WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Basket said:
Question. ..1936. ...you have to decide right now Hurricane or Spitfire?

Usually in a 2 horse race you have a winner. One could argue Hurricane offers today and Spitfire tomorrow.
Click to expand...

They wanted the Spitfire, but recognised it may take a while to get going (new type of construction). So they ordered teh Hurricane to hedge their bets.
 
wuzak said:
They wanted the Spitfire, but recognised it may take a while to get going (new type of construction). So they ordered teh Hurricane to hedge their bets.
Click to expand...

You've got it reversed. They ordered the Hurricane as a sure bet, and gambled by ordering the Spitfire as well.
 
I dont know you can say "safe" or "short term". It was quite common for air forces to invest in more than one type, because of production or development contingencies, as you say. But it also meant that there were two sources of supply, two aircraft in the inventory with different capability.

Its already been claimed that that urricanes were massacred and slaughtered, but i dont see much evidence of that. They were outclased, to be sure, but they were not made obsolete by their opponent. Weve already been over the malta example, where it was claimed that 42 Hurricanes claimed for no loss. Its more like 19 or 20 for no loss of 109s ,thats in dispute. Whats not in dispute is the fact that those Hurricanes, heavily outnumbered, were not shooting back at the 109s. They were attacking the bombers, and doing pretty well. For 1941, over Malta, depite on average being outnumbered by about 4 or 5:1, they still managed to destroyed 200-260 (axis records confirm the loss of 260 aircraft over the island....estimated losses to flak and "other causes" are 50-60) for the loss of 150 Hurricanes. Thats not being outclassed. Thats quite normal for most allied fights of the time.

The Hurricane continued on in frontline until 1943. Thats not short term. The Spitfire continued on until 1954. thats exceptional. Spitfire was an exceptional aircraft, indispensable in 1939-40 in my opinion. That doesnt mean the hurricane was not either, it just means the Spit was exceptional.
 
Oh, alright Aozora, grumble grumble, you convinced me. Regarding the British Specs book, it might have to wait until my next trip to the UK, although the list of items I'll be pciking up is already as long as my arm...
 
i will proberly be shot for this but if we had not had the Merlin engine from the racing s6 type we would proberly have lost the early years
 
The connection, while very important was not very direct.

The work on the engines in the S6 types showed RR the potential of a supercharged V-12 given good fuel and working to meet race deadlines gave them practice at working under pressure but the Merlin shared nothing with the engines in the S6 except the fact that both were liquid cooled V-12s.
 
I will probably be shot for this, but if we had not had the Merlin engine from the racing S6 type we would probably have lost the early years
Click to expand...

Not shot, just chastised Using that analysis, you could throw the statement open and say "If Henry Royce had decided against developing the Eagle in 1915, then..."

The S.6's 'R' engines were bigger than the Merlin in almost every way, bore/stroke was 6.0 x 6.6 in compared to 5.4 x 6.0 in the Merlin and 36.7 lt compared to 27 lt in the Merlin. They were the ancestors of the Griffon.
 
RCAFson said:
What about kills versus non fighters which is a critical piece of info that's lacking?
Click to expand...
You are free to count them by yourself if you think they are critical. But usually e.g. in BoB figures all those BC and CC planes shot down by 109s and 110s are left out even if those 109s shot down by bomber airgunners seems to have incl. in LW losses. Maybe 1603 vs 1891 losses wasn't good enough result?

RCAFson said:
So the Hurricane, which had to cost about 1/3 of a 110 fought it to a draw over NA...hmmm.
Click to expand...

I cannot say anything on cost beyond that 110 was clearly more expensive because wartime price comparations between warring nations are very complicated but if you think that being equal in air combat with 110 is a great achievement, well. At least 109E had clearly positive exchange rate against surely more expensive Blenheim IVFs, nearest British equivalent to 110 in 1940. And also against Beaufighter which replaced Blenheim IVF later on.
 
Last edited:

The vast majority of RAF losses were SE fighters, which could be rapidly replaced with low aircrew losses while the vast majority of LW losses were TE bombers, lost with all their aircrew.




The Beaufighter/Blenheim was never considered as a long range escort and air superiority fighter, which the Bf110 tried to be. The role of the Beaufighter/Blenheim was to act as a night fighter and to provide fighter protection in areas beyond the reach of LW SE fighters.
 
RCAFson said:
The vast majority of RAF losses were SE fighters, which could be rapidly replaced with low aircrew losses while the vast majority of LW losses were TE bombers, lost with all their aircrew.
Click to expand...

Of course much depends how one defines vast but c. 45% of LW losses during the BoB were 109s and 110s and then there were Ju87 and sundry other types losses, so in that case vast = c. 50% and some 30% of RAF losses were other than FC a/c.




Now initially Blenheim wasn't considered as a night fighter, in fact Blenheim wasn't well suited in night flying. FC saw it as day and night intruder and shipping protection fighter, CC as shipping protection fighter, air-to-ground and long-range fighter-bomber role. And they were definitely used inside the reach of LW SE fighters. And suffered accordingly.

Many of the roles in which Blenheim fighters were used were the same in which 110s operated, including escorting strike a/c. And LW at least had saw before the war that daylight bombing raids needed some sort of escort, that was something that RAF understood only after several costly defeats.

Juha
 
So what engine would have gone into the Spitfire or Hurricane if the Merlin hadn't been developed?
Click to expand...

An improved Kestrel maybe, and then they could call it after one of the unused British birds of prey, like 'Merlin'. or they could press for the Griffon earlier than expected.
 
The Dagger was a perfectly feasible alternative. It served two airforces for some years in the Hector but the period alternative was the Bristol Pegasus which was suited to widespread production. The Merlin was better but the Pegasus could hold the fort until the Hercules was up to speed.
 
The Dagger was hardly feasible. It served poorly in the Hector and the Irish only used it because they could get nothing else. In the Hector it was an 725-805 hp engine, when tried as a 1000hp engine in the Hereford it was a disaster despite modifications to teh cooling fins and Napier supplied air scoops and baffles.

If the thing won't work (coll properly) in the British isles the chances of it working in the Mid east or Asia are about zero.
 
I agree Shortround6 but when De Havilland did a study of the Dagger they found the fault to lie with the installation in that there was too little attention paid to the cooling air exit as opposed to the entry and a proper low pressure exit duct would allow the Dagger to have been cooled quite adequately.

Hectors did a good job of dragging gliders around 1941/3.

But there is the Pegasus for the moment and a later 2,000bhp double Pegasus could carry on for the future. Bristol were not keen but they wanted to go sleeve valve. Alfa Romeo had a good go at it but I think Bristol could have carried it through.
 


I know that it is "popular" and "cute" and "fairer" to try and argue that BC and CC losses should be included if LW Bombers are included in the tally. To some extent this has justification....to the extent that RAF bombers provided eyes for the impending invasion , such losses were relevant in a direct way to the outcome of the battle. Losses sustained over Germany, or in relation to thigs being done not directly linked to the battle are not relevant to the battle, and therefore it is irrelevant and misleading to including them in the final tally.

You cannot draw the same conclusions for the Luftwaffe. Every aircraft lost, be it related to the battle or not had an effect on the outcome of the battle. The LW needed its bombers, its recons, its fighters to achieve air superiority. thios was thei aim and so, every time they lost an aircraft, they were one step further away from achieving that. For the British, you cant draw the same conclusions. Not every aircraft lost was relevant to their battle. This says some bad things about British strategic priorities of the time, but it is also a more accurate appraisal of who was winning.
 
BoB wasnt about the number of aircraft shot down but the achievement of military objectives. If the RAF had an all Hurricane fighter command then in my view the military objectives wouldn't have altered and the Luftwaffe would have still failed in trying to knock UK out of war.
 

I have to agree with Shortround, Yulzari, although if the Dagger is to be considered it'd have to be the 955 hp Dagger VIII fitted to the Hereford rather than the 725 hp Dagger IIIM fitted to the Hart and Martin Baker M.B.2, purely because of the latter's lower power output. By then, though Halford and Napier were already working on the Sabre, an even bigger, more complex and arguably more troublesome 24 cylinder engine...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire with proper meredith effect
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
Tropical performance of Hurricane and Spitfire
Replies
18
Views
2K
EwenS
E
SMGs in ww2 with much smaller cartridges?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
Admiral Beez
A
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Snautzer01
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
611
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register