Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat

[Waynos]

If the RAF entered the BoB having chosen the Wildcat instead of the Hurricane, I see the Spitfires being overrun and lots of British airmen dying in Gauntlets, Furies and the odd Bulldog in an increasingly desperate defence.

 

[The Basket]

Why not choose the P-36 instead?

Remember...some people in the Air ministry were thinking the Spitfire was obsolete so buying in bulk a lesser machine would be nutty.

Just wait until the Whirlwind comes...20mm cannon and lots of speed.

 

[RCAFson]

The Hurricane's performance was also considerably enhanced through the use of 100 octane fuel and 12 lb boost. This added 20 to 30 mph to the Hurricane's low altitude speed and greatly increased it's climb rate:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.ht

 

[FLYBOYJ]

All other things being equal, aircraft-for-aircraft, I entirely agree. How you'd get Wildcats to Britain and sustain them operationally in sufficient numbers to replace the Hurricane remain knotty problems that are far more difficult to resolve.

Agree...

Why not choose the P-36 instead?

Remember...some people in the Air ministry were thinking the Spitfire was obsolete so buying in bulk a lesser machine would be nutty.

Just wait until the Whirlwind comes...20mm cannon and lots of speed.

As mentioned, the Hawk 75 did well in the Battle of France. Although slower than the -109 it seems this aircraft was a lot more maneuverable. I think this aircraft was another under rated fighter that was always looked to being obsolete well before its time.

 

[JoeB]

The vast majority of Hurricanes were lost on the ground when their bases were overrun. Aerial combat losses were not 171 and of the Hurricanes lost on air operations many were lost to bomber gunners, ground fire and some to Me-110s.

My source is a landmark new book ("The Battle of France Then and Now") that has details of almost every loss in every AF involved in the BoF period, including also Britain based Fighter Command units in the same period, with details, so it only includes air combat losses of Hurricanes to 109's and vice versa, counted up in the book. That said I realize I mistyped my own notes then calced wrong ratio in the last post, its' 151 Hurricane and 74 Bf109's not 171 and 54, sorry about that. Hurricanes downed 37 Bf110's v 63 Hurricanes lost to 110's. And again ratio's later on as at Malta and Western Desert were less favorable for Hurricane, sometimes worse than the Hurricane did in the Far East. So it's not clear to me the Far East situation was so completely special, and I think the F4F' far better record there should probably factor in somewhat in estimating its possible outcome v Bf109E's, as should the Hawk's relatively good record v 109 in BoF 23:38 in BoF. The Spitfire's record v 109 in BoF period was 24:32, D520's 14:30, for further comparative reference.

Joe

 

[Cromwell]

Why not choose the P-36 instead? Remember...some people in the Air ministry were thinking the Spitfire was obsolete so buying in bulk a lesser machine would be nutty. Just wait until the Whirlwind comes...20mm cannon and lots of speed.

The Whirlwind was another "could-a should-a" IMHO, just failed for want of a decent engine (or rather the availability of a decent engine i.e.. the Merlin). Shame also our US cousins sent over Castrated P38s [no superchargers] - Decent P38s with handed-engines, and decent cockpit heaters, would have been a major contribution during the Bob I think.

Actually I think if a reliable 20mm had been around during the BoB for the Hurricane then LW bombers would have just blown up mostly, as they did later on when attacked by Beaufighters.

Note : If the Hurricane was so Dismal as we seem to be saying in this thread, then why was it produced until 44/45 ? Ground-attack ?

I know the IIC and later the IID was very effective against Tanks, a bit like the Cannon Stuka, so I suppose that is one argument.

Care to comment anyone ?

 

[Cromwell]

Even throw a radial into play and as long as you're not trying to rebuild engines at the squadron level, the process to remove, replace and rig a radial could be no more or less complicated than doing it on an inline engine, in fact with an inline you have another system (coolant) to worry about in the day to day maintenance.

Of course the RAF had Radial engines too - Lots of them

So most Erks would have potentially been exposed to maintaining radials on planes like Blenheims, Gladiators, Wimpeys

Also US vs Imperial Gallons - 1 US gallon = 0.833 Imperial gallons (rounded to 3 figs)

So, even there, not such a biggy maybe ? If you put in 2 Imp Galls instead of 2 US Galls, it would actually be slightly over-filled not under filled. Oil up a few plugs maybe ? maybe not, just burn off the excess.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Shame also our US cousins sent over Castrated P38s [no superchargers] - Decent P38s with handed-engines, and decenc cockpit heaters, would have been a major contribution during the BoB I think.

I think you'd better research the full facts why those aircraft were delivered that way...

Although I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, somtimes they get it right...

In March 1940, the French and the British ordered a total of 667 P-38s for US$100M,[37] designated Model 322F for the French and Model 322B for the British. The aircraft would be a variant of the P-38E. The overseas Allies wished for complete commonality of Allison engines with the large numbers of Curtiss P-40 Tomahawks both nations had on order, and thus ordered for the Model 322 twin right-handed engines instead of counter-rotating ones, and without turbo-superchargers.[38] After the fall of France in June 1940, the British took over the entire order and christened the plane "Lightning". By June 1941, the War Ministry had cause to reconsider their earlier aircraft specifications, based on experience gathered in the Battle of Britain and The Blitz.[39] British displeasure with the Lockheed order came to the fore in July, and on 5 August 1941 they modified the contract such that 143 aircraft would be delivered as previously ordered, to be known as "Lightning (Mark) I", and 524 would be upgraded to US-standard P-38E specifications, to be called "Lightning II" for British service.[39] Later that summer, an RAF test pilot reported back from Burbank with a poor assessment of the 'tail flutter' situation, bringing the British to cancel all but three of the 143 Lightning Is.[39] Because a loss of approximately US$15M was involved, Lockheed reviewed their contracts and decided to hold the British to the original order. Negotiations grew bitter and stalled.[39] Everything changed after December 7, 1941 when the United States government seized some 40 of the Model 322s for West Coast defense,[40] subsequently all British Lightnings were delivered to the USAAF starting in January 1942. The USAAF loaned the RAF three of the aircraft which were delivered by sea in March 1942[41] and were test flown no earlier than May[42] at Swaythling, Boscombe Down and Farnborough.[39] These three were subsequently returned to the USAAF; one in December 1942 and the others in July 1943.[41] Of the remaining 140 Lightning Is, 19 were not modified and were designated the USAAF as RP-322-I ('R' for 'Restricted', because non-counter-rotating props were considered more dangerous at takeoff), while 121 were converted to non-turbo-supercharged counter-rotating V-1710F-2 engines and were designated P-322-II. All 121 were used as advanced trainers; a few were still serving that role in 1945.[42] A few RP-322s were later used as test modification platforms such as for smoke-laying canisters. The RP-322 was a fairly fast aircraft under 16,000 ft (4,900 m) and well-behaved as a trainer. Some of the fastest post-war racing P-38s were virtually identical in layout to the P-322-II.[42]

One positive result of the failed British/French order was to give the aircraft its name. Lockheed had originally dubbed the aircraft Atalanta in the company tradition of naming planes after mythological and celestial figures, but the RAF name won out

 

[Colin1]

The Whirlwind was another "could-a should-a" IMHO, just failed for want of a decent engine (or rather the availability of a decent engine i.e. the Merlin).

Shame also our US cousins sent over castrated P38s [no superchargers] - Decent P38s with handed-engines, and decenc cockpit heaters, would have been a major contribution during the BoB I think.

Actually I think if a reliable 20mm had been around during the BoB for the Hurricane then LW bombers would have just blown up mostly, as they did later on when attacked by Beaufighters.

Note : If the Hurricane was so dismal as we seem to be saying in this thread, then why was it produced until 44/45 ? Ground-attack?

There was a bit more to the Whirlwind story than the powerplant, a little procrastination from Westland and a lot of unreasonable requirements and behaviour from the Air Ministry.

We can only speculate at what was going on at Burbank with the Lightning I. The best rumour seems to be along the lines of Gen Arnold looking for a way to get the Lightning into serial production with a big order for the RAF, whom he 'let off the hook' further down the line if the RAF didn't want them. On paper at least, the RAF order accelerated the P-38 program by 5 months, the USAAF ordering 673 machines in August 1940.

The Hispano 20mm wasn't inherently unreliable, it simply hadn't been created with life in the wing of an aeroplane in mind, it was normally engine-mounted. The flexure of the wing during high-g combat manoeuvres frequently jammed the weapon.

I don't believe anyone is calling the Hurricane dismal, it is a reasonably informed debate over which would have proven the better machine during the Battle of Britain. It was still in production during the dates you specify but another way of looking at it is that it was relegated to ground-attack duties during those dates; its days as a front-line fighter were over at the close of the Battle.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Of course the RAF had Radial engines too - Lots of them

So most Erks would have potentially been exposed to maintaining radials on planes like Blenheims, Gladiators, Wimpeys

That comment was made with regards to the RAF operating US Equipment

Also US vs Imperial Gallons - 1 US gallon = 0.833 Imperial gallons (rounded to 3 figs)

So, even there, not such a biggy maybe ? If you put in 2 Imp Galls instead of 2 US Galls, it would actually be slightly over-filled not under filled. Oil up a few plugs maybe ? maybe not, just burn off the excess.

Not really - depending on the engine you would have to drain the excess oil if you over service the engine. If not you could blow out the excess oil through breather tubes or even build up pressures within the engine that could rupture seals.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

We can only speculate at what was going on at Burbank with the Lightning I. The best rumour seems to be along the lines of Gen Arnold looking for a way to get the Lightning into serial production with a big order for the RAF, whom he 'let off the hook' further down the line if the RAF didn't want them. On paper at least, the RAF order accelerated the P-38 program by 5 months, the USAAF ordering 673 machines in August 1940.

Heard the same as well....

 

[Colin1]

Heard the same as well....

Hap was a creative boy when it came to forming his air force, heard he turned a few tricks to get the B-17 program up and running too.

 

[Maestro]

Personnaly, I would choose the Hurricane... As it took time for Radar operators/ground observers to spot the enemy planes, calculate their probable targets, forward the info the the closest airfield and get the fighters in the air, a good climb rate was essential.

Also, the Hurricane was more maneuvrable than the Wildcat, which is vital in a fight where you could easily end up with a 109 on your tail.

I also remember one of our forum members (Plan_D), stating that the main goal of the RAF was to prevent the targets from being bombed. In order to acheive that goal, it wasn't nessesary to destroy the planes (although doing so was a good thing), but just to put enough bullet holes in them to force them to abort their mission. He did make a good point.

 

[Cromwell]

That comment was made with regards to the RAF operating US Equipment

Not really - depending on the engine you would have to drain the excess oil if you over service the engine. If not you could blow out the excess oil through breather tubes or even build up pressures within the engine that could rupture seals.

OK to answer your 2 points :-

1. My comment was made in response to yours regarding radial engines, in other words the RAF had experience of air-cooled radials already albeit mostly British ones (not all though - Wright engines did make their way over the Atlantic in the 30s and not just courtesy of Mr Lindbergh esquire).

2. There was a point made earlier that could be read to say that US Gals were half Imperial Gallons - but actually it was not 50% - actually nearer to 83%

 

[FLYBOYJ]

OK to answer your 2 points :-

1. My comment was made in response to yours regarding radial engines, in other words the RAF had experience of air-cooled radials already albeit mostly British ones (not all though - Wright engines did make their way over the Atlantic in the 30s and not just courtesy of Mr Lindbergh esquire).

Read the original post - there was never anything said about the British operating radials in general, it had to do with operating "US" equipment...

here's the exchange...

Flyboy,

I probably over-stated the impact of that particular point. I wasn't stating that the RAF couldn't and didn't operate US-built aircraft with success, merely that differences in measurement systems could have introduced additional logistic factors that are not present if all aircraft are from the same country of origin. The Battle of Britain was perhaps unique in that a nation's entire defence rested upon an individual Command within single Armed Service. Under these conditions, where aircraft availability and speed of turnaround were of paramount importance, any major difference between fighter aircraft could have impacted operational efficiency, particularly where different types had to operate side-by-side on an airfield. As the RAF expanded rapidly in the late 1930s, they were able to raise a new generation of groundcrew for fighters on the understanding that virtually all of them would support aircraft powered by Merlin engines (Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants). This drastically reduced training time and increased efficiency. This would not have been the case had the majority of Fighter Command been equipped with a radial-engined type.

Sorry for overstating but I think it still had an impact.

Cheers
Mark

And my response...

Mark - I understand your point, however comparing most of the fighters of the period, you'll find that most of them had very similar features with regards to line operations and maintenance. IMO if you had a maintainer with some experience working Spits, the transition to say a P-40 would not be too great. Even throw a radial into play and as long as you're not trying to rebuild engines at the squadron level, the process to remove, replace and rig a radial could be no more or less complicated than doing it on an inline engine, in fact with an inline you have another system (coolant) to worry about in the day to day maintenance. Now to introduce a "switch" in the middle of a major campaign can bring some problems, especially in troubleshooting systems problems.

2. There was a point made earlier that could be read to say that US Gals were half Imperial Gallons - but actually it was not 50% - actually nearer to 83%

OK point made. The issue here is there were reported maintenance errors based on the difference between the US and UK system.

 

[Cromwell]

There was a bit more to the Whirlwind story than the powerplant, a little procrastination from Westland and a lot of unreasonable requirements and behaviour from the Air Ministry.

We can only speculate at what was going on at Burbank with the Lightning I. The best rumour seems to be along the lines of Gen Arnold looking for a way to get the Lightning into serial production with a big order for the RAF, whom he 'let off the hook' further down the line if the RAF didn't want them. On paper at least, the RAF order accelerated the P-38 program by 5 months, the USAAF ordering 673 machines in August 1940.

The Hispano 20mm wasn't inherently unreliable, it simply hadn't been created with life in the wing of an aeroplane in mind, it was normally engine-mounted. The flexure of the wing during high-g combat manoeuvres frequently jammed the weapon.

I don't believe anyone is calling the Hurricane dismal, it is a reasonably informed debate over which would have proven the better machine during the Battle of Britain. It was still in production during the dates you specify but another way of looking at it is that it was relegated to ground-attack duties during those dates; its days as a front-line fighter were over at the close of the Battle.

1. OK - so what was the deal with the Whirlwind ? Was it just another unlucky might-have-been great WW2 plane and if so what was the problem(s) ? You read often that it was the Peregrine engine which was the main issue, do you disagree ?

2. I do know that the 20mm was originally a 'Motor' type cannon, but I also know that when it was first tried in Spits in combat during BoB the pilots were clamouring for their MGs back (I am fairly certain on that one).

I grant however that the jamming may have been due to wing flexing as well as belt feed problems. Either way, it was still jamming - as was the .50 cal as discussed earlier etc etc

3. The figures quoted on this thread for the Hurricane do not make great reading do they ? It could not even achieve parity against the 109E could it - if the Stats are to be believed, and I do not see any reason to doubt their veracity with certain limits of error.

As discussed several times this may have been due to deployment and lack of good (meaning experienced) pilots.

Again, either way, it did not seem to be holding its own against the main fighter opposition meaning the early marks of 109. Do you agree ? if not why not ?

Equally, I am not sure Wildcats would have performed any better if we had them on board at that time. But it is fun to speculate.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

3. The figures quoted on this thread for the Hurricane do not make great reading do they ? It could not even achieve parity against the 109E could it - if the Stats are to be believed, and I do not see any reason to doubt their veracity with certain limits of error.

I also think one must explore how many bombers the Hurricane brought down, to me that was its real mission during the BoB and if we hypothetically inserted the Wildcat into the Hurricane's mission during the BoB, that would have been its mission as well.

 

[Cromwell]

Read the original post - there was never anything said about the British operating radials in general, it had to do with operating "US" equipment... .

Well when I read the exchanges they seemed to suggest that the ground crew were schooled to work with a glycol cooled inline engines - the Merlin particular. This was not your suggestion by the way. See below for quote from Mark :-


" As the RAF expanded rapidly in the late 1930s, they were able to raise a new generation of groundcrew for fighters on the understanding that virtually all of them would support aircraft powered by Merlin engines (Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants). This drastically reduced training time and increased efficiency. This would not have been the case had the majority of Fighter Command been equipped with a radial-engined type. Sorry for overstating but I think it still had an impact. Cheers Mark "


Radials would have caused confusion, was the suggestion in part - I was merely pointing out that the RAF had air-cooled radials in service too, at that time. Quite a lot of them, including Fighter Command not just Bomber or Transport types.

I agree with you that US or not US was not really such a deal. In fact a lot of US equipment was already coming over the pond I do believe.

I know my Dad had a set of US Standard pre-war tools for many years - My mother gave them away when he died [shame but I don't think she knew their value really]

 

[Cromwell]

I also think one must explore how many bombers the Hurricane brought down, to me that was its real mission during the BoB and if we hypothetically inserted the Wildcat into the Hurricane's mission during the BoB, that would have been its mission as well.

OK, so Hurricane vs 109E is really something of a red-herring.

What we need is stats on Hurricane vs He 111 and Ju87 88, Dorniers. Bf110 etc. Anyone got thest stats ?

I suppose the question is then whether or not the Wildcat could have done any better in the same type of role right ?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well when I read the exchanges they seemed to suggest that the ground crew were schooled to work with a glycol cooled inline engines - the Merlin particular. This was not your suggestion by the way. See below for quote from Mark :-

" As the RAF expanded rapidly in the late 1930s, they were able to raise a new generation of groundcrew for fighters on the understanding that virtually all of them would support aircraft powered by Merlin engines (Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants). This drastically reduced training time and increased efficiency. This would not have been the case had the majority of Fighter Command been equipped with a radial-engined type. Sorry for overstating but I think it still had an impact. Cheers Mark "

Radials would have caused confusion, was the suggestion in part - I was merely pointing out that the RAF had air-cooled radials in service too, at that time. Quite a lot of them, including Fighter Command not just Bomber or Transport types.

I agree with you that US or not US was not really such a deal.

I know my Dad had a set of US Standard pre-war tools for many years - My mother GAVE them away when he died [shame]

Radials would have caused confusion, was the suggestion in part

Why would you say that?

Ok - going full circle here, the point is that ground crews, even with limited experience should not have had issues servicing and maintaining either a British built or US built aircraft at the squadron level, and the differences in tools and hardware sizes would not make a big difference either.