A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45 (5 Viewers)

[Kevin J]

RAF fighter claims and losses seem to be some the hardest to find on the web, so I wouldn't know how the Spitfire compares to the Hurricane in that regard. However, 5871 claims in the ETO seems rather a how number, seeing as the Hurricane peaked in air combat in the BoB.

The Hurricane fights the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, is the primary night fighter during the Blitz and is still around as a fighter bomber until 1943 when the Typhoon replaces it in that role. From then on Thunderbolts and Lightnings, very very frightening, sorry I'm getting carried away here, take over from the RAF the fight against the Luftwaffe on their own turf with the Mustang eventually destroying the most German aircraft in the ETO. The Spitfire plays little part in the Battle of France, scores far fewer victories than the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain, and is shot from the skies by the Luftwaffe during the non stop offensive over France in 1941/42. I agree, finding the figures is difficult, like we're not meant to find them.

 

[Schweik]

Or just divide by 3 or 4; who knows?

yes but that is true for all fighter types in WW2. All sides overclaimed at pretty similar rates.

 

[RCAFson]

In some respects I think you might be right. Maybe a better fighter killer anyway. Against fighters the relatively 'light' armament isn't really as much of a problem but it does make it harder to knock down medium or heavy bombers.



The advantage the F4F had was it could dive away from a Zero or a Ki-27 - the Ki-43 may not have had as much problem with high speed roll / torque issues but it did have a limit on dive speed, much lower than that of the F4F. The Hurricane could probably dive away from a K-27 but not from an A6M or Ki-43 - at least, the dive speed wasn't enough higher, apparently, plus the Hurricane had relatively poor roll rate.

The ability to disengage in some kind of way when the fight wasn't going well I think turned out to be one of the key features for success in WW2 fighters.

S

US tests showed that the F4F-4 could not dive away from a Zero:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

see paragraph 12.

The Hurricane had an excellent roll rate and could out roll the Zero.

Air combat is usually decided by which pilot sees the other first. Most pilots who were shot down never saw their opponent.

 

[pinsog]

Agree that an F4F-4 couldn't pull away from a Zero in a dive, it could only get going fast enough for the Zero's ailerons to stiffen up and then roll to one side and pull out.

 

[Schweik]

The Hurricane fights the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, is the primary night fighter during the Blitz and is still around as a fighter bomber until 1943 when the Typhoon replaces it in that role. From then on Thunderbolts and Lightnings, very very frightening, sorry I'm getting carried away here, take over from the RAF the fight against the Luftwaffe on their own turf with the Mustang eventually destroying the most German aircraft in the ETO. The Spitfire plays little part in the Battle of France, scores far fewer victories than the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain, and is shot from the skies by the Luftwaffe during the non stop offensive over France in 1941/42. I agree, finding the figures is difficult, like we're not meant to find them.

I think there were fewer Spitfires active in the BoB though weren't there? I always assumed that is why the Hurricane shot down more enemy planes (or made more claims).

By the way claims vs. losses for Hurricanes are available for the Med in Christopher Shores books.

 

[pinsog]

The problem with the Hurricane vs KI43 is they both play the same game and the KI43 is better. When the Hurricane fought the 109, 110 and even 190 it always had the ability to out turn them. When all else failed a Hurricane pilot could outturm anything the Germans had. When a Hurricane fought KI43's, the turn advantage went to the KI43 by a large margin. They had about the same top speed, climb went to KI43, acceleration went to KI43, the Hurricane wasn't a particularly good diver and if the KI43 was following a Hurricane in a fast dive it could still match the roll rate (unlike the Zero). Other than better firepower in a head on pass I can't think of anything a Hurricane can do that a KI43 can't do better. (The 2nd model of KI43 even had pilot armor and self sealing tanks along with a 2 speed supercharger)

The P40 is far from perfect with bad climb and horrible performance above 15-17,000 feet, BUT when all else fails, use that magnificent roll rate, flip it on its back, point the nose downhill and run like the wind! Live to fight tomorrow

 

[Schweik]

Agree that an F4F-4 couldn't pull away from a Zero in a dive, it could only get going fast enough for the Zero's ailerons to stiffen up and then roll to one side and pull out.

I think the Zero had a pretty low maximum dive speed. Less than 400 mph I believe. F4F might not be able to accelerate as fast but if it kept twisting and skidding could avoid being shot until the speed picked up enough to escape.

 

[Schweik]

US tests showed that the F4F-4 could not dive away from a Zero:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

yeah but I think if you look at the maximum dive speed, this isn't actually the case.

The Hurricane had an excellent roll rate and could out roll the Zero.

That is news to me! Do you have stats and / or a source on this? I always read the Hurricanes roll rate described as 'stately'. I.e. not fast. I feel bad if I have been repeating this for a while and it's incorrect.

How does the Hurricanes roll rate compare to a Spit I or V, a P-40, a Bf 109E or F, a Fw 190, a Ki 43 or an A6M?

Air combat is usually decided by which pilot sees the other first. Most pilots who were shot down never saw their opponent.

That's true but it's also a bit misleading. Probably 60% of aircraft destroyed in WW2 were knocked down before the pilot saw the enemy. But later in the war all sides got much better at using formation tactics, wingmen etc., strict regimes for watching the skies, to prevent being 'bounced' without warning. It became rarer, it was also rarer fighter to fighter than fighter vs. bomber.

Performance and maneuverability did also matter quite a bit once both sides were aware of each other, and the ability to disengage even more so.

Working radios helped a lot too!

S

 

[Glider]

I think you need to do a bit more reading.

Well I have and read the Bloody Shambles series, I took the trouble to go to the National Archives and research a number of original reports and the paper you presented. Plus a number of other books over the years.
In support I posted an original document that clearly stated that the Hurricane was obsolete in the eyes of the RAF. You have read what exactly?

 

[pbehn]

The Hurricane fights the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, is the primary night fighter during the Blitz and is still around as a fighter bomber until 1943 when the Typhoon replaces it in that role. From then on Thunderbolts and Lightnings, very very frightening, sorry I'm getting carried away here, take over from the RAF the fight against the Luftwaffe on their own turf with the Mustang eventually destroying the most German aircraft in the ETO. The Spitfire plays little part in the Battle of France, scores far fewer victories than the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain, and is shot from the skies by the Luftwaffe during the non stop offensive over France in 1941/42. I agree, finding the figures is difficult, like we're not meant to find them.

The Spitfire played a small part in the Battle of France. In the Battle of Britain. In the BoB the Hurricane was more numerous and had the most kills, it also had a much higher loss rate and those losses were more likely to kill or cripple the pilot. While fighting over England the Hurricane had the advantage of home territory and RADAR control. Its big disadvantage was that against the Bf109 it couldn't break contact. At any time sending Hurricane fighters to France would be suicide unless in massive numbers with others like Dieppe. You omitted the Battle of Malta where Spitfires took over from Hurricanes and North Africa where Spitfires were used to escort Hurricanes and P-40s. Finding the numbers is easy, seek and ye shall find.

 

[RCAFson]

1) yeah but I think if you look at the maximum dive speed, this isn't actually the case.



2)That is news to me! Do you have stats and / or a source on this? I always read the Hurricanes roll rate described as 'stately'. I.e. not fast. I feel bad if I have been repeating this for a while and it's incorrect.

How does the Hurricanes roll rate compare to a Spit I or V, a P-40, a Bf 109E or F, a Fw 190, a Ki 43 or an A6M?



3)That's true but it's also a bit misleading. Probably 60% of aircraft destroyed in WW2 were knocked down before the pilot saw the enemy. But later in the war all sides got much better at using formation tactics, wingmen etc., strict regimes for watching the skies, to prevent being 'bounced' without warning. It became rarer, it was also rarer fighter to fighter than fighter vs. bomber.

4) Performance and maneuverability did also matter quite a bit once both sides were aware of each other, and the ability to disengage even more so.

Working radios helped a lot too!

S

1) The Hurricane's maximum dive speed was somewhat higher than the Ki-43II, however the trick was to engage with sufficient altitude to take advantage of that, which was hard when the Hurricane was mostly being used for low level ground attack.

2)NACA roll rate comparison:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

A NACA paper dated 16 Nov 1942 compared the roll rate of the Hurricane Mk2A, Spitfire V, P40 and P36. The Hurricane had the best roll rate in terms of roll rate per 5lb stick force and this matches pilot comments and RAF mock combat reports. Hurricane and Spitfire maximum roll rates were nearly identical, but slightly superior to the Spitfire and so the Spitfire curve, above, can be used for the Hurricane.

3) I'm pretty sure it was greater than 60% and the Hurricane was primarily a ground attack aircraft from 1942 onward.

4) Dog fights were usually inconclusive compared to bounces but again the experience of the F4F-4, which should have been slaughtered by the Zero, but wasn't gives us some clues that the Hurricane II, should do somewhat better.

 

[RCAFson]

The Spitfire played a small part in the Battle of France. In the Battle of Britain. In the BoB the Hurricane was more numerous and had the most kills, it also had a much higher loss rate and those losses were more likely to kill or cripple the pilot. While fighting over England the Hurricane had the advantage of home territory and RADAR control. Its big disadvantage was that against the Bf109 it couldn't break contact. At any time sending Hurricane fighters to France would be suicide unless in massive numbers with others like Dieppe. You omitted the Battle of Malta where Spitfires took over from Hurricanes and North Africa where Spitfires were used to escort Hurricanes and P-40s. Finding the numbers is easy, seek and ye shall find.

Hurricane losses in the BofB are misleading because they were primarily concentrated within 11 Group, which was closest to incoming raids and were the most likely to be bounced by Me109s because aircraft based in 11 Group typically had insufficient time to climb prior to being engaged. 11 Group had the highest ratio of Hurricane to Spitfire squadrons of any Group, and if 11 Group had been predominately Spitfires it seems very likely that Spitfire loss rates would have been higher than the Hurricane, which would have been a disaster for FC because of the low production rate and slower repair rate of the Spitfire.

The Spitfire V as used at Malta was superior to the Hurricane 1/2 but the Hurricane's primary problem there was lack of numbers at a time when the Luftwaffe was able to concentrate overwhelming power against Malta and bomb the airfields continuously. In the winter the Luftwaffe would withdraw units from Russia and use them in the MTO and thus the Malta airwar had a cyclical nature.

 

[Schweik]

2)NACA roll rate comparison:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

A NACA paper dated 16 Nov 1942 compared the roll rate of the Hurricane Mk2A, Spitfire V, P40 and P36. The Hurricane had the best roll rate in terms of roll rate per 5lb stick force and this matches pilot comments and RAF mock combat reports. Hurricane and Spitfire maximum roll rates were nearly identical, but slightly superior to the Spitfire and so the Spitfire curve, above, can be used for the Hurricane.

Ok but that must be a different paper then right? I looked carefully (even though I have seen it before) and didn't see a Hurricane on this one.

This one says at an altitude of 10,000 feet, with 50 lbs stick force, the following 'best' roll rates were observed in degrees per second:

Fw 190 - 162 @ 255 mph indicated
Spitfire (clipped wing) 150 @ 190 mph indicated
P-63 - 110 @ 270 - 285 mph indicated
Spitfire (Normal wing) - 105 @ 200 mph indicated
P-40F -95 @ 260-290 mph indicated
P-51B -93 @ 310 mph indicated
P-47C-1 - 88 @ 230-270 mph indicated
XP-51 -80 @ 230-260 mph indicated
P-39D-1-BE - 75 @ 230 mph indicated
F6F-3 - 68 @ 250-290 mph indicated
A6M - 55 @ 250 mph indicated

However from what I gather, there are some other factors. P-47 for example probably rolled much better at say, 27,000 feet than at 10,000.

Roll rate can be very different at different speeds- the Spit rolls beautifully at 200 mph but not as good at 300 mph.

The Zero numbers also seem a bit suspect.

I know there are some nuances to roll rate other than the speed and altitude, there is also the difference between roll rate, roll acceleration, and the amount of force required to roll. For example a given aircraft may achieve a very high roll rate but take longer to get to it, so to speak, or vice versa.

But everything I have read did say that the Hurri didn't roll fast, does anyone have actual numbers? If the Hurricane had a good roll rate that would certainly modify my perception of that aircraft.

S

 

[Schweik]

Just noticed this:

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Wolverhampton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Lol what does a PhD in Philosophy have to do with Hurricanes and Ki-43s? I had no idea philosophy was so interesting!

S

 

[RCAFson]

Ok but that must be a different paper then right? I looked carefully (even though I have seen it before) and didn't see a Hurricane on this one.

This one says at an altitude of 10,000 feet, with 50 lbs stick force, the following 'best' roll rates were observed in degrees per second:

Fw 190 - 162 @ 255 mph indicated
Spitfire (clipped wing) 150 @ 190 mph indicated
P-63 - 110 @ 270 - 285 mph indicated
Spitfire (Normal wing) - 105 @ 200 mph indicated
P-40F -95 @ 260-290 mph indicated
P-51B -93 @ 310 mph indicated
P-47C-1 - 88 @ 230-270 mph indicated
XP-51 -80 @ 230-260 mph indicated
P-39D-1-BE - 75 @ 230 mph indicated
F6F-3 - 68 @ 250-290 mph indicated
A6M - 55 @ 250 mph indicated

However from what I gather, there are some other factors. P-47 for example probably rolled much better at say, 27,000 feet than at 10,000.

Roll rate can be very different at different speeds- the Spit rolls beautifully at 200 mph but not as good at 300 mph.

The Zero numbers also seem a bit suspect.

I know there are some nuances to roll rate other than the speed and altitude, there is also the difference between roll rate, roll acceleration, and the amount of force required to roll. For example a given aircraft may achieve a very high roll rate but take longer to get to it, so to speak, or vice versa.

But everything I have read did say that the Hurri didn't roll fast, does anyone have actual numbers? If the Hurricane had a good roll rate that would certainly modify my perception of that aircraft.

S

The Spitfire normal wing curve used in the NACA report here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

is very nearly identical to the Hurricane curve, with the Hurricane being slightly superior.

From the 16 Nov 1942 paper:

Hurricane/Spitfire/P40/P36 roll rate in Degs/sec, 10k ft, 230mph @ 5lb stick force: 19/15/8/9

Hurricane/Spitfire/P40/P36 roll rate in Degs/sec, 10k ft, 230mph @ 30lb stick force: 64/63/43/90*
*P40 max stick deflection reached at 19.5lb.

 

[RCAFson]

Just noticed this:



Lol what does a PhD in Philosophy have to do with Hurricanes and Ki-43s? I had no idea philosophy was so interesting!

S

PhD = Dr of Philosophy

 

[Schweik]

The Spitfire normal wing curve used in the NACA report here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

is very nearly identical to the Hurricane curve, with the Hurricane being slightly superior.

From the 16 Nov 1942 paper:

Hurricane/Spitfire/P40/P36 roll rate in Degs/sec, 10k ft, 230mph @ 5lb stick force: 19/15/8/9

Hurricane/Spitfire/P40/P36 roll rate in Degs/sec, 10k ft, 230mph @ 30lb stick force: 64/63/43/90*
*P40 max stick deflection reached at 19.5lb.

Well, if that's accurate one possible clue is that they only tested at one speed. But per the chart you keep posting, the Spitfire peaked at 105 degrees per second @ 200 mph, and the P-40 roll rate peaked at 95 degrees per second at ~260 mph.

64 degrees per second (if I'm reading what you posted above correctly) isn't so great.

S

 

[Kevin J]

Well I have and read the Bloody Shambles series, I took the trouble to go to the National Archives and research a number of original reports and the paper you presented. Plus a number of other books over the years.
In support I posted an original document that clearly stated that the Hurricane was obsolete in the eyes of the RAF. You have read what exactly?

The Air Ministry considered discontinuing the Spitfire in 1939 because of production difficulties. Why do you continue to allege that the Hurricane was obsolete in 1939. It was successfully shooting down enemy aircraft in the ETO from 1939 to 1941, on the Eastern Front from Autumn 1941 to Summer 1942 and in the Mediterranean from 1940 through to 1942 also. In the Far East, it was less successful, but what is all this obsolete nonsense.

 

[Kevin J]

Ok but that must be a different paper then right? I looked carefully (even though I have seen it before) and didn't see a Hurricane on this one.

This one says at an altitude of 10,000 feet, with 50 lbs stick force, the following 'best' roll rates were observed in degrees per second:

Fw 190 - 162 @ 255 mph indicated
Spitfire (clipped wing) 150 @ 190 mph indicated
P-63 - 110 @ 270 - 285 mph indicated
Spitfire (Normal wing) - 105 @ 200 mph indicated
P-40F -95 @ 260-290 mph indicated
P-51B -93 @ 310 mph indicated
P-47C-1 - 88 @ 230-270 mph indicated
XP-51 -80 @ 230-260 mph indicated
P-39D-1-BE - 75 @ 230 mph indicated
F6F-3 - 68 @ 250-290 mph indicated
A6M - 55 @ 250 mph indicated

However from what I gather, there are some other factors. P-47 for example probably rolled much better at say, 27,000 feet than at 10,000.

Roll rate can be very different at different speeds- the Spit rolls beautifully at 200 mph but not as good at 300 mph.

The Zero numbers also seem a bit suspect.

I know there are some nuances to roll rate other than the speed and altitude, there is also the difference between roll rate, roll acceleration, and the amount of force required to roll. For example a given aircraft may achieve a very high roll rate but take longer to get to it, so to speak, or vice versa.

But everything I have read did say that the Hurri didn't roll fast, does anyone have actual numbers? If the Hurricane had a good roll rate that would certainly modify my perception of that aircraft.

S

If, as the document says, that the Spitfire and Hurricane roll rates were almost identical then that means that a Hurricane can roll at twice the rate as an A6M.

 

[pinsog]

RCAFson
"Somewhat higher dive speed". Pulling away from an opponent at 10 mph while he hoses your plane from behind won't work with a Hurricane vs a KI43. It might work with Hurricane vs Zero because when you hit 300 mph you can roll 90 degrees and pull out and a Zero can't follow that move, but a KI43 can. A P40 below 15,000 can dive faster and has a top speed maybe 40 mph faster than a Hurricane. In Australian tests a P40E could disengage at will from a Spitfire V by diving.

The F4F-4 was a different machine than the Hurricane. (Still remarkable it wasn't slaughtered) A couple of things going for it: 1. Navy pilots trained and plane designed for deflection shooting 2. Good armor and radial engine 3. Zero couldn't roll at high speed

US Navy pilots were trained in deflection shooting allowing them to hit and down Zeros that wouldn't be hit otherwise

Pilots were told "if a Zeros behind you, don't turn. Duck down behind your armor until someone shoots him off of you or he runs out of ammo". I file this under the "you gotta be kidding me, that's your best plan?" file. A Hurricane doesn't seem to stand up to that abuse.

F4F-4 could dive to 300 mph and roll to break contact.