Why did the RAF put so many resources into the Hurricane?

[Schweik]

Okay,
1. The Hurricane could still be used as a fighter bomber in the CBI as its main opponent was the K-43-II which had the same sort of performance clean.
2. The P-39 gave sterling service on the Eastern Front. It was the favourite mount of the Soviets top aces.
3. The P-40 was still scoring victories in the South West Pacific and CBI as it didn't have to combat the latest fighters of the IJN and JAAF.
4. The FM-2 had sufficient performance to act as a DLI against Japanese kamikaze and attack aircraft from the USN's jeep carriers.
None of these planes were obsolete, but their usefulness was reducing as the years went by. All were being replaced.

Agree with the above, with some caveats.

I think the Soviets still had use for the later model P-39s to the end of the war.
In addition to their effective use as fighters in the CBI by the Americans and Pacific by the Australians, the RAF was still using P-40s as fighter bombers in Italy to he end of the war.
They were still FM-2 or some version of the Martlet in the Royal Navy too I think. From the wiki:

"The last air-raid of the war in Europe was carried out by Fleet Air Arm aircraft in Operation Judgement, Kilbotn on May 5, 1945. Twenty eight Wildcat VI aircraft from Naval Air Squadrons 846, 853 and 882, flying from escort carriers, took part in an attack on a U-boat depot near Harstad, Norway. Two ships and a U-boat were sunk with the loss of one Wildcat and one Avenger torpedo-bomber. "

In a nutshell there were different types of Theaters, i.e. the Russian Front was much more focused on Low Altitude combat and had little requirement for long range, compared to NW Europe, and there were secondary (ala Italy) and Tertiary (CBI) Theaters where the 1941 and 1942 vintage aircraft still worked.

Not certain about the Hurricane in the CBI though I'd like to see some Operational history data for that.

 

[Schweik]

The simple answer is numbers. As has been stated here, there were more Hurricanes around than Spitfires in 1940, they were faster off the production line, and also importantly, easier to recover when damaged and refurbish by Maintenance Units. When the Hurricane was ordered for production under spec 15/36, the Air Ministry placed the largest order for a single type in its brief history, for 600 airframes. The first did not roll from the production line until12 October 1937, but this was due to the decision to concentrate on the Merlin II within Rolls-Royce. As has also been mentioned, getting the Spitfire into production took longer than expected.

Specifically dealing with the "Especially in 1940" side of things, one thing about the gist of this thread; again, we are looking at things through hindsight in the presumption that there was a general awareness at the time the Spitfire was clearly superior and it should have resources channeled into its development over the Hurricane. In 1940 in Britain, most of the year was taken up by the threat of invasion and a fight for survival in the skies, the relative merits of each type had not become such an issue that there was any real consideration that one might be pursued for further development over the other owing to a notable gap in performance or potential. As has been mentioned, replacement of both types had been discussed, but it can be safe to say that in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Britain the likelyhood of either type leaving production immediately was non-existent. Both types proved their mettle and subsequent development of both types was assured as a result, owing to recently acquired war experience and of course, numbers. The Hurricane's future potential was not being questioned because of work on the Typhoon, but development of the Mk.II was a given owing to the time it would take to get it into service and availability of the two-stage supercharged Merlin XX; its first flight was in June 1940.

Awareness of the Hurri's limited future potential compared to the Spitfire would come, but certainly not in 1940.

Agree with this. The Hurricane was still quite useful well through 1940, not just over England or Brittany but also in places like Greece and the Middle East. It kind of hit a wall some time in 1941 against the Bf 109F, A6M, and Ki 43.

 

[Schweik]

At the end of the day when the Hurricane entered service it was a world leader. It was in full production was easy to fly, maintain and repair. Yes when the 109E entered service she was outclassed but in a defensive role was good enough until roughly the end of 1940.
Development after that was really limited to ensuring it was fit for other duties. Sea Hurricane and GA duties. The Hurricane wasn't developed like the P40 Tomahawk to P40L, The P39 to the P63, Spitfire obviously and 109/190.

The changes were limited.

As I said in another post, the Hurricane seemed to still be extremely useful in 1940 and into 1941. It was dominant over CR 42, MC 200, G.50, and Ki-27, was effective against the Bf 110 and all the German bombers with the possible exception of the Ju 88, and could hold it's own with the early Bf 109E's. It helped check the Axis in many parts of the world from Greece to the Middle East to Burma and Russia probably through the first half of 1941.

The decline in combat effectiveness of the Hurricane in later 1941 and 1942 was rather sudden and I agree it had something to do with the lack of upgrades. If they had made one with a thinner and / or smaller wing in particular, or a much bigger engine, it probably would have held it's ground.

The problems with the Typhoon, just like the Americans problems with the P-46, P-60 et al meant the Hurricane was still needed at least through 1943.

 

[Schweik]

IIRC, the Mason figures were for the ETO, so are the MycroftHolmes figures, Worldwide totals? It would put the Spitfire on par with the Hellcat and Mustang for the ratio of "aircraft built: victories claimed" and the Hurricane on par with the Bf 109. Hmm

Would love to see sources for that, is there a chart or something?

 

[Schweik]

One of the fascinating things about the Hurricane is that it seems like the vast majority of those ~5,000 victory claims were made before 1942. When the Axis were at their best and most lethal. It would be very interesting to see numbers broken down by year and Theater.

I think the short answer to the OP is that it took a long time for better fighters to be available in large numbers and there was a pressing need for fighters all over the World, not just in the most engaging and well known parts of the War.

 

[Kevin J]

Would love to see sources for that, is there a chart or something?

If you look at this site US Warplanes its useful for finding out who operated what and how many of each US fighter. The ratio of numbers built to aerial victories averages about 3 to one for the decent fighters, the P-40 being about 3 to 1 for the USAAF. So I would expect the Spitfire to have a 2 to 1 ratio if its as good as its claimed to be. However Macon claims 3800 total for all of WW2, or 5 to 1, and for the Hurricane 6085 or 3 to 2, better than either a Mustang or Hellcat. So its a bit odd. If the victories claimed are switched round for the Hurricane and Spitfire, then the magic ratio of 3 to 1 comes up for both Hurricane and Spitfire, which sounds a lot more plausible to me. Sit back for a moment. The Soviets claimed to have shot down 77000 Luftwaffe aircraft, but using the 3 to 1 ratio, gives you 20000 victories scored by the 60000 Soviet buillt fighters and 5000 by the 15000 Allied built fighters. Again to me this seems like a more reasonable Soviet achievement. If the Soviets shot down 77000 Luftwaffe aircraft then what the hell were us Brits and Americans doing?
Yes, although 2/3rds of the Luftwaffe was deployed on the Western Front, those are the planes the Soviets shot down.

 

[Schweik]

Well of course, there is overclaiming. For one year in Black Cross / Red Star (I can't remember off-hand but I think it was 1942) the Soviets lost 3,000, the Germans lost 1,000 - I think both sides claimed far more than that.

Is there a website which shows victories by type for RAF / UK aircraft?

 

[Milosh]

If you look at this site US Warplanes its useful for finding out who operated what and how many of each US fighter. The ratio of numbers built to aerial victories averages about 3 to one for the decent fighters, the P-40 being about 3 to 1 for the USAAF. So I would expect the Spitfire to have a 2 to 1 ratio if its as good as its claimed to be. However Macon claims 3800 total for all of WW2, or 5 to 1, and for the Hurricane 6085 or 3 to 2, better than either a Mustang or Hellcat. So its a bit odd. If the victories claimed are switched round for the Hurricane and Spitfire, then the magic ratio of 3 to 1 comes up for both Hurricane and Spitfire, which sounds a lot more plausible to me. Sit back for a moment. The Soviets claimed to have shot down 77000 Luftwaffe aircraft, but using the 3 to 1 ratio, gives you 20000 victories scored by the 60000 Soviet buillt fighters and 5000 by the 15000 Allied built fighters. Again to me this seems like a more reasonable Soviet achievement. If the Soviets shot down 77000 Luftwaffe aircraft then what the hell were us Brits and Americans doing?
Yes, although 2/3rds of the Luftwaffe was deployed on the Western Front, those are the planes the Soviets shot down.

Western Front is not actually correct. Western Front was part of the West which also included Reich Defense and Italy/Balkans.

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

 

[Schweik]

That is a really interesting chart too bad he started it at Sept - Dec 1943.

Can we honestly say that by Dec 1943 the outcome of the War was still in doubt? Did the Germans win any major battles on the Eastern Front in 1944?

 

[Glider]

It is easy to think you are discussing the same subject but actually we aren't. The Hurricane was slower and had a lower rate of climb, it had more chance of being hit and when hit it erupted into flames very quickly. The BoB was won by pilots not aircraft and the pilots of Hurricanes had a much higher chance of ending in the guinea pig club for many reasons.

True to a degree. A design flaw was identified soon after combat started which meant that a fire went directly into the cockpit. This was recognised and a change was made that effectively deflected the flame for about 20 seconds. That significantly improved the pilots chances.

 

[Shortround6]

As I said in another post, the Hurricane seemed to still be extremely useful in 1940 and into 1941. It was dominant over CR 42, MC 200, G.50, and Ki-27, was effective against the Bf 110 and all the German bombers with the possible exception of the Ju 88, and could hold it's own with the early Bf 109E's. It helped check the Axis in many parts of the world from Greece to the Middle East to Burma and Russia probably through the first half of 1941.

The decline in combat effectiveness of the Hurricane in later 1941 and 1942 was rather sudden and I agree it had something to do with the lack of upgrades. If they had made one with a thinner and / or smaller wing in particular, or a much bigger engine, it probably would have held it's ground.
.

The Hurricane had run it's course.
England had a shortage of engineers and draftsmen which affected quite a few programs. Futzing about with a new wing for the Hurricane means delaying something else Hawker/Gloster was working on.

They had to put a 4in extension into the Hurricane to fit the Merlin XX, trying to fit two stage Merlins or Griffions into the Hurricane was going to take a lot of work ( like changing major structural components. )
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. A thin wing Hurricane would probably be faster, Now how much higher is the stalling speed?
How much more runway does it need?
A MK IIa clean was supposed to take off over a 50ft obstacle in 425Yds (1275ft) which is practically STOL performance compared to some planes.
How many "trick" high lift devices you you want to try to use? each one adds cost to the construction. and to the design load.

The wing is actually the major part of a fighter, the fuselage just holds the engine/powerplant, wing and tail together and gives the pilot a place to sit.

 

[Schweik]

I just think that thick 40' wing was the main problem with the Hurricane, even if it did confer STOL capabilities. It gave it fantastic turning performance but at the cost of a huge amount of drag. With the Zero, also a big (39') wing, they cut that down on the A6M2 -52 to 36' and got a better plane that was faster and more agile at higher speeds but could still out turn anything in the Allied inventory.

Even the Spit saw experiments with clipping the wings, right?

 

[jetcal1]

The Hurricane had run it's course.
England had a shortage of engineers and draftsmen which affected quite a few programs. Futzing about with a new wing for the Hurricane means delaying something else Hawker/Gloster was working on.

Careful, I can tell you you're bordering on heresy!/ S

 

[nuuumannn]

The Hurricane had run it's course.
England had a shortage of engineers and draftsmen which affected quite a few programs. Futzing about with a new wing for the Hurricane means delaying something else Hawker/Gloster was working on.

I agree with this. It was recognised even by 1941 that developing the Hurri further was a bit watesful, even though Hawker toyed with the idea of fitting it with a Griffon. Despite all the advantages and benefits of the Hurricane during the first year of the war and the sterling service it gave throughout the rest of the war, it had built-in obsolescence - and let's not forget that Hawker had intended on replacing it with the Typhoon and or Tornado - the stopping production of the Vulture put that aeroplane to bed. So it wasn't meant to undergo too much of a transformation. That it stayed around was due to operational requirement in the unfolding conflict, not because it had staying power as a design. The Spitfire, by contrast was future proofed, owing to its ability to be fitted with ever more powerful engines. It kept pace with advancing fighter development in a way that the Hurricane just couldn't do.

 

[nuuumannn]

In 1941/42 Gloster was also instructed to concentrate its efforts on producing a fighter powered by Whittle's new engine (or two), which came at the expense of other projects, such as the promising Reaper twin engined fighter.

 

[Junglerot]

Agree with the above, with some caveats.

I think the Soviets still had use for the later model P-39s to the end of the war.
In addition to their effective use as fighters in the CBI by the Americans and Pacific by the Australians, the RAF was still using P-40s as fighter bombers in Italy to he end of the war.
They were still FM-2 or some version of the Martlet in the Royal Navy too I think. From the wiki:

"The last air-raid of the war in Europe was carried out by Fleet Air Arm aircraft in Operation Judgement, Kilbotn on May 5, 1945. Twenty eight Wildcat VI aircraft from Naval Air Squadrons 846, 853 and 882, flying from escort carriers, took part in an attack on a U-boat depot near Harstad, Norway. Two ships and a U-boat were sunk with the loss of one Wildcat and one Avenger torpedo-bomber. "

In a nutshell there were different types of Theaters, i.e. the Russian Front was much more focused on Low Altitude combat and had little requirement for long range, compared to NW Europe, and there were secondary (ala Italy) and Tertiary (CBI) Theaters where the 1941 and 1942 vintage aircraft still worked.

Not certain about the Hurricane in the CBI though I'd like to see some Operational history data for that.

The F4F/FM Wildcat/Martlet was the only fighter suitable for operation off of CVEs. It would not have been obsolete until the widespread introduction of the F8F Bearcat with its shortdeck capabilities.

 

[ODonovan]

I believe it soldiered on until 1944 in the far east.

From what I understand, Hurricanes were used in Burma until the end of the war.



-Irish

 

[Shortround6]

I agree with this. It was recognised even by 1941 that developing the Hurri further was a bit watesful, even though Hawker toyed with the idea of fitting it with a Griffon. Despite all the advantages and benefits of the Hurricane during the first year of the war and the sterling service it gave throughout the rest of the war, it had built-in obsolescence - and let's not forget that Hawker had intended on replacing it with the Typhoon and or Tornado - the stopping production of the Vulture put that aeroplane to bed. So it wasn't meant to undergo too much of a transformation. That it stayed around was due to operational requirement in the unfolding conflict, not because it had staying power as a design. The Spitfire, by contrast was future proofed, owing to its ability to be fitted with ever more powerful engines. It kept pace with advancing fighter development in a way that the Hurricane just couldn't do.

The Hurricane would have needed at least a 1500hp engine to go as fast as a P-40F at 20,000ft (that is 1500hp AT 20,000ft).
Let's face it, the Hurricane used a 40ft wing of 258sq ft and a Typhoon used a 41ft 7 in wing of 274 Sq ft. Without a major rethink on the wing you are going to need one heck of engine to get a Hurricane up to competitive speeds.
The Griffon might have done it but without a massive change in priorities the Griffon only became a production engine in late 1942 and trickled into the Spitfire MK XII and the Firefly MK I. The Single stage Griffons were over 400lbs heavier than a Merlin XX (and needed a bigger radiator) and bit of adjustment would needed to maintain the CG (understatement).
ANd even the early Griffons might not give enough power to make the Hurricane competitive at high altitudes.

 

[Schweik]

What if they just clipped 3' off of the wings?

 

[nuuumannn]

ANd even the early Griffons might not give enough power to make the Hurricane competitive at high altitudes.

Not only that, but if you start putting Griffons into Hurricanes, what are you not putting them into which could better take advantage of that engine's benefits? Personally I'd rather the Griffons went into Spitfires.