No Spitfire?

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


Completely agree with the crap props, but not so about the flaps. In single-seat fighters of the day there was not much other option than hinging a flat plate under the wing. No other front-line single-seat fighter had any different. But those big wooden clubs on the front of Spitfires and Hurricanes into early 1940???

As for the Hurricane's speed, like wot's been said lotsa times, you go to war with what you've got and the Hurricane, thanks to pre-war orders was the most numerous fighter in RAF service. Its lack of speed compared to the Bf 109 was known about at the time. Did any Hurricane pilot ever feel that it was a disadvantage to their ability to tackle the enemy on equal terms? I've certainly not read anything suggesting it.

Let's not forget while we are debating that the Hurricane was 'inferior' because it was slower than the Bf 109, that the RAF was trying to stop bombers, not fighters. According to statistics, Bf 109s shot down more Hurricanes and Spitfires than Hurricanes and Spitfires shot down Bf 109s, yet Fighter Command shot down more Luftwaffe aircraft than the Luftwaffe shot down Fighter Command aircraft. That's what mattered.

It's interesting to note that it is a Hurricane squadron that recorded the RAF's highest kill-to-loss ratio during the Battle of Britain, 303 Sqn at 14 to 1.
 
PAT303 said:
Same with the A6M, it could out turn everything at slow speed, but how it did fair when bigger faster armored fighters came online that could dictate the fight?, it was slaughtered.
Click to expand...
Except, this statement is completely wrong.
The IJN was suffering from pilot attrition and a broken supply chain.
Newer types weren't getting to the front fast enough and they weren't able to put well trained pilots in the cockpit of the A6M.
However, even by late 1944, the experienced IJN pilots were still killing Allied pilots with their A6Ms - Nichizawa was downing Hellcats with ease.
 
A wee addition to the debate at hand; despite the Jagdgeschwader achieving a 1.2 to 1 kill ratio over Fighter Command in 1940, the superiority of the Bf 109 made not a jot of difference to the Germans achieving their aims over Britain. Here's why. By the end of October 1940 Fighter Command had more operational fighters than it did in June 1940. That meant that during the period of the fiercest attacks against Britain when the Jagdgeschwader got the most of its kills, the aircraft industry actually increased fighter production, which was precisely what the Germans were trying not to allow to happen.

Putting it simply; to win, all the British needed to do was build more single-engined fighters than the Germans were shooting down, which is what happened (quality pilot shortage was a different issue, but one that both sides faced). The Germans, however not only had to build more single-engined fighters than they were losing, they also had to build more twin-engined fighters, more single-engined dive bombers, more of three different types of twin-engined bombers etc, etc, as well as shooting down more British fighters than they actually were able to achieve. The British won the attrition battle.

The RAF achieved a 1.8 to 1 kill ratio over the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940. Theo Ostercamp stated gloomily that the Jagdgeschwader had to achieve a 5 to 1 kill ratio. They never reached it. The closest they got was one day's results in August where they got a 4 to 1 kill ratio.

I remember reading a quote by RAF pilot 'Sandy' Sanders when he was told about the Bf 109's superiority in altitude compared to the British fighters; "well, they have to come down here and get us..."
 
Last edited:

I have that book, you have left out the part where the Eagle pilots took the Harriers for granted, the old rule, never underestimate your opponent. The Harrier pilots made the Eagle drivers fight to their advantage not vis versa, if the Eagle pilots entered British airspace at 40,000ft plus feet the Harrier pilots could do nothing about it, also remember the advantage of missiles, the Harriers didn't have to catch the Eagles, there's a big difference between getting a missile lock from 10 miles away and getting within 200 meters for a gun shot.
 

I have plenty of books written by ex pilots thanks, I don't think any of them ever mentioning picking Defiants Hurricanes or Gladiators as their preferred airplane.
 
pbehn said:
Regardless of engine, Mustang MkIs had no problem operating over Europe from first introduction to the end of the war, the only question was the altitude they worked at.
Click to expand...

The Mustang only became the darling of the fighter world when fitted with the 60 series Merlin, it would be worthless as a Spit replacement fitted with the Allison because of the altitude limitations. You can argue all you want, for the first few years of the war the Spit and 109 were equal first, everything else was second.
 
The Basket said:
Hurricane obsolete in 1940?

Can you give a run down on that?

I would like to see that.

Gloster Gladiator...ok but if it can catch and shoot down a modern bomber then It's plenty modern.
Click to expand...

Can the Hurri engaged and disengaged during a one on one fight with a Spit or 109?, can it dictate the fight?, can it turn the fight if it's at a disadvantage?, does it have enough performance to break away if it needs to too fight another day?, the answer is no to all those questions. The Spit 109 190 P51 all had growth potential in their design, the Hurri Defiant Gladiator didn't.
 

Yep, don't fight to the enemy's strength, why would a 400mph plus Spit P47 P51 pilot slow to 160mph and get into a turning fight with a Zero?
 

And there you have your answer as to why the Hurri Defiant etc where obsolete, thanks SR6
 
By an overwhelming majority of pilot accounts the Hurricane was a perfectly fine fighter to take on the Luftwaffe in 1940. It's rare to find a pilot that was glad to have it over the Spitfire -- but that opinion does exist.

The big caveat in this is the timeframe: 1940. Once you start reading accounts from pilots trying to take on 109Fs in 1941 and 1942 -- their opinion of the Hurricane is a lot less rosy, to put it mildly.
 
It wouldn't and couldn't replace the spitfire but that doesn't mean the uk wouldn't have taken many more.
 
The Basket said:
Why is the Hurricane fighting a 1v1 dogfight with a 109?
Click to expand...

Because there isn't any Spitfires so during the BoB you are left with the Hurri holding off the 109's while the Defiant without a turret/P.94 whatever or Gladiators struggle to intercept the bombers.
 

As for the experienced IJN pilots, didn't Saburi Sakai describe the A6M as taking an acrobatic plane to war?.
 
The problem with some forums is they can see this as top trumps or video games.

He 113 in the library with a candle stick.

Not war.

If a bomber missed the target because a Hurricane was having a chew on it then that's a mission win. If a Me 109 had to ditch or crash land due to fuel starvation then that's a mission kill.

Even if a German aircraft crashed on take off well that's still a win.

It all adds up.

I remember listening to some naval guy talking about using light cruisers or armed merchant cruisers against German raiders like Graf Spee or Scharnhorst. Absolute nonsense! But is it?

1) The position of the raider will be known.
2) It will take time to destroy the cruiser.
3) Maybe get a cheap shot in. Even Bismarck can be mission killed by one torp.
4) Even if raider sinks the cruiser, it will have used up it's ammo and now has to get out of Dodge before the sheriff arrives. So the cruiser would have performed a mission kill. Even if it's a burning sinking wreck.

If your enemy fails in its mission then that's a win. Regardless of how that win was achieved. So let's look at the strategic big picture rather than the micro.
 
The Basket said:
No Comprendo.

Why are Gladiators attacking anything?

Surely no Spitfire means double the Hurricane.

You can win many a poker hand with a pair of 3s. Don't need royal flus
Click to expand...

And you go into 1941-42 with Hurricanes as your front line fighter?, leaning on France against 109F's and FW190's, the Med, Africa with Hurri's?, talk about needing a reality check if you think you are going to achieve anything other than making more Luftwaffe aces with 100+ kills to their name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

No Ju-88
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Spitfire and the Merlin 100 Series
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Howard Gibson
FG 42, but designed around a non-German cartridge from day 1
2
Replies
20
Views
966
tomo pauk
A
Were any British non-RR ww2-era aeroengines considered for land use?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
3K
MiTasol
The 'no-nonsense' twin-engined fighters for 1938-1943
2 3
Replies
42
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register