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

[Shortround6]

The Hurricane was adequate for the job of intercepting bombers and contesting the fighter escort, so why change over to the Spitfire during the BoB?

1. Because the Spitfire could make some of the intercepts the Hurricane could not.
2. Because you never know when or what the enemy is going to introduce as a new weapon (not without a really good spy network)
Basing your acquisitions on "adequate" is setting yourself for a massive fail at some point down the road.
3. By the summer of 1940 (before the BoB) starts there were three (?) factories "building" Spitfires. Castle Bromwich which was months behind schedule (but unlikely to be able to be converted to make anything else without months of delay). Castle Bromwich is generally credited with with 10 ML IIs in June, 23 in July, 37 in August and 56 in Sept.
One reason for the Hurricanes continued use was the destruction of both of Supermarines main plants at Woolston and Itchen. The factories were dispersed into several dozen locations and a great job was done under very difficult circumstances The Woolston and Itchen facilities may have built 1300 or Spitfire MK Is by the time they were bombed.
total production of MK I's was almost 1600 and Castle Bromwich built very few. The dispersed facilities around south Hampton continued to build MK Is during the fall of 1940 I believe (welcome correction).

4. The British were working over time to come up the MK II Hurricane to equal the 109E-3/4 powered by DB 601 A engines. Unfortunately I have seen next to nothing comparing a 109E with the DB 601N engine (109-E4/N's and E-7s) to either Hurricane MK Is and Spitfire MK Is or te eMk II versions of either aircraft. We know the Hurricane MK II was a done deal against a 109F with the DB 601N engine. in the spring of 1941.

 

[Shortround6]

They needed both, they could have won the BoB just with the Hurricane and had more loses and then what?, to win it with the Spitfire they needed to start building two factories about 1 year earlier certain that nothing could go wrong.

They started Castle Bromwich in 1938, unfortunately just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

 

[pbehn]

They started Castle Bromwich in 1938, unfortunately just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong.

I know, but you must assume that the same things would go wrong and match Hawkers production not only after the declaration but before. Every LW plane that fell to a Hurricane of the various forces that used them must be matched by a claim by a Spitfire, so the Belgians must have Spitfires and Dowding would complain and turn off "The Spitfire tap". The LW had already suffered heavy losses before the BoB started some of them to Hurricanes.

 

[Shortround6]

I think the British walked a fine line between the Spitfire and the Hurricane in the years before the war and in 1939-41. Sometimes it was circumstance (Problems at Castle Bromwich for instance) but they needed both fighters at that time. The continued production in 1943-44 is more subject to question. But it is not the Spitfire that is the competition anymore but Hawkers own typhoon and the failure to come up with a small tactical bomber. In the Far east a number of Blenheim squadrons re-equipped with Hurricanes.
In other areas the Hurricanes continued to fly into harms way but wither they were a good return on investment is subject to question.

No 6 Squadron in Greece. The MK IVs carried a single .303 gun in each wing so this appears to be a rather expensive way to get 4 rockets per plane to the target area.

It may be quite preferable to no air strikes but in the summer of 1944 and into 1945 one does wonder if something better could have been used.

 

[fubar57]

I think the British walked a fine line between the Spitfire and the Hurricane in the years before the war and in 1939-41. Sometimes it was circumstance (Problems at Castle Bromwich for instance) but they needed both fighters at that time. The continued production in 1943-44 is more subject to question. But it is not the Spitfire that is the competition anymore but Hawkers own typhoon and the failure to come up with a small tactical bomber. In the Far east a number of Blenheim squadrons re-equipped with Hurricanes.
In other areas the Hurricanes continued to fly into harms way but wither they were a good return on investment is subject to question.
View attachment 526364

No 6 Squadron in Greece. The MK IVs carried a single .303 gun in each wing so this appears to be a rather expensive way to get 4 rockets per plane to the target area.

It may be quite preferable to no air strikes but in the summer of 1944 and into 1945 one does wonder if something better could have been used.

Did a search for that photo as I was curious about the rocket loads on the aircraft. Alamy wants from $19.99 to $199.99 for that photo

 

[pbehn]

Someone else may have knowledge to confirm, or not, that pilots in the BoB were trained in aircraft other than the Hurricane or Spitfire, and did not get into their fighter until attached to their squadron for training. Those that would continue onto Hurricane squadrons would train in Hurricanes, and those going to Spitfire squadrons would train in Spitfires.

.

It wasn't uniform, many pilots changed squadrons and flew both, some squadrons re equipped with different aircraft. There were certainly many pilots who flew in the battle who flew both types, though they may have flown spitfires later.

 

[Shortround6]

Did a search for that photo as I was curious about the rocket loads on the aircraft. Alamy wants from $19.99 to $199.99 for that photo

Thank you, I will try changing it. If the moderators feel we infringing on copyright then They or I can delete it.

 

[fubar57]

I wouldn't worry about it, put it back. There are 3 other sites with it and don't charge. Alamy is trying to rip people off. Here's a far more reputable site
Ground crew rolling drums of petrol to Hurricane Mk IV of No 6 Squadron RAF at Araxos Greece | World War Photos
....and their photo credits...Photo credits | World War Photos

 

[Shortround6]

I wouldn't worry about it, put it back. There are 3 other sites with it and don't charge. Alamy is trying to rip people off. Here's a far more reputable site
Ground crew rolling drums of petrol to Hurricane Mk IV of No 6 Squadron RAF at Araxos Greece | World War Photos
....and their photo credits...Photo credits | World War Photos

Tell me about it, My wife got tangled up with one of these photo groups several years back because a person she hired to write a blog to promote her web site used a picture of a 1950s film actress. Since my wife owned the site they came after her with threatening letters. Strangely enough when you send back letters asking for copies of their rights to such photos and the chain of ownerships their demands drop to 15-25% of what they started out asking for. A few more demands for proof (but never refusing to pay should such proof appear) and the threatening letters and demands stop.

 

[CatTheCool]

I think it was more that expert pilots who knew what they were doing appreciated some of the Hurricanes properties, the Spitfire wasn't superior in every respect just most of the important ones.

When offered to give up their hurricanes for Spitfires, they refused.

 

[nuuumannn]

By and large, it looks like we are increasingly walking into minefields by posting other people's images on the site now. But this is necessary; online cheaters are everywhere and most big image companies, including image sharing sites have written the rules to include clauses that every image placed on their site is theirs to do with what they want. No one wrote any rules surrounding copyright and posting images on sites like stalkbook and twitter et al, to the extent that stalkbook has the right to use any image posted on it for whatever purpose it wants. D'you guys think Zuckerburg got rich by just providing a convenient place to chat for the gullible generation? He sells all your data to advertising companies, including images.

 

[pbehn]

When offered to give up their hurricanes for Spitfires, they refused.

Did they? I didn't realise pilots decided which planes they would fly.

 

[stona]

Did they? I didn't realise pilots decided which planes they would fly.

Nor which squadron they would fly with!

Cheers

Steve

 

[pbehn]

Nor which squadron they would fly with!

Cheers

Steve

I have frequently read "was unpopular with pilots" but little more.

 

[tyrodtom]

When offered to give up their hurricanes for Spitfires, they refused.

Most military might consider that close to mutiny.
Mutiny during ww2 could get you shot.

 

[pbehn]

Most military might consider that close to mutiny.
Mutiny during ww2 could get you shot.

I wonder how long they insisted on flying Hurricanes? Did the appearance of the MkXIV change their minds or were they loyal to Hawkers and insisted on Tempests?

 

[stona]

I wonder how long they insisted on flying Hurricanes? Did the appearance of the MkXIV change their minds or were they loyal to Hawkers and insisted on Tempests?

There was a suggestion that Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests and that squadrons already flying Spitfires (presumably Mk IXs) should convert to the Spitfire VIV. That was due to the way the two new aircraft flew relative to their predecessors, nothing to do with pilot preference.

The conclusion of a 'Brief Tactical Comparison' between the two, carried out by the AFDU, was that,

"The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require separate handling technique in combat. For this reason Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIVs, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would never be appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handled, the Tempest is the better below about 20,000 feet and the Spitfire XIV the better above that height."

Cheers

Steve

 

[BiffF15]

When offered to give up their hurricanes for Spitfires, they refused.

CatTheCool,

What references are you using, and what was the outcome? Also what were the pilots opinions after having switched? Was there opinions based on switching missions with the Spit or continued profiles (missions)?

Some amount of bellyacheing is to be expected. Once you become acclimated/ comfortable in a plane your mission effectiveness goes up and your resistance to change does as well. Learning a new plane requires leaving something comfortable for something not. If you are also, as are your squadron mates very effective in your current steed the desire to change gets another level of resistance.

I have flown with quite a few guys who came to the Eagle from F16s and F18s. Regardless of which they disliked the flight controls (not fly by wire-don't protect you from over G's), but loved the radar capabilities, load out, and how we employed. They eventually acclimated to the flight controls and other eccentricities of a new, to them, plane.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[fliger747]

The FA 18 has "fly by wire" controls. However it is quite true that we get used to and adapt to flying a particular aircraft. Indeed for a combat aircraft the strengths and weaknesses will be different and optimizing the tactics for the new aircraft during WWII might have taken some "experimentation" and losses in finding the way.

The 747 spanned the days from the old days to the present and changed accordingly, sometimes pilots would hang on the older equipment till it left the property. Along the way electrons as a barrier between the pilot and the plane began to creep in. 400 went to 'fly by wire" engines, no stink'n cables anymore. Some liked it, some not. The -8/Intercontinental cyphered in a little fly by wire in what they called "flare assist" for landing. Obviously to cure some test pilots "oh my" experience on landing. Good Job in seamlessly integrating this. I like the 400 best as I knew "I" was flying it.

In a war, one might not want to be exposed to the added danger of figuring out a new plane and tactics in combat. Then there is coming over to the dark side after having to defend you "Hurri" from those snotty "Spit" guys at the pub.

 

[Kevin J]

Most military might consider that close to mutiny.
Mutiny during ww2 could get you shot.

I think it was a case of, no problem, but after the battle, not during.