Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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)
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.
The clipped wings alone added 5 mph to the top speed below 20000 feet.Even on the Spitfire they made the clipped wing variant, apparently for the Med.
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.Even on the Spitfire they made the clipped wing variant, apparently for the Med.
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.
From wiki.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.
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.What I don't get about the Hurricane is why didn't they just redesign the wing a little bit?
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.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.
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.But was this due to issues fighting over the Channel or with tip and run raids, or also in the Med? And did the Bf 109F have anything to do with it?
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.
Not quite the same. The basic construction was always there.
View attachment 543383
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.
View attachment 543384
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.
Not quite the same. The basic construction was always there.
View attachment 543383
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.
View attachment 543384
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 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.
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.