Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats. (5 Viewers)

[pbehn]

Cost price, easier to learn how to fly, and of course land, availability as opposed to Supermarine still struggling to manufacture a complex aircraft. The plane needed to be made simpler to produce, plus the mods to make it combat worthy. I think you'll find that when Beaverbrook took over the Castle Bromwich factory he sorted it out. The IIa/b was meant to do about 385/387 mph, it did 30 mph less. The Ia started off at 365/7 mph and ended up 10 mph less. It wasn't until 1942 that Spitfire exceeded Hurricane production. To give you a clue of the difference in performance between a Hurricane and Spitfire, take the Sea Hurricane IIc (Merlin XX) of 1942 which did 342 mph and the Seafire IIc (Merlin 46) of 1942 which did 342 mph when both equipped with four 20 mm cannon. The difference between them was that the Sea Hurricane didn't have catapult spools, so what's that, 7 to 12 mph loss in speed depending on height? You'll probably find that the Hurricane I had a better roll rate and turning circle to the Spitfire I, although dive speed with fabric covered wings, about 100 mph less, reducing to 60 mph with metal wings. From what I've read about the BoB, combat resulted in a lot of Spitfires with bent wings so clearly a problem there. Also the twin banks of Brownings were more effective than the spread out layout of the Spitfire Ia/IIa/Va guns which had a shotgun effect.To me, it makes sense for the Air Ministry to put the Merlin XX into the Hurricane II when it did until all the Spitfire's deficiencies were sorted out. So the Hurricane II is 10 mph slower, big deal.

I already stated that the chief advantage of the Hurricane was its ease of production, the Spitfire was always faster with the same engine than the Hurricane which started with doped canvas wings and ended with metal skinned. The XX was put first into the Hurricane to keep the Hurricane in the game. What were the Spitfires "deficiencies".

 

[Schweik]

Apparently the source for most of the data on that website I linked is "Victory Roll! The American Fighter Pilot and Aircraft in WWII by William Wolf "

 

[michael rauls]

To me the Hurricane and Spitfire were the perfect combination the Brits needed for the BOB. The Spitfire with its outstanding performance and the Hurricane with it's ease of manufacture and maintenance(two of those qualities that make a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats) that allowed the needed numbers of aircraft to be available.
My personal feeling is that they still probably would have won the BOB with only one of the two types, whichever that might have been but it would have been by a much thinner margin.

 

[Schweik]

I think you can't underestimate the prestige factor of the Spitfire. Given the nature of the German regime, and their propaganda - and a war of propaganda which the British were very much engaged in, being able to credibly claim to have a superior aircraft, even one whose potential was not yet fully realized, was of immense value. It supported pride and hope among the British military and civilians, among Commonwealth and foreign allies, and also among the ranks of at least some of the enemy. Certainly reading German and Italian pilot interviews their regard for the Spitfire was very high in most cases, maybe even higher than merited. The Spitfire inspired fear.

I understand the frustration of some of the guys who love the Hurricane as it seems clear, the divergence in performance and capability between the two types was not nearly as stark in the BoB in 1940 as it would later rapidly become and the Hurricane did play a major and not fully acknowledged role in that most important of all battles for England. The Spit was early in it's design and production cycle - which meant great promise for the future but also things to be ironed out both in terms of production and design. The Hurricane was toward the end of it's cycle - that meant great pilot and ground crew familiarity, probably better developed tactics etc. Even as somebody who is familiar with the history of the war I was surprised to see how many high scoring Hurricane aces there were. Maybe part of the issue is that the RAF did not seem to indulge in the tradition of putting a long row of victory markers on the side of the cockpit, which can serve as a visual a reminder how formidable that fighter still was at that crucial moment.

But the Spitfire represented kind of aspirational hope of victory. It wasn't almost as good, it was at least as good as the best fighters in the world, and you could make an argument that it was better. That it looked great also helped- just like with some other fighters, it's part of the mystique.

 

[pbehn]

When the Hurricane first appeared it got all the adulation of the British public, then the Spitfire appeared and, well, you don't have to like aeroplanes to like its lines, it was not only faster it was pretty too.

 

[GregP]

Reference post #100, Schweik.

You say the claims should be ... and then numbers. What are you basing your "should be" numbers on, precisely? The lists and tables I have seen ALL disagree with one another, and I don't know anyone with a 100% reliable OCR file of USAAF Report 85. I took a stab at it, and Bill Marshall (Drgondog) says my numbers are off by several, but I can't find where. Bill has a very good file for the 8th AF and is working on claims for other theaters (MTO at present, I think), but I have not seen any published numbers as yet.

So, I was wondering about your "should be" numbers. I am not sniping at you, I am curious. I have extensive files in Excel for most worldwide claims, approved victories for U.S.A., losses, accidents, etc. The thing is ... none of the files agree with one another to the last number.

And then we have the revisionists who knocked Boyington's total down so Joe Foss could be elevated. But ... they didn't look at ANYONE ELSE. I reject that out of hand. Yes Boyington had some 22 in US military service, but his AVG planes were built here, were funded and supplied by the USA and should count the same. So, I still have him at 28 (22 + 6), especially since ground claims were later approved and routinely used in totals.

It might be good to discuss this in a separate thread.

Cheers.

 

[windswords]

I don't know if this has been convered here already, but pilot comfort can be important. Especially if you are in the air for long range escort or penetration missions. The last P-47 model, the N had auto pilot, folding rudder pedals and arm rests. The cockpit was already very roomy going back to the C model. The USAAF's last "ace in a day", Oscar Perdromo (sp?) who shot down 4 Ki-84 fighters and a bibplane trainer had been in the air 8 hours and 20 minutes when he landed. That much time in the air in tighter confines would get you a trip to the chiropractor. Not to mention the affect on your ability to perform in combat. I read that Spitfire recon pilots who flew 4.5 hour (or more) missions had to be pulled out of there cockpits by ground crew.

 

[Schweik]

Reference post #100, Schweik.

You say the claims should be ... and then numbers. What are you basing your "should be" numbers on, precisely? The lists and tables I have seen ALL disagree with one another, and I don't know anyone with a 100% reliable OCR file of USAAF Report 85. I took a stab at it, and Bill Marshall (Drgondog) says my numbers are off by several, but I can't find where. Bill has a very good file for the 8th AF and is working on claims for other theaters (MTO at present, I think), but I have not seen any published numbers as yet.

So, I was wondering about your "should be" numbers. I am not sniping at you, I am curious. I have extensive files in Excel for most worldwide claims, approved victories for U.S.A., losses, accidents, etc. The thing is ... none of the files agree with one another to the last number.

And then we have the revisionists who knocked Boyington's total down so Joe Foss could be elevated. But ... they didn't look at ANYONE ELSE. I reject that out of hand. Yes Boyington had some 22 in US military service, but his AVG planes were built here, were funded and supplied by the USA and should count the same. So, I still have him at 28 (22 + 6), especially since ground claims were later approved and routinely used in totals.

It might be good to discuss this in a separate thread.

Cheers.

I was basing it on this chart, which is apparently derived from "Victory Roll! The American Fighter Pilot and Aircraft in WWII by William Wolf " (see Posts 88 and 102 upthread) which I just ordered from Amazon. But I was buying into it since the first time someone posted it in another thread in this forum a couple of months back,. because several of the numbers match the totals in my little collection of Osprey books and some of my other (granted, secondary or tertiary) sources - specifically for the P-40 and the P-38 in the Med, Pacific and CBI.

The number for P-40 victories in the Med for example matches page 69 in Cal Molesworth's Osprey (2011) book P-40 Warhawk vs. Me 109 at 592 victory claims.

That's claims though not 'verified' victories.

I definitely have not developed anything even close to accurate counts for verified claims, I think that is very hard to do though there are some sources you can start to use now for example for Axis losses on a given day in a given area.

Ground kills being counted for victory totals... how common is that?

S

 

[Schweik]

I just wish I had similar claims lists for the Russians and British / Commonwealth for the whole war (particularly for the Med)

 

[GregP]

PM me and I can send you some files.

Ground kills started being accepted by the USAAF after they got into the war a bit. Don't know why, but getting a ground kill at a German airfield was fraught with danger, probably more dangerous than a dogfight since there were literally hundreds of guns shooting at you.

 

[Schweik]

I understand ground kills being counted separately, and I do understand German flak and AAA was very dangerous. But were they mixing in the number with the air to air victories? It's a very different thing, seems to me. Did anyone else do that?

 

[michael rauls]

PM me and I can send you some files.

Ground kills started being accepted by the USAAF after they got into the war a bit. Don't know why, but getting a ground kill at a German airfield was fraught with danger, probably more dangerous than a dogfight since there were literally hundreds of guns shooting at you.

I read about a year ago that ground kills were counted by the 8th air force but by no other in the USAAF. I've read conflicting things about this over the years so truly don't know. Did ground kills eventually become accepted throughout the USAAF?

 

[GregP]

Hi Schweik,

I emailed you a couple of files that should prove interesting to you. Not the "complete answer to everything," but a good starting spot.

About ground kills, they generally show up in ETO claims lists, and they DO show up in US Navy / Marines lists since the USN/MC do not break out the various types of kills. Most USN/MC claims are air-to-air since they mostly fought over water and hence there were no ground targets in the form of parked airplanes. But, they DID get some airplane on the ground when attacking enemy airfields, and these got counted for some units, possibly not all.

If you Google "US Naval Aerial Combat Statistic, WWII" and look up front in the first 10 pages or so, they give definition of the numbers in the tables. Seems like air and ground and "on-carrier" kills wee all lumped together. Google for the PDF file and check for yourself.

I have been looking for a comprehensive list of US military WWII (and other wars) aerial kills for many years. The files I have are in pursuit of that end goal, but are not complete. I DO have a pretty good list of German east and West claims in one Excel file, but going through it is painful since I don't read German.

I'll offer again, as I have in the past: if anyone wants to swap files and try to work together to build up a good list of WWII aerial victories, I'd be happy to participate and swap some data. That means SWAP data, not supply all my files for nothing in return.

Hi Michael Rauls, I wish I knew if EVERYONE counted ground kills, too. Unfortunately, finding information, particularly GOOD information, on this subject is not simple. I was hoping to correspond with the USAFHRA, but they have been closed on hiatus for many years now, due to our national inability to agree on military budgets.

Cheers.

 

[pbehn]

I understand ground kills being counted separately, and I do understand German flak and AAA was very dangerous. But were they mixing in the number with the air to air victories? It's a very different thing, seems to me. Did anyone else do that?

Air war started as observation, the notification of awards and the title "ace" came later as a form of motivation and propaganda on the home front. When taking on the LW after big week the US needed to destroy/damage planes on the ground. To motivate pilots to attack heavily defended airfields in single engine aircraft hundreds of miles from home then allowing a ground kill as a "victory" is a small concession, historically more planes were lost attacking airfields than in air to air combat at the time.

 

[Shortround6]

The Merlin XX was meant to go into the Spitfire III which would have meant changes on the production line in 1941 and no doubt fewer fighters produced at a critical moment in time. Some Spitfire III changes were introduced into the 'c' wing of 1942. You need the Merlin 46 of 1942 to get the performance of the XX of 1940/41. The first casualty of war is not just the truth but the battle plan, so yes, the intention was to use the Spitfire to take on the fighters while the Hurricane took on the bombers although it didn't always work out that way.

The Idea of sticking the Merlin XX into the Hurricane was proposed in Feb 1940 (at the time making 1185HP?) but the first aircraft fitted was P3269 which flew June 11th 1940. Production status was reached in August and first planes reached the squadrons Sept 4th 1940. By this time the Melrin XX was good for 1280hp and had a number of changes from the Merlin III (70/30% water/glycol coolant instead of 100% glycol for one).
The Spitfire II had entered production in May of 1940 with the Merlin XII which also changed the coolant system and which used a slightly higher gear ratio (9.089) on the supercharger than the Merlin III.
The Merlin XX was the first Merlin to use the improved supercharger inlet as designed/developed by Stanley Hooker. It used 8.1516 low gear and 9.49 high gear.
The First Spitfire V with a Merlin 45 was flown in Feb 1941. This is the same basic engine as the XII/XX but has the single speed supercharger drive of the XII (with the same gear ratio) but the improved Hooker supercharger.
The Merlin 46 used a new larger diameter impeller and new inlet guide vanes.

As it turned out, too few Hurricane IIs joined the fighter squadrons before the Luftwaffe turned to night bombing to get a good idea of how they would have fared. Over the winter the Luftwaffe was not sitting on their hands either and not only stuck more powerful versions of the DB601 into late production 109Es but introduced the 109F which, due to significantly lower drag, offered a considerable increase in performance over the 109E and pretty much outclassed the Hurricane II.

In the summer/fall of 1940 the Spitfire II with the Merlin XII was still a viable fighter against the Germans. The Hurricane needed all the help it could get.

 

[jetcal1]

I cant think of any significant area the Hurricane was superior to the Spitfire from Sept 1939 apart from ease of production and landing due to the track of the undercarriage.

Great factors when flying 3-4 sorties a day and trying to repair damaged machines. All that means is more pilots and machines on the scene when needed.

 

[Schweik]

Air war started as observation, the notification of awards and the title "ace" came later as a form of motivation and propaganda on the home front. When taking on the LW after big week the US needed to destroy/damage planes on the ground to motivate pilots to attack heavily defended airfields in single engine aircraft hundreds of miles from home then allowing a ground kill as a "victory" is a small concession, historically more planes were lost attacking airfields than in air to air combat at the time.

I understand all that, and the safest milk run in WW2 is more dangerous than anything I've ever done. I get it's dangerous to strafe ground targets, so is going on a bombing mission. But there is a reason they put little bombs on the nose or the side of the cockpit for each bombing sortie flown instead of little enemy flags. It's different. Different risks, different techniques involved - different type of mission, even if a single sortie includes both types of activity.

So far most of the records I've looked at closely make it clear what is an air to air victory and what is a destroyed aircraft on the ground, and regardless of what they may have done in wartime I don't see any reason to mix the two together in any modern analysis, even for somebody I like as much as Greg Boyington.

Definitely making a mental note of this though in case I need to account for it to untangle something later down the road where there is scope for confusion on that issue.

 

[fliger747]

Years ago I worked with an explosives expert on the Alaska North Slope (we were blowing things up) and he had been a P47 driver in the ETO. He liked the Jug a lot and mostly was doing low level ground attack missions. Very satisfying he said to witness the steam explosion from a locomotive, but the Germans had 37 mm FLAK mounted on the flat cars and they would shoot back at you, tracers like glowing tennis balls going by. Very comforting to have that big R2800 out in front of you! He gets back to the base and pulls up on the hardstand and is met by the crew chief, "Sarge will you take a look rather, she's missing". 5 mins later having a cup over at the mess tent sarge comes back "Missing? Missing a jug!"

Transient maneuverability (high speed roll rates), durability, reliability, good visibility and handling, all things that help the pilot do his job and return for another day. I suggest if you can find a copy, the notes from the 1944 Fighter Conference are very interesting in evaluating strengths and weaknesses of Allied and Axis fighters and discussion about what the direction of future development should be. The Bearcat came about after Leroy Grumman (fair test pilot in his own right) flew the FW190. "This is the plane we should have built".

 

[Stig1207]

I believe the table from Ray Wagner above via Eagledad is for ETO only, but Ray just published the tables in his book and gives overall references. I have no idea where the data came from specifically. My copy of his book doesn't give me the table references. It is labeled as ETO-only. The ETO was broken out for US ground forces as Europe, north of Italy and the Mediterranean.

So, Italy was considered as MTO along with North Africa by the people who defined the US Theaters of Operations. The Navy also didn't have a PTO (and didn't save the same data as the USAAF in any case). They had Central Pacific and Southwest Pacific. The Northeast Pacific was considered as part of the Alaska Theater of Operations.

Wagner's figures match (pretty much) the combined totals for the ETO and MTO as provided by the USAAF Statistical Digest; but all fighters are lumped together, not specified by type as in Wagner's data.

 

[GregP]

Hey Schweik, Did you get the files I sent? Just checking.