P-40 vs. Hurricane

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

Lightning Guy said:
Did the Hurricane see much service as an actual fighter in North Africa?
Click to expand...

It primarily did ground attack but low and middle level in fighter sweeps and escorting were also common. P-38s often flew high cover for attack, sweeps and escorting using the P-40 where it was most effective.

I don't have the numbers handy but the P-40s with a top cover, on several occasions, decimated the arial convoys accross the Med. to Tunisia. Stuka formations were wiped out on a couple of other occasions. The P-40 was quite effective through early/mid '43 and held its own through '44.

I need more info on the Hurricane before I decide.

wmaxt
 
well the whoping gread big sand filters helped the hurricane and she was always easy to maintain but any maintenance is hard in the desert.........
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Which aircraft operated better in the hot sandy desert environment?
Click to expand...

I'll look around for some info. I have not heard of any particular problems with the P-40s, the British planes got those filters but the price was a large horse power loss.

wmaxt
 
The sweeps that the P-40s flew against the Ju-52s were often joined by P-38s. For some reason, the US never developed any sort of sand filters.
 
Lightning Guy said:
The sweeps that the P-40s flew against the Ju-52s were often joined by P-38s. For some reason, the US never developed any sort of sand filters.
Click to expand...

Right on!

It was normal for P-38s to act as top cover in many of the missions of the P-40. Effective management of assets allowed the P-40 to live up to its potential. Top cover did get involved to.

wmaxt
 
The Hurricane.

Not because it was any better than the P-40, but because the P-40 should have outclassed the Hurricane, and didn't.

The Hurricane first flew in 1935, the P-40 in 1938.

The Hurricane entered squadron service at the start of 1937, the P-40 in mid 1940.

The Hurricane made it's first kill in October 1939, in the summer of 1940 it was the dominant fighter in the BoB, and had been the mainstay of the RAF for 2 years. By this time the P-40 was just getting into service.

The P-40 wasn't a bad plane. If it had come out at the same time as the Hurricane, it might have been a great plane. But it was much later than the Hurricane, without being better. Later even than the Spitfire, and it wasn't in the same league.
 
I wouldn't call the Hurricane the dominate fighter of the BoB. It was numerically the most important to the RAF. I think it is fair to say it won the battle. But both the 109 and the Spit were better fighters.
 
I agree and at the same I time I believe the Hurricane could not have done with out the Spitfire and the Spitfire surely could not have done it without the Hurricane in numbers.
 
Perhaps. But I think if the Spits were replace by an equal number of Hurricanes, the result of the Battle would have been the same. RAF losses might have been a bit higher. But I still don't think Germany could have won.
 
I agree, Germany would not have won the BoB but not because there aircraft were not capable. Rather because of stupid mistakes that they made anyhow like changing there targets.
 
It was the decision to stop bombing the RAF's airfields and start bombing the major cities instead, that ultimatly led to the LW's loss of the BoB.
Had the LW continued their strikes against the RAF's airfields, then fighter-command would have eventually given up the fight.

In actual fact, fighter-command was only 'one' week away from giving up the fight, when the decision to start bombing London was given by Goering. The funny thing is, that this change in tactics was as a retaliation to a British miss-drop over Germany, and it would lead to the Germans actually losing the BoB.

The Irony of war.
 
To a degree your right LG, as it would take a hell of alot to make the British actually "Give up", but eventually they would infact have "Given up", as decisions for this were already being discussed during the darkest period of the BoB.

Think about it, what would the RAF have done with no airfields ? The answer is simple, they would have given up, cause anything else would've been nonsense. (The British weren't led by a leader as fanatic as Hitler after-all)
 
The RAF would have either 1) flown from roads or grass strips (you can't bomb EVERY field in England) or the pilots and crews would have become infantry and awaited the beaches.

Churchill might not have been as fanatic as Hitler, but he was every bit as determined. Remember, Churchill coined the phrase "You can always take one with you." The Home Guard provides the perfect example of fighting to the end even if out-manned and out-gunned.

I also think, that had England actually been invaded the US would have stepped up it's activity in the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Snautzer01
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
6
Views
553
SaparotRob
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
4K
Bretoal2
B
Menu
Log in
Register