of more Hurricanes, approval was given to build Hawker's Langley Factory and to give Gloster Hurricane production as a result of the Inskip Doctrine and the Munich Crisis. It is not unreasonable to suspect that that this course of action would have been taken with regards to the Spitfire and what ever other fighter the Air Ministry ordered alongside it, if there were no Hurricanes. Of course the Spit was more difficult to build back then, but they didn't have trouble once Castle Bromwich got up to speed and why, if enough impetus was given, would improving Spitfire production not produce a larger number of airframes before the war? Perhaps not of the numbers we saw of Hurricanes available during the Battle of Britain, but there would have been more available to the RAF and of course, there would also be the other type, whatever that might be, perhaps the Gloster F.5/34 or Martin Baker MB.2?

Ironically, these days warbird restorers find the Hurricane a far more difficult proposition for restoration and reconstruction than the Spitty.

Oldcrow, I like your suggestion about the turretless Defiant, as that would have been a strong contender for a new Fighter Command type, but in reality Boulton Paul had issues getting the Defiant production up and running; political, the decision by the Air Ministry to build the Roc - baaaad call by the AM, etc, so the turretless Defiant would have been available in very small numbers by the war's beginning, assuming that it could be contracted out since BP were having difficulty with the Defiant in its own factory, but a promising machine it would have been. I would pick availability in squadron service around late BoB, maybe even missing it altogether. The Defiant entered service with 264 Sqn in December 1939.


----------



## slaterat (Feb 1, 2012)

Without the Hurricane the BoB is a definite loss for the RAF and probably a change in the outcome of the war. If Sydney Camm and Hawker hadn't forged ahead with the concept of the "single wing Fury", the RAF would of been stuck flying Gloster Gladiators and uprated Furys during the BoB. Spitfire production was already pushed to the max and there simply wouldn't have been any more of them.

The list of possible substitutes, assuming enough of them could be built or purchased in time, are rather uninspiring and fall short of the Hurri in crucial areas critical to the RAF success in the BoB. The Martlet, Buffalo and Tomahawk when equipped to RAF standards all had climbrates of less than 2000/ft min. The Hawk 75 has a similar initial climbrate to the Hurri of around 2,600 ft/min, however it is slower and lighter armed with only 6 x.303s. RAF testing demonstrated that the Hurris high speed handling was far superior too , at 390 mph IAS the hawk takes 5.2 sec to 45 degree bank , while the Hurri takes only1.9 .

The Hurri also has the key advantage of being very fast and easy to repair. The Hurricanes greatness comes from being the right aircraft in the right place at the right time.

Slaterat


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 1, 2012)

Not so sure I agree with you Slaterat. If we assume that Hawker still had the manufacturing capacity that was present for the Hurricane, then there was certainly scope to re-jig production to support the Spitfire - as has been noted, Castle Bromwich stood up pretty quickly. It wasn't just Hawker either, it was the entire Hawker Siddeley group - Gloster was pumping out Hurricanes at a prodigious rate so any vacuum owing to there being no Hurricane could have been filled with Spits. It could also be argued, since the Spit shot down more aircraft per airframe during the BoB, that fewer Spits would have done the job just as well as a greater number of Hurricanes. This is all conjecture, though.

Personally, I'm a huge Hurricane fan - always have been ever since first reading about "Killer Kane" in "Warlord" comic when I was a kid. Despite my counter above, I entirely agree with your final statement - the Hurri was the right aircraft in the right numbers at the right time.


----------



## Readie (Feb 2, 2012)

slaterat said:


> The Hurri also has the key advantage of being very fast and easy to repair. The Hurricanes greatness comes from being the right aircraft in the right place at the right time.
> Slaterat




Quite agree Slaterat.
The British have often made it by the skin of our teeth and we owe a great deal to the Hurricane.
John


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 2, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> Not so sure I agree with you Slaterat. If we assume that Hawker still had the manufacturing capacity that was present for the Hurricane, then there was certainly scope to re-jig production to support the Spitfire - as has been noted, Castle Bromwich stood up pretty quickly. It wasn't just Hawker either, it was the entire Hawker Siddeley group - Gloster was pumping out Hurricanes at a prodigious rate so any vacuum owing to there being no Hurricane could have been filled with Spits. It could also be argued, since the Spit shot down more aircraft per airframe during the BoB, that fewer Spits would have done the job just as well as a greater number of Hurricanes. This is all conjecture, though.
> 
> Personally, I'm a huge Hurricane fan - always have been ever since first reading about "Killer Kane" in "Warlord" comic when I was a kid. Despite my counter above, I entirely agree with your final statement - the Hurri was the right aircraft in the right numbers at the right time.




Well said, especially the last sentence. Ditto for slaterat's words.


----------



## DVH (Feb 2, 2012)

well if the authorities had listened to Frank Whittle, they could have been flying Meteors in 1940, or had jet engined spitfires! Oops, I just wet myself.


----------



## jipi (Feb 2, 2012)

Dago Wop said:


> Dewoitine D-520



Good choice !
Great airplane with better perfs than the Hurricane's, and all brand new.
Most of them have been sent to Oran in Algeria.

By september, De Gaulle succeeded in making some of the French empire's territories join the allies.
Unfortunately, Algeria has not been one of them. 
The Dewoitines would then have played a role in the bob.


----------



## rmark (Feb 2, 2012)

With no Hurricane, the only practial choice is a Merlin powered Gladiator.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 2, 2012)

Readie said:


> Miles M.20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is interesting too. 'The quick build' and presumably disposable fighter....
> Shows the way some designers were thinking just after the BoB
> John



This IS an interesting concept. It emphasizes logistical capabilities at apparently a relatively small sacrifice of performance. As much as I find its characteristic blunt nose unattractive, the aircraft does nevertheless possess some elegant lines.


----------



## fastmongrel (Feb 2, 2012)

rmark said:


> With no Hurricane, the only practial choice is a Merlin powered Gladiator.



I have been trying for years to tell these fellas that the only way forward is two wings but they wont listen.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 2, 2012)

jipi said:


> Good choice !
> Great airplane with better perfs than the Hurricane's, and all brand new.
> Most of them have been sent to Oran in Algeria.
> 
> ...



The way I have interpreted the thread is that any fighter aircraft replacing the hurricane would have had to have been in service by July 1940 and with roughly 350 in the inventory. Great Britain would also probably need to replace the 600 additional Hurricanes lost during the battle. I think these two numbers restrict consideration to a very few aircraft or to a hypothetical aircraft that would have been produced in the Hurricane's absence. It sounds like BP had production issues (perhaps somewhat similar to those of the Brewster company in the USA) and Martin baker's MB-2 was a first fighter aircraft for a company not noted for production volume, Vickers Venom might be a candidate given its history and prior business, but to me it seems the Gloster F5/34 holds most of the _hypothetical fighter_ cards. Personally, I think the Luftwaffe would have loved to fight an RAF equipped with biplanes even ones as great as the Gladiator.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2012)

Actually just about 2000 Hurricanes had been built by the start of the BoB, which really limits things. For numbers in service you need to deduct the ones lost in France, foriegn sales, operational losses and the like. What ever replaces it needs to amiable at the rate of 6-8 a day in England, not on a dock in America.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 2, 2012)

rmark said:


> With no Hurricane, the only practial choice is a Merlin powered Gladiator.



Is that a case of more haste less speed?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 2, 2012)

jipi said:


> Good choice !
> Great airplane with better perfs than the Hurricane's, and all brand new.
> Most of them have been sent to Oran in Algeria.
> 
> ...


I think this would be the way to go or the Bloch with its 2 20mm


----------



## rank amateur (Feb 2, 2012)

rmark said:


> With no Hurricane, the only practial choice is a Merlin powered Gladiator.



As much as Il like the concept, I still think this would be a perfect waiste of a good engine


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 2, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually just about 2000 Hurricanes had been built by the start of the BoB, which really limits things. For numbers in service you need to deduct the ones lost in France, foriegn sales, operational losses and the like. What ever replaces it needs to amiable at the rate of 6-8 a day in England, not on a dock in America.



Interesting web site: 

The Hawker Hurricane and others - Better than the Spitfire?

Based on the information on the above website, as I understand it, only 350 Hurricanes were operational at start of the battle athough there were evidently indeed many more in reserve as it looks like ~200 hurricanes were lost in France to all causes. Further, this number represented about 25% of the entire fleet that existed in the Spring. Thus at the start of the battle of France, there seem to have been about 800 total, with all losses being replaced by start of the BoB. This same website states that July 17 numbers include a TOTAL of 675 hurricanes! 

Shortround, I am not sure of the source of the difference in the numbers you quote, but this website would seem to imply a total constructed number of about 1,000 Hurricanes, unless I am missing something. Oh, there was apparently some foreign manufacture occurring, Could that account for the difference?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 2, 2012)

I'd have to go with the Miles M.20

From what I've read it was not that bad of a plane.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 2, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... The P-51 was a _british spec _airplane so buying an American fighter was certainly planned...."
> 
> Was it ...? Or did the British purchasing commission in the US start off trying to buy North American Aviation-built P-40's but were convinced by NAA execs that they could build a better airframe fast, and they did.  My point is not to dispute Britain's perceived need to buy in the USA .... buy _what_, though?
> 
> MM



Was it really a British spec or a North Amrican design with the specification retrospectively written around a private initiative? The specification would seem to be for contractual purposes.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 2, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Interesting web site:
> 
> The Hawker Hurricane and others - Better than the Spitfire?
> 
> ...




If the Sidney Cam developed Hurricane had not existed then any number of British firms would have produced an equal.
Gloster
Blackburn
Bristol
Fairy
Westland

One foreign candidate was the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 which if the 860hp HZ 12 enginewas uograded (the the HS 12Z or Merlin) would have been better than the Hurricane. The Swiss turned it into a 420mph machine.


----------



## Hop (Feb 2, 2012)

Hurricane orders and deliveries:

Block 1: 600 aircraft, delivered December 1937 - October 1939

Block 2: 300 aircraft, delivered September 1939 - May 1940

Block 1G: 500 aircraft, delivered November 1939 - April 1940 (built by Gloster)

Block 3: 544 aircraft, delivered February - July 1940

Block 1C: 40 aircraft, delivered February - August 1940 (built in Canada)

Block 2G: 100 aircraft, delivered May - July 1940 (built by Gloster)

(figures from K5083 - Aircraft Production Summary )

That's just over 2,000 Hurricanes delivered by the 20th July. Any replacement for the Hurricane needs to be available in similar numbers.


----------



## Juha (Feb 2, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> ...One foreign candidate was the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 which if the 860hp HZ 12 enginewas uograded (the the HS 12Z or Merlin) would have been better than the Hurricane. The Swiss turned it into a 420mph machine.



Now the 420 mph machine was D-3803, one prototype flew in May 47, a bit late for the BoB, there was some development potential in MS 406/410 as the Finnish Mörkö-Morane showed but the Swiss D-3802 and -3803 were based on MS 450 proto, which flew first time in 39, of course 450 itself was a development of 406-

Juha


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 2, 2012)

M.S.406? Hmm, even looks a bit like the Hurri, but I don't mean to burst your collective bubbles, but there is no way the Air Ministry would have contemplated buying, let alone building a French design. Dowding and Churchill would be rolling in their graves with laughter! 



> Was it really a British spec or a North American design with the specification retrospectively written around a private initiative?



The Mustang was built to a British requirement, not to a British specification. The British Purchasing Commission approached NAA to build P-40s under licence, so NAA designed and built the Mustang using private funding after messing about with ideas on their own initiative - and happened to design one of the best fighters of the war!


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Shortround, I am not sure of the source of the difference in the numbers you quote, but this website would seem to imply a total constructed number of about 1,000 Hurricanes, unless I am missing something. Oh, there was apparently some foreign manufacture occurring, Could that account for the difference?


Already answered I believe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 2, 2012)

vikingBerserker said:


> I'd have to go with the Miles M.20
> 
> From what I've read it was not that bad of a plane.



maybe not but I believe it used a Merlin XX engine which didn't become available until July/Aug of 1940? which makes any use of the Miles M.20 in the BoB a rather limited affair.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 2, 2012)

Hop said:


> Hurricane orders and deliveries:
> 
> Block 1: 600 aircraft, delivered December 1937 - October 1939
> 
> ...



These are very impressive build totals and as shortround indicated, I would expect the production volume to be matched by any other domestic option previously mentioned and can't see a foreign design becoming available in such initial large numbers let alone having losses replaced as fast as GB's domestic industry. 

It is also interesting, based on the posted url, the Gloster production rate was pretty close to that of Hawker at about 3 or so Hurricanes/day. That seems to suggest Gloster was able to match Hurricane production of a non-company airframe. This seems to suggest any of the candidate fighter designs (Vickers, MB, Gloster) might have been produced domestically by any combination of the major airframe manufacturers.


----------



## buffnut453 (Feb 2, 2012)

Bear in mind that Gloster was owned by Hawker at this time so not really "non-company". A case of "you say Pontiac, I say Saturn" perhaps...?


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 3, 2012)

It wasn't that simple, as Gloster was one of the firms that was slated to produce the Wellington, but this was changed to Hurricanes after the Nazi annexation of Austria.


----------



## Hop (Feb 3, 2012)

> This seems to suggest any of the candidate fighter designs (Vickers, MB, Gloster) might have been produced domestically by any combination of the major airframe manufacturers.



I think so too. A lot of the problems with Spitfire production were down to the fact that Supermarine was a small flying boat manufacturer. Hawker and Gloster were much larger and more experienced. I'd expect them to have a lot less trouble getting Spitfire production under way than Supermarine did.


----------

