WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor

[wuzak]

The point is that there would be a LOT more Hurricanes built, for the same effort and cost meaning that the Commonwealth (and Red AF via Commonwealth aid) have abundant fighters available for the critical battles that were fought in the Med in 1941. Malta will have adundant fighters, as will Crete when both are placed under siege, and there will be more for Singapore and maybe even some for Oz...

But will there be sufficient pilots?

The Hurricane could always out turn the Spitfire because of it's lower wing loading, roll rates are very similar, with the Spit only having a slight edge. Climb rates aren't that different either as the Hurricane has more lift due to the lower wing loading but this is hard to compare because of the often different armament and armour loadings. The Spitfire has the edge in dive but a cleaned up Hurricane would improve on the historical Hurricane.

The Spit could outclimb the Hurricane comfortably.

The Spit could also have been cleaned up some.

I'm not arguing that the Hurricane is a better fighter, but more capable Hurricanes, sooner would have improved the Commonwealth's strategic position in 1941.

More Spitfires would have improved the position even more.

 

[RCAFson]

gives the top speed of a Spitfire Vb as 371mph @ 20,100ft without snowguard (as with the Hurricance above) and 365mph @ 18,800ft with the snow guard fitted. Bot these are at +9psi boost (as with the Hurricane).

Note that while the Hurricane tested had 12 x 0.303"s the Spitfire had 2 x 20mm and 4 x 0.303"s. I'll leave it to the gun guys to say which is a heavier install, but the 2 x 20mm cannon is far draggier than the completely enclosed 0.303"guns.

Note also that the Spitfire takes about 2 minutes less to get to 20,000ft than the Hurricane II.

Spitfire V performance varies a lot, depending on individual tests. I compared a Vb/46 with the Hurricane II because both have roughly the same full throttle height and power at FTH. Again, you fixate on performance when the issue is aircraft production.

Did the Spitfire have these drag reducing things at that time?




So, a Hurricane protoype in 1940 was about as fast as the prototype Spitfire from around 3 years earlier, using 30-40% more power?

Impressive....not.

3 years after the prototype they were still struggling to build the Spitfire while the Hurricane was available in relative abundance - but still not enough to go around.

 

[Aozora]

The point is that there would be a LOT more Hurricanes built, for the same effort and cost meaning that the Commonwealth (and Red AF via Commonwealth aid) have abundant fighters available for the critical battles that were fought in the Med in 1941. Malta will have adundant fighters, as will Crete when both are placed under siege, and there will be more for Singapore and maybe even some for Oz...

The point is that a lot more of the original design of Hurricane might have been built. Problem is by 1941 it was obsolescent as a fighter. Malta, for example, did have abundant Hurricanes, which were slaughtered by a single staffel of 109E-7s (7.JG/26) during the spring and summer of 1941 (partly poor tactics, partly tropical filter, without which the servicability rates would have been drastically reduced anyway).

As for a modified Hurricane? All that effort and expense for what exactly? A well below par fighter in the European theatre in 1943?

 

[RCAFson]

But will there be sufficient pilots?


ore Spitfires would have improved the position even more.

There was lots of slack in the pilot training program, so more aircraft sooner = a larger training program with more pilot output.

More Spitfires sooner really is a fantasy - the aircraft was simply hard to build and required a lot more engineering than the Hurricane.

 

[RCAFson]

The point is that a lot more of the original design of Hurricane might have been built. Problem is by 1941 it was obsolescent as a fighter. Malta, for example, did have abundant Hurricanes, which were slaughtered by a single staffel of 109E-7s (7.JG/26) during the spring and summer of 1941 (partly poor tactics, partly tropical filter, without which the servicability rates would have been drastically reduced anyway).

As for a modified Hurricane? All that effort and expense for what exactly? A well below par fighter in the European theatre in 1943?

Over Greece the Hurricanes had a positive kill ratio over the 109. Malta never had abundant Hurricanes, and the Hurricanes were almost invariably, massively, outnumbered by Axis fighters. It's true that the 109E ran up a lot of kills over a ~6 month period but the Hurricanes were not slaughtered. The 109s were able use hit and run tactics precisely because the Hurricanes were so badly outnumbered by Axis fighters, plus the 109s were only 70 miles from their bases.

At Crete the RAF defence consisted of about 1/2 a dozen Hurricanes, IIRC. More Hurricanes in Malta, Crete and to the FAA mean far fewer RN losses and a probable victory in Crete and a potential for a complete collapse in the Axis position in North Africa.

 

[wuzak]

Again, you fixate on performance when the issue is aircraft production.

Right. They should have dropped Hurricane production sooner and built Spitfires at Hawkers and Glosters, at least until the Typhoon was ready.

Hawkers were predicting 460mph+ for the Typhoon - so why would they bother upgrading the Hurricane to make it, maybe, do 350mph by 1942?

 

[parsifal]

The point is that a lot more of the original design of Hurricane might have been built. Problem is by 1941 it was obsolescent as a fighter. Malta, for example, did have abundant Hurricanes, which were slaughtered by a single staffel of 109E-7s (7.JG/26) during the spring and summer of 1941 (partly poor tactics, partly tropical filter, without which the servicability rates would have been drastically reduced anyway).

As for a modified Hurricane? All that effort and expense for what exactly? A well below par fighter in the European theatre in 1943?

Ive looked at this briefly in the other thread you are enjoying so much at the moment (the Hellcat thread).

I wouldnt call it a slaughter. Havent looked at the whole time period, but i did look at November'40 to June'41. In that period Malta received 48 Hurricanes, and ended the period with either 16 or 19. About 23 were lost to non-combat related incidents. Losses to air combat in that period amounted might have been 6 or 9. Thats against the entire Axis inventory....italian and German. More than a single staffeln of 109s. The element of JG 26 committed to the battle was at times more than a single staffeln, but overall claimed 42 victories for no loss. However, Axis losses in that period amounted to neqarly 100 aircraft, likley therefore that the Hurricanes, as always were not targetting the 109sat all, they were going after the bombers.

That is hardly a slaughter. Thats intelligent use of limited resources

 

[Aozora]

There was lots of slack in the pilot training program, so more aircraft sooner = a larger training program with more pilot output.

Yet another assumption, this time that the RAF could suddenly train more fighter pilots soon enough to have any effect. The RAF training "program" was at full stretch pre-war, with no room for a sudden influx of new pilots/aircrew - that's why setting up the EATS scheme was so important. Another reason why there were not enough experienced FC pilots was because the priority was on training crews and pilots for Bomber Command.

This also wrongfully assumes that more Hurricanes would have been built. In fact when a plan was concocted in 1939 to terminate Spitfire production after the first two batches (K L, mainly because of the sometimes idiotic delays in Spitfire components by sub-contractors), production was to be turned over to the Beaufighter or Whirlwind, not the Hurricane, partly because even then the Air Ministry considered that the Hurricane was approaching obsolescence and was placing higher priority of building the new generation designs (including the Tornado/Typhoon).

 

[Aozora]

The 109s were able use hit and run tactics precisely because the Hurricanes were so badly outnumbered by Axis fighters, plus the 109s were only 70 miles from their bases.

The 109s could use hit and run tactics because they were over 30 mph faster than the Hurricanes and could climb faster and higher and dive faster.

 

[parsifal]

According to the "Story Of Malta" (Appendix 1)

"In all, 361 Hurricanes were ferried towards Malta since August 1940 to December 1941 of which 303 reached the island, and of which 150 went on to North Africa. May 1941 brought the total force of Hurricanes deliveries to Malta since June 1940 to just over 50 aircraft.


From June 1940 to the beginning of 1942, the defending fighters had claimed 199 confirmed enemy aircraft kills and 78 probables, while the AA guns accounted for another 50 aircraft. All this had been achieved for the loss of 20 Hurricanes, three Fulmars, one Gladiator plus another 10 Hurricanes, 3 Fulmar and 3 Gladiators destroyed on the Ground.

The Fighter squadrons that served at malta at this time (ie to thend of 1941) were

261 Sqdn; Hurricane I, Aug 1940 — May 1941
806 FAA Sqdn (det):Fulmar I, Jan 1941 — Mar 1942 (returned to Alexandria for some months)
185 Sqdn: Hurr I, IIA, IIB C, May 1941 — Feb 1942
249 Sqdn: Hurr I, IIA, B- May 1941 — Feb 1942
46 Sqdn: Hurr IIB, C June 1941 — Feb 1942 (became 126 Sqdn)
1435 Flt Hurr IIB, C Dec 1941 — Feb 1942
800 FAA Sqdn (det) Fulmar I May — Nov 1941
242 Sqdn (det) Hurr IIB, C Nov 1941 — Feb 1942
605 Sqdn (Part) Hurr IIB, C Nov 1941 — Feb 1942

These formations had an authorised strength of 96 a/c. They were seldom up to strength however.

As at 22 March 1941, the Malta Air Defence Command had 23 fighters in total available. Not all of these were serviceable. All the Hurricanes were Hurricane hand me downs ...survivors of the BoB.

On the 22 march 1941 Luftflootte X had the follinfg strengths and deployments

Central Basin
7./JG 26 Gela Me109E-7 14
I/JG 27 Gela Me109E-7 39
I/NJG 3 Gela Me110E-3 7
9./ZG26 Gela Me110D-3 15
II/LG1 Catania Ju88A-4 26
III/LG1 Catania Ju88A-4 40
4./KG 4 Comiso He111H-3 12
II/KG 26 Comiso He111H-3 26
III/KG 30 Comiso Ju88A-4 27
Stab, Stg 1 Comiso Ju87B-2 6
II/Stg 1 Trapani Ju87B-2 42
III/Stg 1 Trapani Ju87B-2 37
Stab, Stg 3 Trapani Ju87B-2 5

I count 296 aircraft in this command
There were approximately 100 Italian aircraft also participating in the offensive. This means at that point of the war, the defending hurricanes (mostly Hurricane Is) were outnumbered approximately 17.2:1

Libya
III/ZG26 Ain-El-Gazala, Libya Me110D-3 33
I/Stg 1 Ain-el-Gazala Ju87B-2 30
I/Stg 2 Ain-el-Gazala Ju87B-2 38


I dont have a complete OB for the Italians, but it included the following

6 Gruppo ; (79,81, 88 Squdrigilia), Fontanarossa, MC.200 strength Not Known
17 Gruppo, (71, 72, 80 Squadriglia), Trapani Milo, MC200, Unknown
83 Gruppo, (170, 184, 186 Squdriglia), Augusta, Z501/Z506, 14, 8
87 Gruppo (192, 193 Squdriglia), Sciacca, SM.79 Not Known (but operational)
90 Gruppo (194, 195 Squadriglia), Sciacca, SM.79 Not Known (readiness state not known either)
108 Gruppo (256, 257 Squadriglia) Location not known - SM.79 Strength Unkown
109 Gruppo (256, 259 Squadriglia) Location Unkown, SM.79 - Strength Unkown
144 Ind Squadriglia Stagnone Z501/Z506 Strength Unkown
612 Ind Squadriglia Stagnone Z506C 5
613 Ind Squadriglia Elmas SM66C 5
27 Gruppo (18, 52 Squadriglia) Villacidro SM.79 Strength Unkown



Not included in this tally are the 77 Ju52 transports and the 6 or so FW 200C transports. There were a few flying boats as well

From the start of the war to 31 December 1941, the Italians had lost 175 planes over Malta, while the Germans acknowledged that they had lost 81. The RAF admitted the losses of 20 Hurricanes aircraft in the air, and more on the ground. There were other losses of other types as well, for example the entire force of 5 wellingtons based on the island had been destroyed on the ground.

But that is anything but a slaughter.

 

[RCAFson]

The 109s could use hit and run tactics because they were over 30 mph faster than the Hurricanes and could climb faster and higher and dive faster.

Most Darwin Spitfire losses were due to being bounced by a fighter with much poorer high altitude performance.

 

[Aozora]

Ive looked at this briefly in the other thread you are enjoying so much at the moment (the Hellcat thread).

I wouldnt call it a slaughter. Havent looked at the whole time period, but i did look at November'40 to June'41. In that period Malta received 48 Hurricanes, and ended the period with either 16 or 19. About 23 were lost to non-combat related incidents. Losses to air combat in that period amounted might have been 6 or 9. Thats against the entire Axis inventory....italian and German. More than a single staffeln of 109s. The element of JG 26 committed to the battle was at times more than a single staffeln, but overall claimed 42 victories for no loss. However, Axis losses in that period amounted to neqarly 100 aircraft, likley therefore that the Hurricanes, as always were not targetting the 109sat all, they were going after the bombers.

That is hardly a slaughter. Thats intelligent use of limited resources

Where you got those figures from I have no idea, they are clearly inaccurate:

From Malta: The Hurricane Years 1940-41 (a day to day chronicle):

Between February 1941 and late May Hurricanes shot down in air-to-air combat by 7./JG26 = 27 with no losses to 7 Staffel. (pages 146 - 225) In one-on one fighter combat that is a slaughter.

Shores, Cull and Malizia have identified all of the Hurricanes shot down and the majority of the pilots involved, so the figures from "Story of Malta" are also badly awry when it comes to the numbers of Hurricanes shot down in combat.

Just for interest here's an extract describing the effect of the 109s intervening over Malta

 

[Aozora]

Most Darwin Spitfire losses were due to being bounced by a fighter with much poorer high altitude performance.

And shot down several Zeros after being bounced, something the Malta Hurricanes could not achieve. Had Hurricanes been based at Darwin the Zeros would have been even more successful in the bounce.

 

[RCAFson]

And shot down several Zeros after being bounced, something the Malta Hurricanes could not achieve. Had Hurricanes been based at Darwin the Zeros would have been even more successful in the bounce.

That's debatable. Hurricanes were better gun platforms and probably would have suffered less from cannon/gun jams and from CS prop failures. Overall, I bet they would have suffered fewer losses and made more kills.

 

[parsifal]

Where you got those figures from I have no idea, they are clearly inaccurate:

From Malta: The Hurricane Years 1940-41 (a day to day chronicle):

Between February 1941 and late May Hurricanes shot down in air-to-air combat by 7./JG26 = 27 with no losses to 7 Staffel. (pages 146 - 225) In one-on one fighter combat that is a slaughter.

The problem with this, is that there werent 27 to shoot down. Thats a bit of a problem with that account. There were a total of 50 Hurricanes delivered June 1940 through to the end of May 1941. 8 were delivered in June 1940, but these had been gradually lost or grounded as i understand it by action with the italians, before the entry of the Germans on the scene. There was a reinforcement of 12 Hurricanes provided in November, 12 flown off, but only 4 made it. There was another resupply before March, such that the available strength March and April was about 23 aircraft. Another 5 were lost in delivery. There was a major resupply by Ark Royal towards the end of April, andother one lost enroute. Hurricanes were lost on the ground or to noncombat related causes in March (that might be a doubleing up from the 5 lost and mentioned previously.

Putting that all together, 8 lost before the arrival of the Germans, 15 lost at sea, or on the ground, 16 (or 19) still serviceable at the beginning of June '41. That adds up to 39 not shot down by the German 109s. Sorry if that does not correlate to Shores, or anyone else, but they are semi official figures 9cant be official since many of the early war strength returns for the Malta defence command were destroyed in air raids. That means that my sources are aas good as yours.

Areas where I may be wrong....perhaps the italians did not shoot down all 8 of the June defenders, in which case you might assume up to 8 more. but most accounts admit to the loss of 8 Hurricanes to the end of December 1940. If those losses were in fact by Germans, then your victories for the 109s could be bumped up to 19. But the overall loss rates for the Huricanes remains fixed, iut just means more credit needs to be given to the 109s. Doesnt alter the overall losses suffereed by the Axis, doesnt alter the overall losses suffered by the hurricanes, and doesnt disprove that the claim the hurricanes were "slaughtered" is a total post war myth. I'll take 20-50 Hurricanes lost in exchange for 230 Axis aircraft any day and claim it a victory every time, especially when the defenders are outnumbered 17:1. .

 

[parsifal]

And shot down several Zeros after being bounced, something the Malta Hurricanes could not achieve. Had Hurricanes been based at Darwin the Zeros would have been even more successful in the bounce.

Not necesarily. Youd have to compare with operations in Burma I think at about the same time. Youd have to subsitute Zeroes for Ki-43s, and not inlcude any battles when the Hurris were being used for ground strike. Good luck with that because none exist.

 

[wuzak]

Hurricanes were better gun platforms

Would only matter if they can get into position to fire.

and probably would have suffered less from cannon/gun jams

Why would that be?

Perhaps if the Spitfires in Darwin were new there would have been less issues?

and from CS prop failures

Since the CS prop units were the same, what makes you think that would be the case?

Overall, I bet they would have suffered fewer losses and made more kills.

That is a stretch.

 

[nuuumannn]

If there was no Spitfire, another manufacturer - possibly Boulton Paul with what became the P.94 single seat Defiant, would have produced a second fighter, as both Aozora and Wuzak have mentioned before. As for Hawker, things would not have gone any differently than the way it did in real life; effort would have been concentrated on the Typhoon and Tornado, not further developing the Hurricane. Here is a passage from British Secret projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 1950 by Tony Buttler;

"...Sydney Camm produced a series of all new designs, Typhoon, Tempest and Fury, which were, however, closely related since each new design showed important similarities to its predecessor. Camm's hand was also forced by the lack of development potential in the Hurricane but the first of these follow-on aeroplanes, the Typhoon, actually resulted from a tender design competition. Specification F.18/37, officially dated March 1938, called for a high-speed single-seat fighter to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane (for many years it was Air Staff practice to begin looking for a replacement almost immediately a new type entered service)."

More from the same book;

"Over 14,500 were eventually built and there were proposals to fit an example with the more powerful Rolls-Royce Griffon. A prototype was begun but never completed and on 27 February 1941 Roderic Hill, DGRD reported that "The Hurricane with Griffon is not considered worthwhile."

Camm would not have wasted any more energy developing the Hurricane airframe any more than what was actually carried out, Spitfire or no Spitfire.

Mason, who by the way wrote the definitive history of the BofB

Frank Mason is a good author, but I wouldn't state that Battle over Britain was the definitive account of the BofB at all. The Battle of Britain Then and Now by After the Battle is probably the most intensively researched account of the battle produced yet and is likely to remain that way for some time. At a massive 816 pages and costing 60 quid, it takes the cake, I'm afraid. The Battle of Britain by Richard Hough and Dennis Richards is an exceptional account that, in analysis leaves many previous efforts behind in its scope and conclusions.

 

[RCAFson]

If there was no Spitfire, another manufacturer - possibly Boulton Paul with what became the P.94 single seat Defiant, would have produced a second fighter, as both Aozora and Wuzak have mentioned before. As for Hawker, things would not have gone any differently than the way it did in real life; effort would have been concentrated on the Typhoon and Tornado, not further developing the Hurricane. Here is a passage from British Secret projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 1950 by Tony Buttler;

"...Sydney Camm produced a series of all new designs, Typhoon, Tempest and Fury, which were, however, closely related since each new design showed important similarities to its predecessor. Camm's hand was also forced by the lack of development potential in the Hurricane but the first of these follow-on aeroplanes, the Typhoon, actually resulted from a tender design competition. Specification F.18/37, officially dated March 1938, called for a high-speed single-seat fighter to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane (for many years it was Air Staff practice to begin looking for a replacement almost immediately a new type entered service)."

More from the same book;

"Over 14,500 were eventually built and there were proposals to fit an example with the more powerful Rolls-Royce Griffon. A prototype was begun but never completed and on 27 February 1941 Roderic Hill, DGRD reported that "The Hurricane with Griffon is not considered worthwhile."

Camm would not have wasted any more energy developing the Hurricane airframe any more than what was actually carried out, Spitfire or no Spitfire.

Hurricane development was stopped because the Spitfire existed. If it didn't exist, and the time and money that went into the Spitfire was used to build more Hurricanes, then there would also be more incentive to develop the Hurricane further. This doesn't mean that other designs wouldn't be considered and developed, but with so many Hurricanes being built, even small increases in performance would have been worthwhile.

 

[nuuumannn]

Hurricane development was stopped because the Spitfire existed.

And this is according to what exactly? I've never read that in any accounts of the Hurricane or the Spitfire. Based on that logic, there was clearly no need for either the Typhoon, Tempest or Fury either. Your statement clearly ignores the bit about lack of development potential in the Hurricane. Camm would not have developed it. That the Hurricane was a less capable a fighter than the Spitfire is certain, but the reason behind it not being developed further was that there was no point, Hawker's were busy building its replacement, a potentially faster and more capable aeroplane.

If it didn't exist, and the time and money that went into the Spitfire was used to build more Hurricanes, then there would also be more incentive to develop the Hurricane further.

That's rather naive. The Supermarine Type 300 was a private venture funded by Supermarine's own money. A private company isn't going to give money to a rival firm to build an aircraft it could do itself.

even small increases in performance would have been worthwhile.

Based on what? The Hurricane was no match for the Bf 109 and this was not evident in combat until the Battle of France. The prototype of the Tornado first flew on 6 October 1939 and the Typhoon on 24 February 1940. Once the Hurricane had received a mauling in France and during the BofB, then development of these aircraft would have been hastened, as, like the 60 Series Merlin engined Spitfire was once the Fw 190 appeared - that is assuming there wasn't another fighter under development and in service by that time, like what would have happened. Building a greater number of less capapble types isn't going to solve the issue of enemy superiority in equipment, and who was going to build these 'more Hurricanes' you're proposing?