Kevin J
Banned
The Hurricane held the line until larger numbers of Spitfires became available, and American aircraft arrived in the hundreds of thousands.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
On the evening of 17th August 1940, generally considered the start of the Battle of Britain, the RAF had a total of 276 Spitfires and 549 Hurricanes registered as serviceable. If you look at 11 Group and 12 Group where the majority of the action took place, 11 Group had 81 Spitfires and 245 Hurricanes while 12 Group had respectively 100 and 85, totalling 181 Spitfires and 330 Hurricanes. It's not that 10 Group and 13 Group didn't see action, just that they didn't see nearly as much. 11 Group carried most of the burden, so on that basis the Hurricane was a hugely important aircraft. I can't locate the actual kill numbers but I'm pretty sure that the Hurricane outdid the Spitfire handsomely - having said that the general tactics were for the heavier, slower Hurricanes to go after the LW bombers while the faster and more nimble Spitfires took on the escort fighters, so you'd expect a difference in kill performance anyway.
All in all I agree that a lot of people underestimate the contribution of the Hurricane during this pivotal time
That was basically my point. Spitfire production was much lower than Hurricane production until the new factory started producing which was during the BoB. There were two month between the fall of France and August 17 1940.On the evening of 17th August 1940, generally considered the start of the Battle of Britain, the RAF had a total of 276 Spitfires and 549 Hurricanes registered as serviceable. If you look at 11 Group and 12 Group where the majority of the action took place, 11 Group had 81 Spitfires and 245 Hurricanes while 12 Group had respectively 100 and 85, totalling 181 Spitfires and 330 Hurricanes. It's not that 10 Group and 13 Group didn't see action, just that they didn't see nearly as much. 11 Group carried most of the burden, so on that basis the Hurricane was a hugely important aircraft. I can't locate the actual kill numbers but I'm pretty sure that the Hurricane outdid the Spitfire handsomely - having said that the general tactics were for the heavier, slower Hurricanes to go after the LW bombers while the faster and more nimble Spitfires took on the escort fighters, so you'd expect a difference in kill performance anyway.
All in all I agree that a lot of people underestimate the contribution of the Hurricane during this pivotal time
Which Hurricane wing? Until just before the war they were dope covering a metal lattice frame, the last were changed to metal skinned in 1940.I wish I could remember who told me--a well connected Brit at the Smithsonian--but apparently it took c. 2.5 X the manhours to produce a Spit than a Hurrycane...
There was a price for that elegant elliptical wing.
C-47.I thought this would be interesting because it's a bit different from the usual which aircraft is best at a particular mission or in general. Alot of this had to do with factors other than performance such as oportunity( being in the right place at the right time) , numbers produced, and maybe even just plain luck.
Lots of possible good picks here. A couple obvious ones are of course the Spitfire and Hurricane. For me though I think I would have to go with the SBD, the caviaght being that it by far mostly affected the Pacific theater. The difference it made in that theater however was huge.
Would love to hear everyones picks and I'll bet there's a few good ones I haven't even thought of.
So which aircraft would you credit most for turning the tide.
C-47.I thought this would be interesting because it's a bit different from the usual which aircraft is best at a particular mission or in general. Alot of this had to do with factors other than performance such as oportunity( being in the right place at the right time) , numbers produced, and maybe even just plain luck.
Lots of possible good picks here. A couple obvious ones are of course the Spitfire and Hurricane. For me though I think I would have to go with the SBD, the caviaght being that it by far mostly affected the Pacific theater. The difference it made in that theater however was huge.
Would love to hear everyones picks and I'll bet there's a few good ones I haven't even thought of.
So which aircraft would you credit most for turning the tide.
I wish I could remember who told me--a well connected Brit at the Smithsonian--but apparently it took c. 2.5 X the manhours to produce a Spit than a Hurrycane...
There was a price for that elegant elliptical wing.
Yup, but I doubt for a project like that. Borrowing Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters in Europe is one thing, but for a project as significant as the atom bombs? Also I'm still querying whether a Lancaster could have carried the atom bombs at all, let alone taken them from Tinian to Japan and returned. Someone with the figures could work it out better than I. But again, the reality was that the Lancaster didn't have to, the B-29 could and was, in reality the only choice.
Wingnuts; waaay ahead of you, mate. Take a look here:
The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945
Thats a good pick. I think alot of people don't realize how important the c47 was.C-47.
I just posted the photo to show what was possible with the Lanc.
Yup, and within the thread you'll see documentation poduced during the war on trials carried out with a modified Upkeep carrying Lancaster and its effect on its performance. All the information provided should give you a clear indication of the Lancaster's performance based on load carrying capability and fuel available operating at its MTOW with given engine power outputs.
As has been discussed, yes, the Lancaster 'could' carry a Little Boy (but only a Little Boy, not a Fat Man), but it could not carry out the atom bomb attacks as they were owing to insufficient performance, the reasons for which are readily available in the thread.
Ooo the Shackleton! Welcome Wingnuts, any stories you have, feel free...
Yup, we trade on the 'what might have beens' on this forum and a lot can be learned, particularly about what we think we know. Before the suggestion in this thread I had no idea about the Lanc being talked about as a nuclear bomber, none at all, and by the end of it, we now have considered, thoughtful input from so many individuals that has brought a peculiar and little known aspect of the Lancaster to life.
having said that the general tactics were for the heavier, slower Hurricanes to go after the LW bombers while the faster and more nimble Spitfires took on the escort fighters, so you'd expect a difference in kill performance anyway.
All in all I agree that a lot of people underestimate the contribution of the Hurricane during this pivotal time