Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Gradually switching production of 3 from those 6 factories to produce Spits makes more sense IMO, than all of the 6 further producing Hurricanes.
Read my post above regarding the practicalities of keeping the Hurricane in production, not only that, but to tool up and produce a different structure altogether (the Spit was a semi monocoque and the Hurri was welded steel tube) was not something that was going to happen overnight. The Hurricane was still a useful type throughout much of the war, why not keep producing it?
Besides, politics played a part in these things too, private firms were striving for contracts; Hawkers and Vickers Supermarines were competitors in the same market. One's companies were not going to produce the other's machine; not without considerable justification and pressure from the ministry.
Agreed. In the hands of a good pilot the Hurri could hold its own against a Bf 109F and Zero. The same could be said for the Brewster Buffalo against the Zero, for that matter, too. There is ample evidence that Buffalo pilots got the better of their Japanese antagonists on numerous occasions over Singapore. I offer the following reaons regarding the defeat of the Allied air forces in Singapore in December 1941;
1: A complete lack of airborne early warning
2: Larger numbers of Japanese aircraft
3: A lack of sufficient maintenance facilities and resupply
4: Most pilots were inexperienced in combat
5: Intelligence about the capabilities of the Japanese fighters was scarce to non-existent at the front line bases
The type of aircraft the RAF units in Singapore were equipped with is irrelevant; even if they had Spitfires, the result would have been no different.
(parsifalLike the Ju87, it was easy meat for any dedicated fighter.
That's arguable. Remember, the Hurri was more manoeuvreable than the Bf 109 and could withstand a great deal more punishment than both the '109 and the Zero. Also the Zero redlined at 300 kts and I've been reliably informed that to get one to that speed was virtually impossible. Almost all Allied fighters could out dive the Zero with ease and once its weaknessess had been analysed, this was a standard escape method.
If Hurricane production had been abandoned in 1941, after the boB, Britain would have been without a dedicated ground attack aircraft in any numbers for more than two years. Typhoons were still under development, and Spitfires were not as good at GA as the Hurri, plus inevitably a changeover from Hurricane to Spitfire would have cost money and lost production.
Given that it would have been a retrograde step anyway, such a switch would have been a waste and a loss of capability for the RAF.
Read my post above regarding the practicalities of keeping the Hurricane in production, not only that, but to tool up and produce a different structure altogether (the Spit was a semi monocoque and the Hurri was welded steel tube) was not something that was going to happen overnight.
Covered above - switching to the production of Typhoon carried all shortcomings, if not bigger ones.
The Hurricane was still a useful type throughout much of the war, why not keep producing it?
I can see logic here - people were still producing Blenheims after all. But it's not just the plane that makes an airforce, but the plane must be piloted by a trained pilot - and that's not as easy to come by as it is to produce another 100 or 1000 of planes.
Besides, politics played a part in these things too, private firms were striving for contracts; Hawkers and Vickers Supermarines were competitors in the same market. One's companies were not going to produce the other's machine; not without considerable justification and pressure from the ministry.
Private firms are still to build planes make money (Spits were produced by many firms, Swordfish was produced by Blackburn, Roc by BP etc) providing customer ordered them. If lobbying of Hawker can be 'stronger' than what Air Ministry orders, than something is really wrong with the Ministry.
Hi Parsifal
the source is a game? idk we can use a game as source, and if the data are supposition and not from true sources?
True Malta stay on Hurricane until Spit V was available (the first deployement overseas of Spit), idk because . They not go very well versus Emil or 202. Versus the other italian fighters yes nut not only on Malta.
Now, saying that 'in a hands of good pilot...' and, then, 'most pilots were inexperienced' doesn't make the post a credible one.
Furthermore, a novice pilot in an excellent plane stands some chance. Same pilot in an obsolete plane stands no chance.
While I'd agree that Hurri was a sturdy bird, a burst of cannon shells that hit home is not any Hurri would've survived. And Bf-109 drivers knew all to well how to attack maneuverable planes.
If Zero was, or a more likely opponent, the Oscar, redlined at 300 kts, then almost no Spits, F4Us, P-38s would've been killed in PTO/CBI theaters.
Hurricane a dedicated GA aircraft? I strongly disagree with that,
Private firms are still to build planes make money (Spits were produced by many firms, Swordfish was produced by Blackburn, Roc by BP etc) providing customer ordered them. If lobbying of Hawker can be 'stronger' than what Air Ministry orders, than something is really wrong with the Ministry.
It would be interesting to see when the "Merlin Whirlwind" turned into the Welkin? Like if there was an intermediate stage (on paper) for a Westland twin Merlin fighter that was a bit bigger bigger than a Whirlwind and yet smaller than the Welkin wound up?
Design work on the Welkin started in 1941 didn't it?
There's some very strange, simplistic, thinking going on here.
1/. The Typhoon could only be used in Europe, since the radiator was too vulnerable to sand damage.
2/. The Hurricane had to be pressed into ground attack, because the Spitfire could (initially, at least) only carry a single bomb, could not carry rockets, could not easily carry 4 x cannon, and could not carry the 40mm anti-tank cannon.
3/. It was not a case of the Hurricane or nothing; in the Middle and Far East Spitfires were available for top cover.
4/. Not all of Malta's Hurricanes were second-hand; some were brand-new, and sent direct, by convoy (just like the later Spitfires.)
I didn't say they were; I was making the point that, as far as the Maltese were concerned, any defenders were better than no defenders at all. Early Spitfires didn't have the range to reach Malta without extra tanks; it was only the tropical Vs that could manage it.
Some of those were also making Typhoons, which, at that time, were desperately needed as a counter to low-flying Me109s (later) Fw190s.
The Spitfire factories were already producing over 60 airframes per week, and there isn't much point in making more and more Spitfires, if there's no shortage of them, all you'll have is fields of spare dogfighting airframes, while the army has no help in waging its war.
Hi, tomo,
What?! Why not? each sentence was not used in the same context. In good hands the Hurri WAS more than a match for the Zero and Bf 109 AND in Singapore the pilots were very inexperienced! Add the other factors, including lack of early warning, no such thing as airborne EW back then
Agreed, although an excellent design does not make up for a lack of tactical knowledge. Over Singapore the odds were against the Allies; regardless of the type, as I said, the result would not have been much different.
Rubbish! How do you explain Hurricane pilots becoming aces during the Battle of Britain, then? I also mentioned RAF Maintenance Units scouring the country for Hurricane wrecks and repairing them, which meant that, yes indeed, the type had enormous survivability; contrary to your statement.
That really doesn't make sense. What is that based on?
So you should, no one was suggesting that. The Hurri was widely used as close support, tank buster, interceptor and anti-submarine patrols flying from carriers, MAC ships, CAM ships in the FAA, reconnaissance in the CBI, training back home etc...
Spits were produced by Vickers satellite factories. Blackburn built Swordfish, yes, but that's because Fairey were ordered to stop building the Stringbag and concentrate on the Firefly and Barracuda. Also Blackburn has a history of building naval aircraft of other firms; the Sopwith Cuckoo torpedoplane was built in larger numbers by Blackburn than any other firm, including Sopwith, who only built the prototype in 1917. BP building the Roc was a sore point in BP; they actually proposed a superior single seat naval fighter based on the aerodynamics of the Defiant without the turret, would have been a cracker.
The Ministry of Aircraft Production obviously saw the benefits of continuing Hurri production for the reasons I have suggested above; As I asked in my earlier thread; why not continue producing Hurricanes if it was still considered useful? You have yet to produce a convincing argument for them not continuing production of the type.
Once again tomo, been a pleasure
...
One of the dangers in postulating what might have happened is that most of us (me included) have no idea what was being planned, and discussed in the corridors of power. In a Typhoon file, I've found a few extracts from minutes of fortnightly meetings, which started at the beginning of 1942, between the M.A.P. and the Air ministry. 24-2-42 they agreed to produce another 1,250 Hurricanes, for the theoretical loss of 843 Typhoons, but there were no Sabre engines for them anyway.
In 1941, there was a plan for Hawker to build a two-seat, twin-engined, high-speed bomber, but that, too, needed the Sabre; there was a plan for a "hotted-up" Mosquito, which, again, needed the non-existant Sabre.
The M.A.P. emphasised the difficulty of turning over Hurricane and Typhoon capacity to build a non-Hawker type (this was 16-3-42,) and it was pointed out that "single seater fighters were required less than any class." The need was for torpedo bombers, twin-engined fighters, and target towers and advanced trainers (in that order.)
Allow me to educate you, since you obviously don't know the Spitfire; to fly the vast distances across the African continent and Mediterranean, the Spitfire needed an increased oil capacity, to go with the increased fuel capacity. The only airframes that could cope were the tropicalised Vb Vc, which had larger built-in oil tanks. Sarcastic comments about the RAF's top brass indicates a complete lack of understanding of what was going on.
Your obsession with the idea that the Ministry was more concerned with money than winning the war, shows that you are stuck with modern political thinking, and have little idea of the way minds worked 70 years ago.
It was reckoned that, in an average combat, one, or maybe two, shells would hit the target; it's why the Germans went over to the 30mm.
Edgar
If you take care to read what I said, I'm defending the Ministries against your attacks on them. I have not maligned your name, or personality, in any way, just some of the material which you have written.
Sorry, but when you know that this country was bankrupt at the end of the war, and had to borrow money from the Americans, which took us 60 years to pay off, and enabled them to pressurise us over things like Suez, clever remarks, about our top brass caring more about money than winning the war, are just a little hard to swallow.