March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

pbehn said:
Since the Hurricane shot down more than the Spitfire in the BoB maybe they were a little misguided in their belief.
Click to expand...
How many Hurricanes and Spitfires saw action from March-October 1940?
And due to radar the RAF could always field the necessary forces to concentrate and oppose a Luftwaffe raid - knowing as to where the Luftwaffe was coming from at what height
they came in and as to how-strong they were gave the Hurricane the possibility to gain an advantage already before engaging it's targets.

In the first stage of the BoB - "Battle for the Canal" and the previous engagements in France, the Hurricanes were no match for the Bf109, even the Bf110 had a better kill ratio.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
So, Hurricanes will not have shot down any Bf 109s or Bf110s in France then? What you describe is the actual situation faced, if a Hurricane had height and position advantage any LW pilot had reason to fear it, also to accept that they were shot down by Hurricanes, not Spitfires as they frequently claimed.
 
pbehn said:
So, Hurricanes will not have shot down any Bf 109s or Bf110s in France then?
Click to expand...
Where did I say or indicate that?
pbehn said:
.....also to accept that they were shot down by Hurricanes, not Spitfires as they frequently claimed.
Click to expand...
Any sources/examples to support that assumption?

My uncle had claimed 2-3 French aircraft's destroyed on the ground, 1 Hurricane in france and 1 Spitfire during the first stage of the BoB - piloting a Bf-109
So now he should have claimed that the Bf-109 was superior to a Spitfire? come on.
Taking away the advantage of surprise and advantage - but simply comparing both Hurricane and a Bf109 in a dog-fight flown by both equally experienced pilots
I don't see a Hurricane emerging as the winner, and this was confirmed in the battle for France and in the first stage of the BoB. Just look at the loss stats of the Luftwaffe
and the RAF during that period, and the Luftwaffe did not have radar to guide them onto e.g. Hurricanes - more or less guaranteeing an advantage before combat.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:
You said the Hurricane was "no match", if it was "no match" then it would have no chance of scoring a victory. There are many examples, mentioned in several books and documentaries, specifically Bungay's "The Most Dangerous Enemy". German fighter pilots shot down by the RAF usually claimed it was a Spitfire that did it. As I understand the statistics, German bomber strength was at its height before the invasion of Belgium and France and never numerically recovered from its losses in that campaign and the following Battle of Britain, the Hurricane caused most of those losses.
 
Yes it was no match for a Bf109, which does not implicate in any way that it did not manage to shoot down a Bf109. A Bf109 was no match for a Mustang, but still managed to shot it down. This claim that Luftwaffe pilots claimed to have been shot down by a Spit instead of a Hurricane is what it is, a claim - nothing else. Even if some Luftwaffe pilots did - so?

Due to numbers fielded, off-course the Hurricane shot down more Luftwaffe bombers then the Spitfire, and additionally since the Spits were foremost engaging the Bf109's and
Bf110's whilst the Hurricanes were mostly free to hunt the bombers.

You don't seem to value the vital importance and impact of radar, especially during the 2nd stage of the BoB. It had the tremendous advantage of knowing exactly as to where, what height, direction and strength the Luftwaffe could be found and as such intercepted by directed and assembled RAF forces with an advantage in height and angle. A Bf109
escort spotting an RAF unit flying 2000ft above and at an advantageous angle would force the Bf109 to leave it's course and altitude to intercept the RAF force (or should they just
have continued flying on)?- off course they diverted their course and as such leaving the bombers at the mercy of the following up RAF squadrons.

Without radar the British would have needed to constantly keep masses of it's forces in the air on patrol - a huge negative impact in regards to fuel demand, attrition of aircraft's
and totally wearing out of the RAF pilots. By the time the RAF would have realized that they were concentrating on a far smaller force then one operating in vaster numbers 100mls away
the Luftwaffe would have turned whatever target (especially airfields and it's aircraft's) into rubble. Most likely the Luftwaffe would have enjoyed a numerical superiority in every
encounter.
Due to Radar, whilst the Luftwaffe pilots had already been flying at average for 2 hour to form formations and reaching over England and being under constant psychological pressure of
being attacked, the RAF fighters and it's pilots were fresh on the job (15-20 minutes) to assemble at the destined point of interception.

Even an RAF entirely equipped with Buffalo fighters could have dished out the same losses for the Luftwaffe Bombers and most likely in the same ratio towards the Bf109.
(see the Buffalo's striking performance with the Finnish air force)

The entire BoB from the 2nd stage onward (July) had nothing much to do with dog-fighting at all - but getting the RAF flights into a favorable/advantageous position.
But in France and the 1st stage of the BoB, radar wasn't much or not at all of help. And this is were the Hurricane suffered far higher losses then the Spitfire.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
The Hurricanes job was to shoot down bombers, the Bf 109 was supposed to stop them, that is what the battle was all about, the Bf 109 was all around a better aircraft in performance terms but that doesnt mean the Hurricane was "no match". The difference between them meant that actual situation and pilot skill frequently made the difference. One of the main advantages of the Bf 109, being unaffected by sudden negative G when going into a dive meant that it was leaving the bombers it was supposed to protect. You cannot wish away RADAR, the LW were fighting an integrated defence system of which the Hurricane and its pilots were part.
 
Greg Boeser said:
Considering that, until the evacuations at Dunkirk, no Spitfire squadrons had been committed to the Battle of France, it is not surprising that they suffered few losses.
Click to expand...
Correct, but Dunkirk (Operation Dynamo, occurred between May 26th and June 3rd) wasn't the end of the Battle of France (May 10–June 25) and neither the end of the stage 1 of the BoB.
The logic of less Spitfires losing less aircraft applies in the same way as more kills by Hurricanes then by Spitfires.

Independently one can check for himself as to how many Hurricanes compared to Bf-109 and Bf110 were lost - during the France and Holland/Belgium campaign.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
I think there were quite a few Hurricane aces in the BoB, look at the Polish squadron for example, and while radar and the overall coordinated defense system certainly helped a great deal, they were not always able to vector the aircraft in time so as to have an advantage. The early Bf 109E had an advantage in performance over the Hurricane but not a huge advantage. A good pilot could and did overcome that.

I think this changed by the time you had the later model E and especially the F. That is when the Hurricane kind of fell behind.
 

30-40 mph advantage for Bf 109E-3 vs. Hurricane I per British test. Or, greater advantage than what Fw 190 had over Spitfire V, or Hellcat over Zero. The earliest 109E, the E-1, might be a bit faster than the E-3 due to lover drag.
Performance discrepancy warranted installation of Merlin XX on the Hurricane to cure the problem,
test report
 

There was a discrepancy, and certainly a significant performance advantage for the 109, how much depended on altitude and some other factors, but early A6Ms and Ki-43s had a similar speed disadvantage vs many Allied types (including Spitfires) and still routinely shot them down. There are many other examples as well.

Edit: that test indicates that if the Hurricane and Bf 109 were at the same energy levels, in a merge or otherwise, the Hurricane had an advantage. Of course, with better speed, climb and altitude performance the 109 would often have an energy advantage, but not always, especially since they had to escort bombers that didn't fly so high, right?
 
I presume you mean 303 squadron there was actually 4 squadrons with a Polish core according to wiki with two officially named "Polish", 302 (City of Poznan) squadron were part of the Duxford wing, formed in July 1940. The highest scoring ace in 303 squadron was actually a Czechoslovak Josef František, who did his own thing as a guest in a spare aircraft, ambushing LW planes in the "old way".
 

Yes, and I also don't mean to imply that there weren't many other (British and Commonwealth) 'fighter vs fighter' Hurricane aces either as there certainly were, that was just the first unit which came to mind.
 
Last edited:

A6Ms and Ki-43s were more than able to climb with Spitfires, and will out-climb anything else in 1942. By second half of 1942, Zero will be as fast, or faster than a tropicalized Spitfire V. Hurricane will not out-climb a Bf 109, especially above 10000 ft.
Against most of Allied fighters, Ki-43s and especially Zeroes have had at least parity in speed.

We also have the tactical situation - Zeros escorting the bombers against Darwin making the landfall will present the defenders with a task of climbing to the 17000-18000 ft, all while hoping the escorts don't dive on them. A situation advantage is a thing even in 21st century.
 

My point is that top speed alone isn't always the key deciding factor. Ki-43 didn't actually climb super well, and were fairly slow, Ki-43-I made barely more than 300 mph. Slower than A-36, P-51A, P-40, P-39, Spit V, Spit VIII, and depending on which exact model, probably slower than the Hurricane II or F4F. But they still shot them down, right?
 

PZL P.11s shot down Bf 109Es. Yaks and Spitfire Vs shot down the Fw 190s. So indeed top speed is not everything, but is was recognized as an important asset, and a lot of resources (both material and manpower) were spent to make fighters go faster. Plus, shooting down 3 enemies while loosing just one of own fighters was and still is a far better thing than trading 2:1, let alone 1:1. Pilot's lives and pilot pool was a thing, too.

That Japanese Army & industry was slow in introducing actually fast fighters was a bug, not a feature. So was their attitude towards the pilots.
 
I don't totally disagree but I think there are a lot of examples where it wasn't so sharp of a distinction. La 5FN were not as fast as FW 190 or Bf 109 but at low altitude where they were fighting they seem to have done pretty well against them. i guess depending on whose stats you believe of course.

The Japanese military's attitude toward their pilots (when they got shot down, or even just had engine trouble) was definitely nuts, no argument there. Comparable to the resources wasted by the Germans on exterminating civilians instead of building up their military.

The lack of ability by the Japanese to produce powerful, reliable engines more quickly, the reluctance to adopt armor and self sealing fuel tanks (which was related), and I'd say also fairly slow dissemination of good radios, proved to be a problem over time.

But the lethal efficiency of the Ki-43 and the A6M were not flukes and were not overcome so quickly. In 1942 or 43, these were (IMO) still two of the most effective and dangerous fighter aircraft in the world.

I think in 1940 the Hurricane was still quite a good, effective and lethal fighter too, especially in the hands of a good pilot. Hurricane II came out toward the end of BoB right? Those could hold their own with most E marks i think. But once the F arrived it was all over for the Hurri.
 
Jagdflieger said:
In the first stage of the BoB - "Battle for the Canal" and the previous engagements in France, the Hurricanes were no match for the Bf109, even the Bf110 had a better kill ratio.
Click to expand...
The Hurricane of the summer of 1940 is very much improved from the Hurricane of 1939. Here is a list of some improvements.

Fabric covered outer wings to metal stressed skin covered wings
Rear pilot armour and self sealing fuel tanks added
kidney exhausts to ejector exhausts
external to internal windshield armour
straight mast to tapered radio mast,
gun heating and better lubrication to prevent freezing of guns at higher altitudes
gun harmonization reduced from 800 to 250 yds
Dixon dewilde ammo introduced
Miss Shilling's orifice introduced
two blade fixed pitch prop replaced by three blade constant speed prop
100 octane fuel
A Hurricane I with a rotol constant speed prop and 100 oct fuel, could hold 325 mph from 10,000 to 17,500 ft, climb rate was also improved
Dive speed was vastly improved, the first rotol equipped Hurricane did 460 mph IAS in a dive from 21,000 ft

Add to this , improved tactics, combat experience, radar directed intercept and fighting over your home turf, makes the BoB a whole new ball game.

Slaterat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Holtzauge
S
Small wings/high wing loading of German fighters
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
7K
Shortround6
S
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
7K
GrauGeist
Best piston engine(s) for fighters of 1945?
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
12K
spicmart
S
E
Daily List of LW Bombing Targets, MAY 1940
Replies
1
Views
573
Nick Beale
Menu
Log in
Register