WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor

[The Basket]

Not sure how Spitfire production related to Whirlwind production. If anything the Typhoon carrying 4 x 20mm killed the Whirlwind.

As for the others - really? Designs to an even older specification than the Spitfire's? And the M20, proposed as an emergency stop-gap to bolster fighter numbers?

Just names of the top of my head. Personally I would go with a Tornado or more P-40s or even a merlin P-51.

Historically there would be a gap without the spitfire 41/42 but in a lot of theatres of war north Africa and far east the hurricane was dominant anyway.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not sure why, but I'm trying to picture the single engined Whirly right now So many features were cutting edge in that plane, all at once - Fowler flaps, combined with slats, almost the teardrop canopy, embedded radiators...

 

[RCAFson]

Just names of the top of my head. Personally I would go with a Tornado or more P-40s or even a merlin P-51.

Historically there would be a gap without the spitfire 41/42 but in a lot of theatres of war north Africa and far east the hurricane was dominant anyway.

Exactly, plus there would be a lot more, better, Hurricanes in 41/42 than historically. Of course the Hurricane had more potential than was used, and we'd probably see cleaned up, lightened Hurricanes with better engines and performance than historically. For example, the Hurricane with a Merlin 45/16lb boost would have been a very potent low-medium altitude interceptor from Dec 1941 onward.

 

[tomo pauk]

How would one clean up the Hurricane, and what gain could we expect? What could the Hurricane with Merlin 45 do, compared with Spitfire V (already hard pressed both by 109 and 190)?

 

[RCAFson]

How would one clean up the Hurricane, and what gain could we expect? What could the Hurricane with Merlin 45 do, compared with Spitfire V (already hard pressed both by 109 and 190)?

Smoother airframe, cleaner RV mirror, whip antennae versus mast, retractable tail wheel = ~10-15mph, but lets say 10mph.

Here's the performance of the Hurricane/Spit V:

note that the Hurricane II and Hurricane/M45 used an incorrect PEC measurement and should show about 10-12mph faster, as per the corrected Hurricane IIB (in red, and is a IIB not IIA as per my original legend), so we can probably get to ~355mph with the Hurricane IIA and cleaned up airframe.

 

[tomo pauk]

Anyway you cut it, the resulting plane is already lagging behind the 109F1/F2 some 20-25 mph (= 1st half of 1941), and behind the 109F4 and 190 by some 40 mph (= second half of 1942).
It would not be a long stretch for the Spit V to receive the same aerodynamic improvements, along with wheel well covers, and one can have the 390 mph Spitfire, even if that's not the III.

 

[RCAFson]

Anyway you cut it, the resulting plane is already lagging behind the 109F1/F2 some 20-25 mph (= 1st half of 1941), and behind the 109F4 and 190 by some 40 mph (= second half of 1942).
It would not be a long stretch for the Spit V to receive the same aerodynamic improvements, along with wheel well covers, and one can have the 390 mph Spitfire, even if that's not the III.

Anyway you cut it, the Spitfire was not used in the MTO until the Spring of 1942. More numerous, higher performance Hurricanes can only improve the Commonwealth position in the MTO.

 

[Juha]

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.

My answer was to RCAFSon's claim that non-fighter losses were critical info in fighter losses comparations. And in fact
a) much of Blenheim bomber effords were against invasion vessels and against LW a/fs, so directly linked to the BoB
b) BC attacks on targets in Germany were the main reason for the decision to convert most of 110 units to night fighter units. While IMHO 110 was less effective than 109, IIRC Christer Bergström claims in his BoB book that 110 was the most effective fighter participating the BoB but I doubt that, it anyway could give some protection to LW bombers and was an effective anti-bomber plane and fighter-bomber, so their withdrawal from day-fighter operations weakened LW efforts because the sparcity of fighters hindered significantly LW's daytime operations during the later part of the BoB.
c) BC and CC would have had significant part to play if the German invasion threat had materialized.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Anyway you cut it, the Spitfire was not used in the MTO until the Spring of 1942. More numerous, higher performance Hurricanes can only improve the Commonwealth position in the MTO.

In same vane less Hurricanes would have meant more Spits which would have allowed earlier deployment of Spits into MTO which would have led less KIA Commonwealth fighter jockeys and meager tallies to JG 27 Experten.

 

[Juha]

Historically there would be a gap without the spitfire 41/42 but in a lot of theatres of war north Africa and far east the hurricane was dominant anyway.

And what that meant? At least easier kills to JG 27 Experten. Usually Hurricanes did badly in MTO and FE.

 

[Juha]

View attachment 233397

Does anybody find it's performance just a little too good?
Almost as fast as a P-36 with 100-200 less HP?

The streamlining looks just a bit off too. Partially exposed wheels are fine for wheels up landings (Just like the Fairey Battle) but make the P-36 landing gear look positively modern...

At least F.5/34 had very good ailerons

 

[Juha]

BoB wasnt about the number of aircraft shot down but the achievement of military objectives. ..

Of course

 

[The Basket]

Spitfire V was at a performance disadvantage anyway against the 109F and the Fw190 so one could argue the Spitfire was not cutting it anyway. I believe that if push came to shove in 1938 a Hawker fighter could have been crash course built and been up and running before 1942 and would have been superior to a Spit V.

Just my view.

 

[RCAFson]

In same vane less Hurricanes would have meant more Spits which would have allowed earlier deployment of Spits into MTO which would have led less KIA Commonwealth fighter jockeys and meager tallies to JG 27 Experten.

Yes, but the problems with Spitfire production were less tractable than with the Hurricane. Throwing money at the Spitfire doesn't result in much more production in the 1938-41 timeframe, but more money would have greatly increased Hurricane output in the same time frame.

 

[Jerry W. Loper]

This thread should really be about Spitfire vs. Hurricane PLUS Typhoon and Tempest, because Sydney Camm knew the Hurricane was going to be outclassed as an air superiority interceptor before a war was over, and had the prototype Typhoon flying in February 1940, before the Battle of Britain started.

 

[wuzak]

Spitfire V was at a performance disadvantage anyway against the 109F and the Fw190 so one could argue the Spitfire was not cutting it anyway. I believe that if push came to shove in 1938 a Hawker fighter could have been crash course built and been up and running before 1942 and would have been superior to a Spit V.

Just my view.

Running what engine?

History tells us that Hawkers were working on the Tornado/Typhoon before 1938. The Tornado was test flown in late 1939, and the Typhoon in early 1940.

The Tornado's engine disappeared before it could get into production. So that left the Typhoon. That was in production from before 1942 (just).

So, is the Typhoon the "crash course built" fighter from Hawkers?

History also tells us that it failed as a replacement to the Spitfire.

And that any "crash course built" fighter from Hawkers developed in the period 1938-1942 would likely have featured very thick wings and would have struggled to match the Spitfire without a ton more power. The Spitfire IX was being developed in 1941, so the goal posts for beating the Spitfire were being moved rather rapidly.

 

[wuzak]

Yes, but the problems with Spitfire production were less tractable than with the Hurricane. Throwing money at the Spitfire doesn't result in much more production in the 1938-41 timeframe, but more money would have greatly increased Hurricane output in the same time frame.

No Hurricane production opens up factory floor space for Spitfire production - Hawkers, Gloster, etc.

 

[wuzak]

Anyway you cut it, the Spitfire was not used in the MTO until the Spring of 1942. More numerous, higher performance Hurricanes can only improve the Commonwealth position in the MTO.

Not using Spitfires in the MTO was a chocie by the high command, from what I understand. Not a lack of numbers.

Releasing Spitfires earlier would improve the Commonwealth position in the MTO far more than slightly higher performance Hurricanes would.

 

[The Basket]

We have changed history, people! No Spitfire!

So the Hawker fighter can have what ever engine it pleases.

Maybe a Griffon or Merlin...just go with it.

Spitfire 9 doesn't exist remember so any new Hawker fighter is going to be better than a Hurrucane or P-40.

And the Hawker Tempest and Sea Fury certainly did replace Spit/Seafire.. post war but replace it did.

 

[wuzak]

And the Hawker Tempest and Sea Fury certainly did replace Spit/Seafire.. post war but replace it did.

The Tempest never did. The Sea Fury did. Around 1948?