…Sorry fellows, during the week, I usually don't have time to 'play'. I forgot to thank FLYBOY for his response, thanks. Good stuff on LeVier. He had his own special 'one-of' P-38, that he used during his tour, I saw a picture once or twice, extended greenhouse, for the guest pilots, and some 'stuff' on the wings...
Let's see what I missed, from my last post…
Jabberwocky:
A) "The Hurricane wasn't the supreme fighter system. It was merely what Britain had available, in quantity, to fight in its early battles during WW2."
My Reply >>>
'Interceptor Monoplane' trials in 1936 (in March of the same year, Supermarine Model 300, the Spit flew) showed that revisions to the canopy, landing gear, control layout were all that were needed in order for the Hurricane, as it was to be known, to be accepted, and produced. June '36 600 were ordered (only 310 Spits were ordered), the name 'Hurricane' was given. No.111 squadron was equipped by the end of '37, and No.3, No.56 by the end of '38 (Spits were 1st equipping No.19 squadron in mid 1938). The speed of delivery happened due to Hawker's confidence of their 'new' design; the Hawker Siddeley board issuing a directive, before any orders were secured, to 'tool up' to build 1,000 Hurricanes at Kingston, a NEW FACTORY at Langley (Supermarine doing no such thing, until the start of hostilities).
B) "In the Battle of Britain 18 Spitfire squadrons claimed some 1,167 kills, which was only 477 fewer enemy aircraft than was claimed by slightly more than double their number of Hurricane squadrons… This makes a Spitfire squadron around 40% more effective than the average Hurricane squadron, claiming an extra 18 aircraft per squadron."
My Reply >>>
According to the records at my disposal, and 'paraphrased' (I just love stats); 1715 Hurricanes served during the BoB, outnumbering the combined total of all other aircraft that served in the BoB. British aircraft production numbers by 7 August 1940 account that no fewer than 2,309 Hurricanes had been delivered; compared with 1,383 Spitfires, equipping 32 squadrons, compared with 18.5 Spitfire squadrons. The Hurricane was markedly inferior in terms of speed and climb. However, the Hurricane was a robust, maneuverable aircraft capable of sustaining fearsome combat damage before write-off; and unlike the Spitfire, it was a wholly operational, go-anywhere do-anything fighter by July 1940. It is estimated that Hurricane pilots were credited with four-fifths of all enemy aircraft destroyed in the period July-October 1940.Now something's gotta be out-of-wack with somebody's numbers…
The 1167 kills from Spits, added to the 1644 you say the Hurricane pilots deserve, we get 2811. Total Aircraft losses for the Battle of Britain, between July 10 and October 31 1940: Luftwaffe losses 1,887, of which 873 were fighters (RAF lost 1,023 fighter aircraft to all causes). Further, review the Brits daily reports (available at
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/index.html) you will find the daily strength of Spits averaged 225 to 260, and Hurricanes 350 to 410.This equates to a 35/64 split of Spits to Hurries, on average (worst case days being 1/3 Spit to Hurricane) does not account for the credit given the Hurricanes of 80% of all downed aircraft (1/4 Spit to Hurricane, best case, assuming AA fire accounted for 0 aircraft; Don't you love stats?).
C)" With the P-51, apart from range and high speed cruise there is little that it could do other fighters couldn't do considerably better. If you look at the performance categories where a fighter is judged against its opponents; speed, roll, climb, dive, zoom climb, firepower, turn, handling, control harmony it often comes up wanting. The Fw-190A serise, 190D serise, Spitfire XIV, Tempest V, P-47D, even the La-7 and Yak-3 even the venerable 109K, all matched or exceeded the P-51 in many performance categories."
My Reply >>>
According to the data I posted, most other American fighters offered equal or better performance in any category or set of categories listed, save one; Money. This allowed a government, not desperate for its own survival, to acquire, or produce enough of these things, quickly enough, and apply them in manners to prevent an enemy's effective response. If the enemy is not able to respond, well, then you are the best. The Fw-190 was not able to respond to the introduction of the 'Pony'.
D) Lastly Jabberwocky posted some Hurricane Squadron tables.
My Reply >>>
OK. And…
evangilder:
A) "Okay, I have to look at this from another angle. Let's take a look at the top USAAF aces by theater: PTO
Top five aces:
Richard Bong, P-38, 40 kills…
You have to get to 9 and 10, Hill and Older to get to any P-51s, and these guys also had kills in the P-40…"
My Reply >>>
We are not talking about where the '51 had at best, I agree adequate service. I think we are trying to establish the best fighter of the war, not a theater, for one 'approach' pun intended. As for another, I don't think there are any F-6Fs nor Ki-84 'Frank' on the ETO sheet, nor will you find 'Whirlwind', 'Tempest' nor FW-190 stats for the PTO. The '38 has more Japanese aircraft to its credit than European. The '47s did well, but offered little a '38, or F4U didn't, couldn't... Where are we going with this?
B) "…If the P-51 was "clearly" the best definitive fighter, how come the top American ace of any theater was not flying the P-51?? I like the P-51, but I would not consider it the best fighter of WWII. For long range escort, it was good, but as an air superiority fighter I would rank it fair."
My Reply >>>
In this argument, you use the mount of the pilot, saying that the '51 appears lower in the rankings than does the appearance of other types. Your point seems valid, except, well; the '51 was introduced later than the other types, when there were more pilots, on both sides, in Europe anyway, but many, many more Allied pilots. The Axis gained less so proportionately. So a '51 pilot, a new pilot at that (not to say that the Axis pilots weren't green), would have more competition, proportionately, than those flying other types, hence better survival rates, but less time to acquire their 'kills', if the pilot's only mount was the 'pony'. I may therefore argue that if any made the list at all, it serves as cement to my points. But that would be silly. Fact is, the '51 did clear the sky. Admittedly it wasn't the only reason. …But wow, what a difference the '51 made. I think what you and most others are doing is romancing the performance stats, as opposed to what happened in fact. Although battles in the air are usually visualized as a one-on-one dance they are not. Two F4Fs working as a team were no doubt more effective than two independently acting Zeros. Most (certainly not all) confrontations between the types resulted in stalemate, or victories to the Wildcat pilots, as evidenced by history. Teamwork the effects of the proper application of tactics to overcome performance shortfalls, or the opening of a factory purely on the belief that the 'product' will be sold are some of the 'human' factors not contained within the performance sheets (stats), and mostly forgotten, no matter the relevance, during the romance of their study.
plan_D:
A) "…Let's just say if only the Spitfire had been built from 1937 onwards there were 45 squadrons, the Spitfire was a more efficient killing machine and could make up the loss in squadron strength. Hell, who's to say the RAF wouldn't send over four Spitfire squadrons (instead of Hurricane squadrons) to France which would cause more damage? And the Luftwaffe would have been no bigger ...they were producing planes at a leisurely rate, as a opposed to the war rate of Great Britain."
My Reply >>>
Let's just say… Ok I'll play. The soul reason for the number of Hurricanes built, and their cadence of delivery being as rapid as it was, was due to, as mentioned above, Hawker's confidence of their 'new' design leading to the Hawker Siddeley board to issue an order to 'tool up' to build 1,000 at Kingston, build a NEW FACTORY at Langley, before any order for the new aircraft was placed. Supermarine had no such faith, as they missed the 'Interceptor Monoplane' trials, requiring the Brits to draft a specification specifically to justify the Spits existence, and purchase, other than it's remarkable, for the time, performance. Their construction delivery cadence was 'average' for the time. Anyway, point being, the Human factors involved would not allow your theoretical numbers of Spits to exist, as telling Hawker to switch from Hurricanes to Spits would have involved, I believe history confirms, a much bigger investment than just telling them to do so. So, following the switch, under the best of circumstances, keeping the time-line intact as to not add yet another factor, Hawker delivers would be at best, 90% of Supermarine's 1383, by August 1940. I use this date because the planes had to be made before the BoB in order to have served in the BoB. I discount Hawkers delivery of Spits against Supermarines delivery, instead of their production of Hurricanes, because I believe what I wrote above, and therefore I believe the Langley factory would not have opened when it did, and additionally Hawker would need to retool retrain workers. Enough of that tangent; In order for there to have been 1715 Hurricanes to take part in the BoB, the target number of our replacement Spits, Hawker had to build by August 1940, 2,309. The New Hawker will build 1245 Spits instead. Keeping the proportions intact (giving an edge to the Spit, as for 'NOW' only, I will concede a better attrition rate for the Spit) this will yield say 75% of the 1300 Spits built, leaving 975 Spits in service for the BoB (ruff numbers). Now you might say that this 740 (ruff numbers) less Spits than Hurries is a number that fits your theory. But let's take another look at those 'awful' specs. On any given day, those 1383 Spits yielded say 260 aircraft in service, or 20% (ruff number). The 1715 Hurricanes yielded lets say 375, or 22% (ruff number). So we are really replacing 375 easier to maintain, keep flying despite their inferior performance Hurricanes, on any given day, with 195 magnificently performing Spits. Now you're the British commander faced with intercepting German flights coming at you, except the 180 aircraft you had in the air, flying 24 Hr top cover, as most of your pilots aircraft are on the ground are being serviced from the last go-round could not get to altitude/destination in time, those 180 aircraft are simply not there. …But hey, at least the ones that remain, on the ground being serviced, the new ones being built in the surviving factories in this scenario, are all magnificently performing Spits… As for production rates, it wasn't until 1940 that British production surpassed that of Germany. 1939 end of year aircraft production totals for Germany (8295) were slightly higher than those of Britain (7940). So, at the time, a delay, as if the Brits could have delayed the BoB, to increase Spit numbers would not serve the Brits, on paper; the weather, and many other incalculable human factors would enter if this tangent were explored further.
B) "If we're being specific of theatre…."
My Reply >>>
We (I) are (am) not.
C) "I think we're all agreed that the P-51 was a remarkable machine and was probably the best escort fighter of the war from an economic point of view. It was above average and cheap. …."
My Reply >>>
…Hey plan_D, thanks for the gumball! No really at least it's a start.
D) "And I think you're being a bit excessive with the Panther versus Tiger production. The Panther was still complicated and the most accepted figure is 2:1, but I will give 3:1. Ten for one, never use, it's over the top."
My Reply >>>
I was 'carried away' by the moment. But you got the point?! … I think your figure is low, I'll look into it for a goof.
helmitsmit cheddar cheese:
My Reply >>>
I'm not going to quote you; I thank you for your contributions. May I add that the Hurricane was the interceptor of choice; Spits being dispatched when Hurricanes could not, or were unable to reach the objective first, or whenever the interception exploited the Spits performance advantages, as opposed to its short-comings, relative to the Hurricane? …Thanks.