I once read the Spitfire compared to a "light and fiery horse" said:Which is all good until you're tired, wounded, or just got caught IFR with no experience under the hood. Everything comes as a compromise or at a cost.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I once read the Spitfire compared to a "light and fiery horse" said:Which is all good until you're tired, wounded, or just got caught IFR with no experience under the hood. Everything comes as a compromise or at a cost.
Vic
I believe the loss rates (P-38, P-51 etc) are for the ETO/MTO only. As stated , stats are stats. The P-39 flew many missions where the chance of meeting any opponents was slim (Coastal patrols in North Africa for example). Thus many sorties, few losses and victories. The P-51 and P-38 flew longer missions and thus had more chances to be attacked and to attack. Add to the fact that many of the missions were deep into enemy airspace and it makes sense that their loss rates were greater.
Just my two cents.
Eagledad
Wow.
Soviets, as well as other people that used both Hurricanes and Spitfires rated the Spitfire as a better fighter. Stalin complained that WAllies were giving them Hurricanes and P-40s in abundance, but not Spitfires and P-39s. The latest being probably the most preferred Western type the Soviets used.
RAF was very much using Hurricanes in 1942, despite considering them obslolete. Not using Hurricanes in 1942 means RAF is using Gladiators and Mohawks. Similar is with Soviets - no Hurricanes in 1942 means they still use I-16s and I-153s in fighter units. Usage of Hurricane in PVO means one thing - it was relegated to the duties of glorified AAA, to kill bombers without a danger of encountering German fighters.
Other countries also needed fast fighters - duh.
The best Spitfires (Mk IX) were used for PVO "glorified AAA' but it was an important mission, as they needed to ensure the safety of certain rear area targets from German intruders and long range bombers which had caused major damage in the early years of the war (for example blowing up the factory which was on the verge of producing the Yak-3 two years early)
S
Soviets were also supposedly using the P-47s for PVO. An excellent fighter, though, in 1944, nothing special for the altitudes the bulk of the VVS fought - sea level to 15000 ft. I have no doubt that PVO is/was important, relegating Hurricanes for that service was a way to put them out of harm's way, while still having the use for them.
I'd love to see how any Soviet factory is on the verge of producing the Yak-3 (= the real Yak-3, with thinner and smaller wing, improved cooler layout and the VK-105PF2 engine, not the I-30 with M-105) in early 1942, since the prototype of Yak-3 was from mid-1943.
I think you'll find that the Russians weren't that impressed with the Spitfire Vb TROP that they employed in the Kuban in 1943 and relegated all Spitfire L IXe's to the PVO. They didn't 'rate' it compared to their own fighters. I didn't make that comparison specifically to the Hurricane. Also, I specifically mentioned the Hurricane in the context of RAF Fighter Command, not the MTO or the CBI.Wow.
Soviets, as well as other people that used both Hurricanes and Spitfires rated the Spitfire as a better fighter. Stalin complained that WAllies were giving them Hurricanes and P-40s in abundance, but not Spitfires and P-39s. The latest being probably the most preferred Western type the Soviets used.
RAF was very much using Hurricanes in 1942, despite considering them obslolete. Not using Hurricanes in 1942 means RAF is using Gladiators and Mohawks. Similar is with Soviets - no Hurricanes in 1942 means they still use I-16s and I-153s in fighter units. Usage of Hurricane in PVO means one thing - it was relegated to the duties of glorified AAA, to kill bombers without a danger of encountering German fighters.
Other countries also needed fast fighters - duh.
I think you'll find that the Russians weren't that impressed with the Spitfire Vb TROP that they employed in the Kuban in 1943 and relegated all Spitfire L IXe's to the PVO. They didn't 'rate' it compared to their own fighters. I didn't make that comparison specifically to the Hurricane. Also, I specifically mentioned the Hurricane in the context of RAF Fighter Command, not the MTO or the CBI.
Never, the biggest flaw the Hurricane had was that Sydney Camm designed the Typhoon/Tempest series of fighters which were better. The Spitfire, well 'saucepans for Spitfires' was a catchy phrase so I guess that's why it got all the glory. Maybe the Air Ministry could have done a 'whores for Hurricanes' campaign and everything would have been different.Whatever it might be the case, it looks to me as you are trying to find and post tidbits where Spitfire didn't shine, in order to prove the agenda of how just great Hurricane was.
Never, the biggest flaw the Hurricane had was that Sydney Camm designed the Typhoon/Tempest series of fighters which were better. The Spitfire, well 'saucepans for Spitfires' was a catchy phrase so I guess that's why it got all the glory. Maybe the Air Ministry could have done a 'whores for Hurricanes' campaign and everything would have been different.
Schweik,
Attached is a spreadsheet made with data from Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes that has the loss rate for most fighter aircraft used by the US in the European Theater. Note that there is no data for the Mosquito.
Eagledad
Not at all aimed at you. I find your comments useful and interesting, and I have changed my opinion of the P-40 based pretty much only on your comments.I hope that "low level sniping" comment was not directed at me, I think the Spitfire was an excellent fighter, probably the best overall on the Allied side. I just do also recognize it wasn't ideal in every situation or at all times. Discovering a more nuanced and realistic historical reality behind wartime legends isn't the same thing as destroying a good reputation of a great plane out of vindictive pettiness or something. Cartoons are for kids. You should be able to appreciate something even if it does have a few flaws.
As for the Hurricane, I think it was formidable in 1940 but it was a 1930's design that peaked early in the war, and as far as I know the Russians actually did not appreciate it very much. I'd like to see evidence that they did as it would change my understanding of the history.
I think the issue for the Hurricane boiled down to speed, that airframe was just limited in how fast it could fly in level flight and how fast it could dive. As the typical combat speed steadily increased, the Hurricane hit a wall and was left behind. Before that point though it was a deadly fighter.
I think it's another major problem people have is that they seem to expect a given aircraft design to never run it's course. If a plane wasn't good enough to hold it's own in 1945 then it's junk. If that were true nearly all WW2 fighters were junk because Jets were taking over the fight.
The Spitfire, well 'saucepans for Spitfires' was a catchy phrase so I guess that's why it got all the glory