If that was the case the war would have ended in 1945 with the worlds air forces still flying 1940's aircraft, as for what the Gladiator could do that a FW190 couldn't, it could do really slow speed turns keeping out of the FW's sights until the FW pilot got bored and flew off or ran out of fuel, hardly a winning formula.
FAA Seafire vs Corsair (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter aircro
- Start date
Well the RAF got blooded in Leigh Mallory's ''leaning on the enemy'' farce using MkV's, how do you think the Hurricane would go considering it didn't have the speed to fight or the speed to run away, maybe it could join the Gladiator pilots doing slow speed turns and hope for the best?.
GregP
Major
No, it isn't the case. You are being deliberately obtuse.
The Fw 190 ws a better fighter than the Hurricane, but not so much better that it could afford to take a Hurricane lightly.
The Average Fw 190A was a 400 mph fighter only at max power and it's best altitude. The Hurricane II was about a 340 mph fighter at maxpower and best altitude, but both cruised around about 280 mph most of the time. In a pinch, the Fw 190 could accelerate, but not instantaneously. The Fw 190A climbed about 3,000 ft per min and the Hurricane Mk. II climbed about 2,780 ft per min. So, the Fw was a better climber, but not by enough to matter unless the dogfight developed somewhat. The Hurricane was going to out-turn the Fw 190, but could hang on its tail long enough to get in a good burst or two. Likewise, the Fw 190 could hang onto a Hurricane long enough for a good shot or two. But, neither one was going to hang onto the tail of the other for all that long. The Fw 190 could easily out-roll the Hurricane, but was never going to turn with it.
In the end, the Fw 190 could get away or reset and re-attack. The Hurricane could stand and fight, but was not going to catch an Fw 190 that was going 360+ mph. Neither had fuel for the fight to last long periods of time. In the end, the Fw 190 was a better offensive fighter and the Hurricane was pretty good holding its own over home territory. As the Fw 190 got further developed, it got better. By the time the Fw 190D came along, it was far and away a better fighter aircraft. Faster, better at rolling, cimbed better and had better armament. But the same situation existed as before ... neither was going to be able to hang onto the tail of the other. With much better armament, the Fw 190 needed only a hit to disable a Hurricane and the Hurricane needed several long bursts to do the same. I'd give the advantage to the Fw 190 easily, but you still could not take a Hurricane lightly. Any airborne and armed enemy fighter had a chance to kill you, especially if YOU made a mistake. Even in 1945, a Fiat CR.42 flown by a veteran would have been a tough opponent for a relatively green pilot in a Spitfire. Now, veteran on veteran, the better plane would certainly show up in the advantages it had in the performance and/or armament envelope.
But, unless you are a real newbie, you know that.
The Fw 190 ws a better fighter than the Hurricane, but not so much better that it could afford to take a Hurricane lightly.
The Average Fw 190A was a 400 mph fighter only at max power and it's best altitude. The Hurricane II was about a 340 mph fighter at maxpower and best altitude, but both cruised around about 280 mph most of the time. In a pinch, the Fw 190 could accelerate, but not instantaneously. The Fw 190A climbed about 3,000 ft per min and the Hurricane Mk. II climbed about 2,780 ft per min. So, the Fw was a better climber, but not by enough to matter unless the dogfight developed somewhat. The Hurricane was going to out-turn the Fw 190, but could hang on its tail long enough to get in a good burst or two. Likewise, the Fw 190 could hang onto a Hurricane long enough for a good shot or two. But, neither one was going to hang onto the tail of the other for all that long. The Fw 190 could easily out-roll the Hurricane, but was never going to turn with it.
In the end, the Fw 190 could get away or reset and re-attack. The Hurricane could stand and fight, but was not going to catch an Fw 190 that was going 360+ mph. Neither had fuel for the fight to last long periods of time. In the end, the Fw 190 was a better offensive fighter and the Hurricane was pretty good holding its own over home territory. As the Fw 190 got further developed, it got better. By the time the Fw 190D came along, it was far and away a better fighter aircraft. Faster, better at rolling, cimbed better and had better armament. But the same situation existed as before ... neither was going to be able to hang onto the tail of the other. With much better armament, the Fw 190 needed only a hit to disable a Hurricane and the Hurricane needed several long bursts to do the same. I'd give the advantage to the Fw 190 easily, but you still could not take a Hurricane lightly. Any airborne and armed enemy fighter had a chance to kill you, especially if YOU made a mistake. Even in 1945, a Fiat CR.42 flown by a veteran would have been a tough opponent for a relatively green pilot in a Spitfire. Now, veteran on veteran, the better plane would certainly show up in the advantages it had in the performance and/or armament envelope.
But, unless you are a real newbie, you know that.
Last edited:
No I'm not, the effect the FW brought to the air war directly caused the development of the MkIX Spit, the adoption of the 61 series Merlin and later the 66 series which was designed to give it's best performance at the FW's best altitude, such was it's domination, furthermore, the FW could be blamed for the lack of Spitfire development and the rush production of the interim models to counter it. To put an argument forward that the Hurricane could fight it is far fetched, like the A6M all it could hope for was that the superior aircrafts pilot was not aware or complacent if it found itself in a favorable position or silly enough to get it into a low speed turning fight, needing those types of situations to win is not a winning formula..
GregP
Major
Apparently you haven't spoken to many WWII vets of the ETO, and are looking at things from a modern view of better means WAY better. It doesn't. Better means better on average, not a sure kill.
Was the Fw 190 better? You bet it was. I'd take the Fw190 if given a choice. Mostly, you could not choose to fly the other side's airplanes.
Was it WAY better? Yes ... but perhaps not by as much as you might think.
Sorry Pat, it is shades of gray, not black and white.
Like the medieval knights may have said ... some days, the dragon wins.
But, I have no stake in your opinion of the relative merits of WWII fighters. Assume whatever you want to assume. Most of us do.
Saburo Sakai flew combat in the A6M Zero until 18 Aug 45. If anyone had encountered him in a supposedly-better fighter, they may have been VERY surprised how good a fight he could generate in his supposedly-obsolete fighter. On his last mission, he shot at and damaged a couple of B-32 Dominators. I bet THEY didn't believe he was incapable of a good attack because he flew a Zero.
Was the Fw 190 better? You bet it was. I'd take the Fw190 if given a choice. Mostly, you could not choose to fly the other side's airplanes.
Was it WAY better? Yes ... but perhaps not by as much as you might think.
Sorry Pat, it is shades of gray, not black and white.
Like the medieval knights may have said ... some days, the dragon wins.
But, I have no stake in your opinion of the relative merits of WWII fighters. Assume whatever you want to assume. Most of us do.
Saburo Sakai flew combat in the A6M Zero until 18 Aug 45. If anyone had encountered him in a supposedly-better fighter, they may have been VERY surprised how good a fight he could generate in his supposedly-obsolete fighter. On his last mission, he shot at and damaged a couple of B-32 Dominators. I bet THEY didn't believe he was incapable of a good attack because he flew a Zero.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Or missing an eye.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
As Chuck Yeager said, "It's the man, not the machine."
What about the other 99% of pilots, how did they fare flying the Zero in 1945? F6F-3 Hellcat.
Lets put Yeager in a Hurricane and send him across the channel in 1942.
Hurricanes were used at Dieppe. There were more Hurricanes and Mustang Is than Typhoons. It isnt the fault of the Hurricane that the Typhoon was a dud.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
All General Yeager would need is a baseball bat.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,776
- Dec 6, 2006
One of those glib comments that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. Obviously the machine is extraordinarily important. The history of war is full of examples of superior equipment being decisive in battle. Inferiority in equipment can be compensated for to some extent by skill but the disparity cannot be very great. Very few pilots have ability to become experten. They are not the norm. To take the exploits of a few exceptional pilots and extrapolate them to the performance of the bulk of pilots is not correct. An average pilot in a Hurricane is more likely to lose to an average pilot in an FW 190 than vice versa.
As for a Hurricane MkII vs an FW190 I would point out the the Spitfire V had a great deal of trouble with the FW 190 the Hurricane could only be worse.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You also need to include tactics and operating as a cohesive unit rather than a lone individual. We always make comparisons within the one-on-one combat scenario but ignore the fact that many major aerial campaigns that involved fighter to fighter engagements were also decided when you had a well trained cohesive unit that developed tactics which exploited the opposition's weaknesses.
special ed
1st Lieutenant
- 7,086
- May 13, 2018
Chuck Yeager said, The first time I saw a jet, I shot it down."
drgondog
Major
No s/e fighter was developed from scrach as combined Air Superiority/LR Escort until the P-51H. Not even P-51B which was only modified to incorporate fuselage tanks before they became production articles for follow on P-51B/C/D/K models.
S/E Fighters designed before 1943 were all of the air superiority type - whether Interception or battlefied or tactical air cover. Offhand I can't remember a single prominant fighter with initial design actually incorprating external racks for fuel to extend range in that timeframe, but Maybe Fw 190 and F6F.
The F6F was more duarble than F4U in CAS due to the relative oil cooler placement. IIRC the US study pst VE Day showed half the losses per sortie for the CAS role.
buffnut453
Captain
I think the Zero comes closest to your definition. It had the external drop tank from the 65th airframe onwards. It certainly was capable of gaining air superiority at great range, as demonstrated in the Philippines in December 1941.
Glider
Major
or a P39
Glider
Major
In an individual combat, yes. However if in my airforce, the average pilot ability and aircraft capability is better than your average pilot and aircraft ability, I will win the war and you will lose.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
On the small scale you are correct.
However when you are dealing with hundreds of encounters (not actual shoot downs) per week for a couple of months you can identify trends.
It wasn't so much that the Spitfire shot down that many more planes than the Hurricane per 100 or 1000 missions. It was that our "average" pilot lasted a bit longer before becoming a causality. Likewise the Spitfire lasted a few more missions on average.
Now we have three possible explanations for this.
1. The Spitfire was smaller and harder for the Germans to see so they attacked more Hurricanes.
2. The Hurricanes, even in a sampling of hundreds of engagements, were just unluckier than the Spitfires.
3. Something about the Spitfire (speed or climb or ????) allowed the Spitfire pilots to escape more often than Hurricane pilots in the same situations.
There are a lot of offshoots from #3. Like the Spitfires, if they see the enemy first (in relation to the Hurricanes) need less time to get into position to attack. Less time to get into position means less time for the Germans to spot them and take evasive action. Luck or the plane is actually better at it's job?
The data shows that the Spitfire was a more effective plane than the Hurricane in combat when you adjust for the number of planes in service or number of sorties flown.
