I think the biggest affect was by shooting up fuel bowsers. On Typhoon losses I seem to have read about quite a few being forced to do a wheels up landing after blowing a tyre on take off, heavily laden on mesh runways.Falaise Gap? tanks destroyed?
Seven, maybe eight if we are generous
How many claimed? I think 132.
The Typhoons did stop the attack but by killing all kinds of trucks and accompanying vehicles, tank kills were extremely rare.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Kevin J
Banned
Being obsolete depends on both your opponent and the mission you are doing.
Against the Germans and the 109E the MK I Hurricane was obsolete. The MK II might have kept it in the game a bit longer if the Germans hadn't introduced the 109F. Shuffled off to fight the Italians with their CR 42s, G-50s and MC200s it was not obsolete in that theater until the Italians developed better planes (got German engines) and the Germans showed up.
In the Far east it is certainly debatable if it was obsolete or if the crappy training and tactics doomed the Hurricane pilots. Bravery only takes you so far. Green pilots using crappy tactics are in a lot of trouble no matter what plane they are flying even when showing out of the ordinary courage.
Once the Hurricane switches to bomb carrier it has assumed a new role and has to be evaluated in that role, it is still obsolete as a fighter but is a whole lot more survivable than using Blenheim bombers to attack the same targets. Neither the Hurricane II or the Blenheim are much good against the FW 190 in a dog fight
I think you are confusing two things. the 19:1 ratio is false but it was supposed to be the kill to loss ratio. Obviously this can be changed/affected by inflated claims (and.or not counting certain losses?) but the basic way of counting/figuring it makes a certain amount of sense. Our plane shot down 75 enemy airplanes in air to air combat and we lost 25 in air to air combat so we have a 3:1 victory ratio. Number of missions is left out and operational losses are left out but one might assume that if the number of missions changes a lot but both "our" plane and the enemy planes stay at roughly the same performance the victory ratio will stay the same, even if the totals change.
You are right, it is often misapplied or figured out incorrectly.
Combat losses per number of planes built just has too many variables to actually tell you anything. Does combat include getting shot up/bombed while on the ground? It obviously includes losses due to ground fire, it may include mechanical failure (engine craps out over enemy territory and the plane goes missing/doesn't return to friendly base).
You might consider that an operational loss but unless you can access your opponents records all you know is the plane went MIA.
For bombers they tried to figure out the losses per sortie. send out 100 bombers and 95 come back or only 90? IF only 90 you may run out of bombers faster than you can build them (or train crews) But if you send out 500 bombers and only lose 15 in one night you are doing really good.
A few planes, like some Italian 5 series fighters might have a terrible loss to numbers built ratio, in part because they built so few, (MC 205 about 250-260 built?) and because they were bearing the brunt of the combat at the time. But unless you know the losses per number of missions flown or losses per number of times they actually met the enemy you don't know if the plane was doing any good (was worth the investment) or not.
for a metric to be useful it needs to have as few variable as possible (and it can still be wrong)
A fighter will only be obsolete when it can no longer counter its fighter opponents and not successfully conduct any sort of fighter mission. AFAIC the Hurricane I using 100 octane fuel in 1940 was as good as the Bf 109E.
In the ETO, this means to me for the day fighter version, Summer 1941 when the first production Spitfire Vb's started arriving and the Germans introduced the Bf 109F-4 and the Fw 190A. Prior to that the Hurricane IIb is still good as a bomber interceptor, for countering long range Me 110's and as close escort for Blenheims over the English Channel. Hurricane IIc's continued to be used successfully until early 1943 as a night intruder. So in the ETO total obsolescence in 1943.
On the Eastern front, the Soviet Hurricane IIB, with two 20 mm cannon and two 0.5 in machine guns could successfully counter the Bf 109F by means of a frontal attack. It had twice the firepower of the Bf 109F which it could out turn although it couldn't break off contact at will. Once the Bf 109G comes along with its 30 mm cannon, that's the point it becomes obsolete as a day fighter. In rear areas, it can still counter the Me 110 successfully and is still an effective bomber interceptor. The last Soviet Hurricanes were phased out of service in the PVO in 1944, which for me is its final obsolescence date.
In the Mediterranean when up against the Bf 109E or any radial engine Italian fighter, again no problems. It has a good turn of speed with boost below 15000 feet comparable to the Bf 109E and this is where the majority of the combat takes place, which it would as you are supporting an army in the field. Its really only when the Bf 109F arrives that its usefulness declines. You can use it as a fighter bomber, or even close escort for light bombers. Its performance at 7000 feet is less than but not by much to the Mc 202F. Most of its opponents are Italian with the Germans in a supporting role. Enter the Bf 109G and its all over. Fighter bomber and intruder work only. So 1942 for obsolescence.
At sea, anywhere, so long as it only opposes Me 110's there's no problem. The last Sea Hurricanes were phased out of service on Atlantic convoy duties in 1944. So obsolescence date 1944.
In the Far East, in combat with the Hayabusa, it all depended on who saw who first. As an interceptor and where radar was essentially bad or non existent, which was the norm, it did not do well against either the Ki-43-1 Hayabusa or A6M2 Reisen, although reducing the armament to six m/c guns helped. Although it struggled on in service as a fighter until 1944, IMO, the Hurricanes should have been replaced with Spitfire Vc's by late 1942 at the latest. I've only ever come across info that the Hurricane IIc fighter bombers out there had their cannon armament halved, which I'm sure would have aided manoeuvrability. Nothing I've read indicates that the RAF dropped or replaced the Vokes tropical filter, or used individual exhaust ejectors for extra exhaust thrust on its Merlin engines which amazes me. I would have thought they would or could have done something during 1942 to get a bit of extra performance. The USAAF was based in Assam at the time. Maybe they were doing most of the aerial fighting. It all seems a bit strange. I'd have to put 1942 down as the date the Hurricane became obsolete for anything but rear area tasks, and IMO 1944 for fighter bomber duties. It's only up against the Hayabusa which is not exactly the fastest of fighters although it is manoeuvrable.
Perhaps you'd like to say that the FM-1/2 were obsolete in 1943 even though they continued to give good service until the end of the war on escort carriers?
IMO we needed the Spitfire Vb (Trop) in both the Med and the Far East before the end of 1941, but I guess we'd blown them in the France Air Offensive of 1941.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,583
It's an interesting point - when a fighter reaches obsolescence for the front line, it shifts down a notch toward bomber interception, then another notch to things like rear area defense (PVO) or fighter bomber use, or it goes to another Theater. When it can't do that a role like a naval fighter on merchant convoys can still be quite viable. Certainly a Sea-Hurricane is very good defense against a FW 200 or He 115 way out in the Atlantic. In the Med on one of those convoys going to Malta maybe a little less but still far better than nothing.
What I don't get about the Hurricane is why didn't they just redesign the wing a little bit? The wingspan was huge at 40 feet and the wing was very thick. They cut the Zero down from 39 ft to 36 ft and it helped improve the speed. I suspect if they had done the same with the Hurricane they would have done better with them.
What I don't get about the Hurricane is why didn't they just redesign the wing a little bit? The wingspan was huge at 40 feet and the wing was very thick. They cut the Zero down from 39 ft to 36 ft and it helped improve the speed. I suspect if they had done the same with the Hurricane they would have done better with them.
- Thread starter
- #1,585
Well the Fw 190s specifically modified to attack bombers were vulnerable to fighters.
Also a lot of obsolete planes like Bf 110, Ju 88, Me 210, Me 410, Do 217 etc. became useful, at least for a while, as heavy bomber killers, sometimes long after they had become obsolete as front line fighters or bombers.
Also a lot of obsolete planes like Bf 110, Ju 88, Me 210, Me 410, Do 217 etc. became useful, at least for a while, as heavy bomber killers, sometimes long after they had become obsolete as front line fighters or bombers.
Kevin J
Banned
The speed of the Spitfire could be improved by removing a cannon bulge and cannon from each wing plus individual exhaust ejectors, total speed increase almost 20 mph. The Sea Hurricane IIc of late 42 with an arrestor hook did 342 mph, 6 mph faster than its land based variant, so late 42 you should be able to build a Hurricane IIc doing about 349 mph, or perhaps a version with 2 cannon and four machine guns doing 350 mph. Then use the Aboukir air filter which didn't seem to result in any loss in speed. That gets you past the top speed of the Ki-43-II of late 42 and II-Kai of 1943. Use a two speed Merlin from the Mosquito and maybe you're looking at 315 mph at sea level and 350 mph from 13000 to 22000 feet, maybe 335 mph from 7000 to 10500 feet. So Hawkers could have built a better Hurricane II variant for service in the Far East, still slower than the P-40F/L but good enough to take on the Hayabusa for an extra year as a front line fighter. So why change the wing? All we need is an interim variant that can take on the Hayabusa or Reisen and come out on top.
- Thread starter
- #1,587
Kevin J
Banned
The clipped wings alone added 5 mph to the top speed below 20000 feet.
You didn't actually have to make a clipped wing Spitfire you just take the ends off. By the end of the war all F and FR Mk XIVs were "clipped wing" this to stop wing wrinkling, usually it was to improve rate of roll at low altitude. similarly high altitude versions just had a longer tip bolted on.
- Thread starter
- #1,590
Yes but that came later - modularization of the design so to speak. Kind of similar to what they did with the P-40L making 'heavy' and 'light' versions somewhat configurable.
I'm interested though in when this was originally done with the Spit V in the Med, do you know details about it?
My understanding is that pilots generally disliked the extra long wing variants or mods of the Spits, though it brought the ceiling up to very high altitude.
I'm interested though in when this was originally done with the Spit V in the Med, do you know details about it?
My understanding is that pilots generally disliked the extra long wing variants or mods of the Spits, though it brought the ceiling up to very high altitude.
- Thread starter
- #1,591
I should have mentioned Night fighters. And then the end of the line - it performs "Sterling Service" as a target tug. Or worse yet, a flying target....
Operation Pinball Frangible Bullets
From wiki.
"The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock", wrote Douglas Bader in his autobiography Fight for the sky; "it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots." They were also outgunning them. For the best part of the year, and until the arrival of the Spitfire Mk IX [the Fw 190] commanded the skies.[59]
From late 1942, in an attempt to achieve some degree of parity with the Fw 190, some squadrons received the L.F Mark VB. This version had reduced diameter supercharger impeller blades on the Merlin for optimum performance at lower altitudes and the wing-tips were removed and replaced by short fairings to improve their rate of roll.[60] These aircraft were unofficially known by their pilots as "clipped, cropped & clapped" Spits, referring to the fact that many of these Spitfires, thus modified, had seen better days.[61]
- Thread starter
- #1,593
Sir Sydney was quoted in a long ago forgotten book as saying he always regretted not having the time and resources to redesign the Hurricane wing. It wasn't apparent until war clouds were on the horizon that the competition was leaving the Hurri behind, and then the RAF wanted something bigger, faster, and more powerful, and any interruption in Hurricane production couldn't be tolerated.
It being the first foray of monoplanism into a maneuverability mad air force, it was designed with a high lift positive G wing to dispel the anticipated complaints that it would "fly like a ten ton lorry". The real problem was the thick, Piper Cub-like airfoil with no quick and dirty modification options.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
Kevin J
Banned
Also the dive speed of the Mk IV was 450 mph, so again, another useful feature. The IV used the same engine as the Mosquito.
Fighting over the channel, tip and run raids were another issue, it didn't need a plane that matched the Fw 190 but was substantially faster. It isn't possible to stop such raids, they stopped them by chasing them across the channel. Without standing patrols even a Eurofighter couldn't stop a tip and run raid, Canterbury is 20 miles from the sea from North East and South. Dover is only 21 miles from Calais.
Shortround6
Major General
Not quite the same. The basic construction was always there.
The piece outboard of the end of the aileron could be unbolted and replaced by a very short fairing. This joint was always there. Sometimes the wing tips were unbolted for transport and placed in the cockpit.
However be careful of what you ask for. They did find the clipped wing planes were up to 5mph faster but that was low level, up around 20,000ft there was little difference and things started to reverse, at really high altitudes the clipped wing plane was actually slightly slower if I remember right.
The Hurricane wing tips were not designed to be detachable, for construction reasons or transport or any other reason.
I am not Saying it couldn't be done (most anything can if you are will to spend the time and money) but how much can you "clip it" before you are starting to clip the Aileron?
The Spit could loose 1ft 9in from each wing tip by changing to the short fairing. Can you cut that much off the Hurricane wing without impacting the Aileron?
The Hurricane did get pretty much the same two speed engine the Mosquito got. It's just that the versions that were allowed 18lbs of boost (or higher?) don't show up until the Typhoon is in mass production and they are building Spitfire MK IXs. Some of the Hurricane MK IVs got the uprated engine and nobody tried to put the 20mm cannon back in the wings of those aircraft.
The Hurricane was chosen in the middle of 1940 to get the two speed Merlin XX engine with the Hooker modified supercharger before the Spitfire because the Hurricane needed it in order to remain competitive as frontline fighter. It might have worked if the Germans didn't clean up the aerodynamics of the 109.
The Hurricane may not have been obsolete in 1940 but it was either obsolescent or approaching obsolescence. Lets not forget that the Hawker Tornado first flew on Oct 6th 1939. The Sabre powered Typhoons first flight was delayed due to engine problems. We have the luxury of knowing (with hindsight) that both engines had a number of problems and were either delayed or canceled forcing the British to make do with the Hurricane. The Hurricane filled in well and in many jobs but it had never been the first choice.
Pointing out that the Hurricane could take on other countries 2nd string (obsolescent) fighters does not elevate the Hurricane to 1st string.
Kevin J
Banned
I agree that there was very little development potential left in 1940, but more could have been done with little or no disruption on the production lines in 1942/43 to make it a more capable fighter in the Far East. After all, the Soviets did it on the Eastern Front in 1941/42 and it worked well.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,599
It's funny, this entire thread and the comparison between P-40F and Typhoon originated with the notion that there was a valid niche for low and medium altitude fighters. I had mentioned the Typhoon as an example of a specialized low-altitude fighter which had a useful niche, then someone insisted that the Typhoon was way, way way beyond the P-40, so I thought to test it. And here we are 80 pages later.
It occurs to me the Spit V with clipped wings would be quite similar in many respects to a P-40F. Unless they changed the engine (which I know was also sometimes done at various points) it wouldn't be really a low altitude so much as a medium altitude optimized fighter. But the clipped wings and improved roll rate would help a lot down low as well.
Well, I may be missing something and admittedly the angle isn't as sharp but it seems to me if you squared off those wings you would get almost as much as on a clipped wing Spitfire. Certainly at least 12-16" inches on each wing there no? Or is that just the foreshortening on the drawing?
The Hurricane needed not just a shorter but a different wing, as in at least a bit thinner. Maybe not spitfire thin but perhaps P-40 thin. Sydney Camm seemed to have a thing for thick wings. I gather the original intent was to substitute for not being a biplane any more.
But even cutting 2 - 4 feet off of the wing tips, that alone would probably give you another 5-10 mph of speed. Might affect altitude performance though of course. But in places like Burma and Russia I am surprised nobody tried it. It was done on so many other aircraft.
I think because they knew it just had too much drag. Like the Firefly or one of those naval aircraft. Very powerful engine but still disappointingly slow. The main issue IMO was the wing, though they wanted it for the loiter time and range etc.
Two things about the Hurricane which are interesting to me - one the performance in terms of outcomes fell off very sharply. Hurricanes were doing serious damage to the Lufwaffe in the BoB. I'm sure the integrated air defense helped a lot, but there is no denying that Hurricanes were sawwing down fleets of bombers and knocking out a good number of fighters too, including Bf 109s.
Even later in the Desert, one of the things you notice reading Shores day by day accounts is that the Hurricanes were the best fighters for destroying bombers. The Stukas in particular seemed to have a surprisingly, (to me almost annoyingly since I admit I'm kind of rooting for the Allies) tendency to evade destruction. A squadron of Stukas gets jumped by Spitfires, 3 get shot down. They get jumped by P-40s, 2 get shot down and another 3 damaged. But when they get jumped by Hurricanes that is when they lose 6 or 8 planes, almost every time. I don't know what the difference is precisely but it seems to be real.
On the other hands Hurricanes seemed unable to get the Ju 88s a lot of the time, perhaps due to speed or altitude.
I would agree that 1942, the beginning of 1942, was probably the red-line for the Hurricane, certainly in the Med. At that point when used as a fighter they seemed to get really mauled almost every time. Every once in a while you find a day where the Hurricane pilots did some damage to the Germans. To be fair the Kittyhawks were only doing a little better but they usually shot down one or two enemy planes at least.
There was Rüstsätze kits. The A-8/R2 replaced the outboard 20mm cannon with 30mm cannon. The A-8/R8 added extra armour and theses were not as nimble as the standard A-8 and /R2. The 210mm rocket launchers were jetisonable.
- Status
