Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat

Cromwell · Mar 14, 2010

buffnut453 said:
You say that, but I know of a recent system acquired by the MOD which came with contractor logistics support. A particular component had to be removed because of an electrical issue. It was then found that the bolts holding said component onto the aircraft were one-use items and, you've guessed it, the bolts weren't included as part of the spares catalogue. You couldn't make this stuff up...!

One of my acquaintances is an ex-Navy flight maintenance rating and he says that the number of one-shot, don't re-use parts in planes drove him round the twist - especially with choppers and jump-jets where you dare not take chances.

Why ? Because every new part required a requisition order signed by his senior officer and then the stores master and in any case they often had to wait until they got back to port to get the bits anyhow.

You would be amazed how many Sea-Harriers spent an entire 3 month tour tied up in a hanger because one bolt holding on something minor could not be re-used.

Note. if the Falklands blows up again we are stuffed - no Sea-Harriers and no F35s yet. Just some tired old Sea Kings (probably the same ones as last time).

Cromwell · Mar 14, 2010

FLYBOYJ said:
Why would you say that? QUOTE]

Only because Mark / Buffnut 453 said .....

".. 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 "

That was it really - not anything you typed yourself Flyboy-compadre !

Actually its not that important - and I agree with you overall anyway.

FLYBOYJ · Mar 14, 2010

Cromwell said:
FLYBOYJ said:

Why would you say that? QUOTE]

Only because Mark / Buffnut said .....

".. 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 "

That was it really - not anything you typed yourself Flyboy-compadre !

Click to expand...

In reality at the squadron level, there is little difference except having to clear hydraulic lock on a radial that has been shut down for a while or not having to service a cooling system....

JoeB · Mar 14, 2010

Cromwell said:
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 ?

I don't think it is a red herring, because one role of escorts is to attrite the interceptor force* and a poor kill ratio indicates that's easier to do. OTOH I can see no reason to think, nor operational evidence F4F's were less capable downing bombers, unmolested by escorts, than Hurricans. The fighter v fighter issue is hard to nail down, that's why we should look far and wide for real combat results IMO to gain more perspective. But most basically comparable fighters had similar capaibility to shoot down bombers when completely left alone. On a fundamental basis of armament and radial v liquid cooled the F4F would seem the better bomber destroyer. And F4F's achieved similarly excellent results compared to other Allied fighters in Pacific in 1942 against bombers in part *because* they could contend with Zero escorts on an equal basis. Gun gams were not a major factor limiting F4F's.

*though one German mistake was not to realize that sooner. Aiming to protect bombers per se with close escort only is unsound strategy, unless the bombers can achieve their goal in very few missions (like say against a few irreplaceable ships). Otherwise the escorts can almost always accomplish more by acting offensively v the interceptors seking to destroy them and/or disrupt their operations. Everybody realized that eventually, but some escorts were less capable of it because of range restrictions, especially.

Joe

pinsog · Mar 14, 2010

A couple of things,

1. Could British mechanics have worked on the Wildcat? Do you guys realize about 6 threads have been dedicated to whether British mechanics could have put the right amount of oil in a radial engine. You gotta be kidding me. Come on guys. With the exception of radar, the was nothing technological about any plane of WW2. My friend at home with a 350 Chevy V8 swinging from his tree by a chain is more than qualifide to work on any WW2 aircraft. They were a motor, some steel or aluminum sticks with sheetmetal covering them. My 8 year old can pull a dipstick and fill it to the mark with oil, she could also put air in the tires.

2. Performance differences between the Hurricane and Wildcat F4F-3 were probably very slim, probably so close that a good Wildcat would outperforma poor Hurricane, and a good Hurricane would outperform a poor Wildcat.

3. I think the only worthwhile diffences in the 2 aircraft are, FIREPOWER and RANGE

FIREPOWER is the most important of the 2. I keep seeing "Weight of fire per second" thrown around alot when discussing aircraft weopons. I think that is a poor platform of comparison. For instance if you have a pissed off grizzly bear 20 yards from you and a 12 guage shotgun to defend yourself, do you wants a slug or #9 birdshot? You actually have more weight in the birdshot load than in the slug, but if the bullet cant penetrate to the vitals, it doesnt matter. I'll take the slug, thank you.

Same thing with the .303 versus the .50. The .303 didnt have the power to do damage to vital systems once it passed through the skin of the aircraft. What good does it do to hit an aircraft in the engine if the bullet wont damage or destroy the engine block. How many German bombers and fighters made it home because that pathetic .303 stopped in the seat if the pilot instead of passing through like a .50 would or it stopped when it hit the engine block instead or damaging or destroying the engine? Case in point, Saburu Sakai was struck in the head by a 3006 bullet fired from a Dauntless rear gunner, he lived and later shot down a couple more American planes. If that had been a .50, he would not have survived.

I also see people say"well they shot down German planes with 8 .303 so it must have been an adequate setup". Well the Sherman destroyed some Tiger and Panther tanks with the short 75mm but it was still dreadfully undergunned, so was the Hurricane and Spitfire.

RANGE would have given the British more flexibility in defence. I'm NOT talking about cross channel raids. I'm talking about taking the fight to the Germans on the British side of the channel and possibly out to the middle of the channel. I believe with a longer legged fighter, the British could have brought more aircraft into defend areas from farther away.

parsifal · Mar 15, 2010

JoeB said:
I don't think it is a red herring, because one role of escorts is to attrite the interceptor force* and a poor kill ratio indicates that's easier to do. OTOH I can see no reason to think, nor operational evidence F4F's were less capable downing bombers, unmolested by escorts, than Hurricans. The fighter v fighter issue is hard to nail down, that's why we should look far and wide for real combat results IMO to gain more perspective. But most basically comparable fighters had similar capaibility to shoot down bombers when completely left alone. On a fundamental basis of armament and radial v liquid cooled the F4F would seem the better bomber destroyer. And F4F's achieved similarly excellent results compared to other Allied fighters in Pacific in 1942 against bombers in part *because* they could contend with Zero escorts on an equal basis. Gun gams were not a major factor limiting F4F's.

*though one German mistake was not to realize that sooner. Aiming to protect bombers per se with close escort only is unsound strategy, unless the bombers can achieve their goal in very few missions (like say against a few irreplaceable ships). Otherwise the escorts can almost always accomplish more by acting offensively v the interceptors seking to destroy them and/or disrupt their operations. Everybody realized that eventually, but some escorts were less capable of it because of range restrictions, especially.

Joe

Joe I may be able to give some assistance regarding the effectiveness of the hurricane versus fighter in NW Europe, though my answer may have to wait a couple of weeks. I am moving house at the moment, and cannot get access to my library, however I have a book that gives daily returns of losses for both sides, by type and date in the Northwest theatre, from January 1941 through to September. The exchange rate given in this book is at times depressing, however overall, the hurricane did much better than the sample you are drawing upon. The exchange rates for the hurricane was much closer to 1:1 in this period than your figures suggest.

As I said, I cannot confirm until I get access to my reference material again. Should be able to do that in about two weeks or so

Colin1 · Mar 15, 2010

FLYBOYJ said:
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.

Exactly
Hurricanes did outnumber Spitfires roughly 2:1
but brought down more enemy aircraft than all other defences combined ie Spitfires, Defiants, Blenheims, anti-aircraft guns and barrage balloons. In my opinion, the F4F would have done an exemplary job of shooting down bombers whilst faring no worse than the Hurricane in a furball with the escorts.

Waynos · Mar 15, 2010

FBJ, I think you have been misreading Cromwells points about the radial, he has been agreeing with you all the way buddy

I think it was Buffnut who said that having all Merlins in fighter command was easier and it would have complicated things having radials too, Cromwell is saying 'no it wouldn't, they already had them anyway'. Hope that helps.

Pinsog made some great points, especially about competency of mechanics, except for one thing. Range was never an issue for the RAF during the BoB, the existing fighters could have been brought into the battle from anywhere in England if required. The fact that they were not was out of choice and a great source of frustration for the commanders of those other fighter groups.

From what I have read the 50 cal was jamming quite a lot in 1940. Given that the Spitfire pilots who had cannon armed Spitfires begged for their 303's back due to frequent jamming, why should we assume that the Wildcats point 50's would be any different? Jammed guns are no good at all and definitely inferior to a working 303.

In any case I think that argument is a bit of a red herring anyway regarding the Wildcat as the RAF's chose to go from the 303 straight to the 20mm cannon, so Wildcats orderd for the RAF would have been fitted with 303's anyway imo and therefore been no different to the Hurri in firepower.

Notwithstanding my earlier post regarding the point that they would not have been operational anyway.

Hop · Mar 15, 2010

RANGE would have given the British more flexibility in defence. I'm NOT talking about cross channel raids. I'm talking about taking the fight to the Germans on the British side of the channel and possibly out to the middle of the channel.

The RAF didn't want pilots fighting over the Channel because if they were shot down, they were much more likely to be lost.

Park's instructions to controllers, 19 August:

a) Despatch fighters to engage large enemy formations over land or within gliding distance of the coast. During the next two or three weeks, we cannot afford to lose pilots through forced landings in the sea.

b) Avoid sending fighters out over the sea to chase reconnaissance aircraft or small formations of enemy fighters

I believe with a longer legged fighter, the British could have brought more aircraft into defend areas from farther away.

There were a lot of squadrons just north of London that didn't get in to the battle as often as they'd like. It was nothing to do with range, it was because they couldn't be effectively controlled from the ground when in another Group's area.

I think there's some misunderstanding about range here. From the centre of London to the German fighter bases in the Pas de Calais is just under 100 miles. From 10 Group bases north of London to the south coast is around 50 - 70 miles.

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 ?

Bungay in Most Dangerous Enemy says the Hurricanes shot down around 1,000 German aircraft. Hurricane losses, according to Wood and Dempster, were just under 600.

I don't think fighter - fighter "scores" are particularly illuminating. German fighter pilots put great store by them. The RAF were generally under much tighter control from above and focused on getting a particular job done.

It's especially so in cases where the RAF fighters were ordered to attack bombers in preference to fighters, as they were in the BoB.

Waynos · Mar 15, 2010

Good stuff hop, reading your post I could hear the movie line "ignore the fighters, its the bloody bombers we want!"

Markus · Mar 15, 2010

Shortround6 said:
I guess it depends on what is meant by "deflection shooting"

A target flying at a full 90 degrees to the shooters flight (or bullet path) is going to be a most difficult target.

Bur even a target flying a path 20 degrees to the shooters flight path is going to require placing the aiming mark of an early gun sight ahead of the target aircraft and the greater the distance between the two planes the greater the lead that is going to be needed.

I find it a little hard to believe that everybody except the US NAVY taught ONLY dead astern 0 angle defection shooting. Now perhaps they didn't spend the hours per pilot that the USN did or only practiced at more shallow angles than the USN did but some element of deflection shooting must have been covered if only a few diagrams in training manual.

Lundstrom says the USN was the only one to be abe to use full deflection shooting(90°angle), the IJN pilots struggled with a 45° degree angle and smaller angle must have been possible with fighters like the P-40 and Me109 but the smaller the angle the bigger the chance of being hit by counterfire is.

Regarding the jamming of cal.50 machine guns; it happened ... very briefly. Before the war the magazines were never fully loaded, when they were for the first time the -now much heavier- ammo belt shifted and the guns jammed. The defect was identified and fixed in no time.

magnu · Mar 15, 2010

Hurricane or Wildcat it doesn't really matter. You will get bounced just as hard if you are flying in idiot rows (German term for standard Vic. formation)

renrich · Mar 15, 2010

IMO, the F4F3 would have done a somewhat better job in the BOB than the Hurricane for reasons sliced and diced ad infinitum earlier in the thread. However, Wildcats, although operational during that period, were not available for that job. Hurricanes were and the LW was unable to suppress the RAF.

Another fighter, operational during that period, though unavailable for action in Europe might have made an even bigger difference than the Wildcat. If the LW had been using A6Ms instead of BF109s the HE111s and DO17s would have had escorts all the way to the target and for much longer. The A6M was similarly armed to the 109 and although not as well protected, results in the Pacific seem to suggest the A6M would have at least held it's own against the RAF, like the 109 did.

Ironic that the two fighters that theoretically could have been available for the BOB were both designed from the start as shipboard fighters with radial engines. During the gestation period of the Wildcat and Zero, many AC designers in the world did not think a shipboard fighter could be designed that could compete with landbased fighters.

FLYBOYJ · Mar 15, 2010

pinsog said:
A couple of things,

1. Could British mechanics have worked on the Wildcat? Do you guys realize about 6 threads have been dedicated to whether British mechanics could have put the right amount of oil in a radial engine. You gotta be kidding me. Come on guys. With the exception of radar, the was nothing technological about any plane of WW2. My friend at home with a 350 Chevy V8 swinging from his tree by a chain is more than qualifide to work on any WW2 aircraft. They were a motor, some steel or aluminum sticks with sheetmetal covering them. My 8 year old can pull a dipstick and fill it to the mark with oil, she could also put air in the tires.
.

Your friend can be TRAINED to work on a WW2 engines - generaly any auto mechanic who thinks they could just work on a WW2 recip is in for a rude awakening.

Does your friend know how to time a magneto or pull a master rod on a radial? Does he know how to set up a pressure carb or rig a propeller?

And we just covered propulsion systems - throw in sheet metal, hydraulic and electrical systems, dope and fabric and woodworking and now you have the basics of a typical WW2 line mechainc.

FLYBOYJ · Mar 15, 2010

Waynos said:
FBJ, I think you have been misreading Cromwells points about the radial, he has been agreeing with you all the way buddy

I got ya now -

[

Colin1 · Mar 15, 2010

Cromwell said:
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.

1.
Failure to control requirements
Failure to give an early production order
Failure by the manufacturer to produce on time
Failure by the manufacturer to accept the need for improvements and quickly
Failure of the engine manufacturer to have a developed engine
Failure by the MAP to ensure mass production of the aircraft
Failure by the Air Staff to foresee the possibility of the design
Failure by Fighter Command chiefs to see the potential in the design , mainly because of 'single-engined fighter complex'.

2. May have been? It was. The Hispano suffered no show-stopper problems that I can trace whilst in operational service mounted on the engine. 19 Sqn (Spitfires) had half a dozen cannon-armed Spitfires during the Battle; these were returned in short order as they were plagued with jamming issues. By the time belt-feed cannons were being installed, the jamming issues had been resolved.

3. The Hurricane is regarded as being generally outclassed by the Bf109E, whilst more than a match in a turn, the Hurricane could not evade (or compete with) the Messerschmitt in the vertical; diving or climbing usually resulted in rapid loss of the initiative. However it should be noted that the Hurricane accounted for more enemy aircraft during the Battle than all other means combined whilst accounting for roughly 2/3 of Fighter Command's front-line fighter strength.

What do you mean by 'due to deployment' ?

The Basket · Mar 15, 2010

The Gloster fighters had radials and also the British had a 300mph prototype which had a radial....F.5/34.

So the radial issue is not an issue.

The P-36 could have certainly been flown in big numbers for the RAF during 1940...a far more realistic scenario.

pinsog · Mar 15, 2010

FLYBOYJ

You are correct, he could be trained. Any mechanic that could pull apart an automotive V8 and put it back together could also, with a very minimum of training, do the same with a diesel, inline, or radial. My slightly sarcastic point was that it wouldn't bring a halt to the war on the British side of the channel for an American fighter with a radial engine to show up at the airfield.

I always wondered why they didnt vector in aircraft from farther away such as London. Were they simply holding them in reserve? Training them? Or was there simply not enough time for them to intercept?

Colin1 · Mar 15, 2010

pinsog said:
I always wondered why they didn't vector in aircraft from farther away such as London. Were they simply holding them in reserve? Training them? Or was there simply not enough time for them to intercept?

What do you regard as being London? There was plenty of activity out of RAF Northolt and Biggin Hill

They did vector in aircraft from farther way, eventually. Bader's big wing operated out of 12 Group.

buffnut453 · Mar 15, 2010

pinsog said:
FLYBOYJ

You are correct, he could be trained. Any mechanic that could pull apart an automotive V8 and put it back together could also, with a very minimum of training, do the same with a diesel, inline, or radial. My slightly sarcastic point was that it wouldn't bring a halt to the war on the British side of the channel for an American fighter with a radial engine to show up at the airfield.

I always wondered why they didnt vector in aircraft from farther away such as London. Were they simply holding them in reserve? Training them? Or was there simply not enough time for them to intercept?

Dear All,

Can I please, PLEASE repeat my observation that I overstated the impact of operating types with dissimilar engines. I never said it would bring to a halt the British war effort, merely that it would create another layer of logistical complexity that was not present with both Spits and Hurris using the same engine. Now can we stop flogging this well-dead horse (it's starting to hurt!)?

Humbly.....

Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat

Wildcat or Hurricane

F4F3 Wildcat

Hawker Hurricane

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Senior Airman

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Staff Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads