WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor

Dont sell the Hurricane short! It was the best production fighter of its day and one of the best aircraft ever built!

Bomber pilots are not fighter pilots. The Germans tried this and didnt work as well as they liked.

Aircraft once in production cannot be stopped so rubbish is made by the boatload. Just way it is.

1930s British airpower dogma was heading towards turret fighters because of WW1 experience and fast twins as they could carry cannon. I remember a programme with spitfire test pilots saying it wont go into production as its too complex. Supermarine was avery small company making small batch aircraft and they made a mess of getting the Spitfire into production which why it took so long for the 2nd prototype to fly. In my view if K5054 crashed and was a total loss early doors then that could have been that.

Sir Sydney Camm himself believed the 2000 bhp fighters were the future which he was right. The 1000 bhp fighter was very short lived but it just fell in 1940 when it mattered so Camm allowed Supermarine to produce a better 1000 bhp fighter than the monoplane Fury Hawker designed.

Escoting bombers with fighters was a bit of an anthema for the opening months of the war. im not saying it didnt happen, but the backdrop of the early operations were two things....firstly the Trenchard-Douhet inspired idea that the bomber will always get through, couled with the related experieces in Spain, where the fast german bombers had been able to walk away from all opoosition. evryone thought that the "modern" way was to let your bombers proceed unescorted. The Germans used their fighters offensively most of the time, not as much to escort thei bombers. The allies tended to do the same but for differet reasons....they felt that there were insufficient fighters to spare for escort. but that implies that providing fighters for an escort mission was somehow secondary to other things. Secondary to what?

Just a bit of info to add to your figures RCAFson. 14 Defiants were lost over Dunkirk - although two of those were an air-to-air collision - out of 174 sorties flown on only five days of the month of May by 264 Sqn; the only Defiant unit active at that time. 65 German aircraft were claimed by the squadron.

nuuumannn said:

Just a bit of info to add to your figures RCAFson. 14 Defiants were lost over Dunkirk - although two of those were an air-to-air collision - out of 174 sorties flown on only five days of the month of May by 264 Sqn; the only Defiant unit active at that time. 65 German aircraft were claimed by the squadron.

Click to expand...

Thanks, so that would imply 43 Hurricane, 42 Spitfire, and 14 Defiant losses.

The Basket said:

Dont sell the Hurricane short! It was the best production fighter of its day and one of the best aircraft ever built!

Click to expand...

Correction Hurricane was one of the best - their were better fighters available in 1939.

The Basket said:

Supermarine was avery small company making small batch aircraft and they made a mess of getting the Spitfire into production which why it took so long for the 2nd prototype to fly. In my view if K5054 crashed and was a total loss early doors then that could have been that.

Click to expand...

The entire British aviation industry, with few exceptions, struggled to start production of the advanced new all metal, semi-monocoque aircraft being asked for by the Air Ministry, including Fairey, who had real problems getting the Battle into production. There was no second Spitfire prototype, nor did Hawker build a 2nd prototype of the Hurricane; few British aircraft companies built more than one prototype during the 1930s.

They knew the Battle wasn't very good in 1936-37, But they needed aircraft and it was ready to go. NOBODY knew when the shooting would start, everybody was hoping for later but trying to prepare for sooner.

The Battle was built in a brand new purpose built factory by Fairey AND a Brand new Shadow factory run by Austin.

The British Aero Industry was in bad shape in the early 30s and it took a lot of time and money to get it to where it was even in 1940.

Some of these older designs did more for the total war effort by giving experience to factory managers/planners, workers and in training squadrons to both aircrew and ground crew than they ever achieved in combat.

The Hurricane may very well have been the "best production fighter of its day" however it's DAY was in 1938.

To say nothing of the fact that for a time the failed Battles were the backbone of the Allied pilot training schemes. Not ideal, but if they hadnt been built, Britain would have needed to build and find some other advanced trainer.

I dont think ther was a lot of un-used capacity in the British aircraft industry by 1938. It was going flat out trying toplay catch up with the germans

Not just Allied "pilot" training schemes, it could also help train bombardiers, navigators, radio operators and to a small extent, gunners. Not so much in the actual operation of the guns (operational aircraft having more power turrets) put in the other assorted duties of the rear seater of the time. Helping foster a "team" work environment.

It also trained thousands of "Erks" in a way that fabric covered bi-planes with fixed landing gear and fixed pitch props never could.

Unfortunately the British got caught with a few too many "first Generation" all metal monoplanes with the second generation coming in too slowly. Sticking with the first generation planes to try to increase numbers even further would have lead to even bigger troubles later.

The Basket said:

In my view if K5054 crashed and was a total loss early doors then that could have been that.

Click to expand...

It did crash, as it happens the day after Britain declared war on Germany, killing F/Lt White. As someone else has already pointed out there never was a second prototype.

Cheers

Steve

wuzak said:

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

Click to expand...

The Hurricane II had the speed, climb rate and ceiling to intercept the bombers.

Why would that be?

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

Click to expand...

Cannon and gun jams were typically caused by gun freezing, either due to a lack of gun heaters or failure of existing heating pipe due to excessive vibration and flexure. I can't say whether Hurricane IIs would have been sent without their gun heaters but the stiffer Hurricane wing would have suffered less from vibration and flexure.

The Spitfires were new when sent, but by the time that they engaged the IJNAF they had a lot of hours on the clock.

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

Click to expand...

Darwin CS prop failures occurred on UK, license built, Hamilton Standard CS props. UK built Hurricane IIs used Rotol CSUs and Cdn built MK XIIs used USA built Hamilton standard CSUs. The lighter HS CS prop was favoured for the Sea Hurricane but it is doubtful that these would end up as a land based RAF/RAAF interceptor.

That is a stretch.

Click to expand...

Not really. Fewer or no CS prop failures, would greatly reduce operational losses.

Aozora said:

Interesting - it may well be the Henley was just what the RAF needed, at least for the early part of the war, along with more Hurricanes; if not over France they could have been very useful in the Mediterranean and Pacific, or even replacing the Skua in the FAA Blackburn Skua

What is also interesting is that the radiator installation has a relatively small intake for something feeding the main radiator, oil cooler and carby, plus the small exit flap and exit area - I'm beginning to see why there were cooling problems when towing drogues. Fitting more powerful engines would probably have required a complete redesign, with larger, more efficient intake and larger, more efficient outlet.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can quite imagine that the Skua is superseded by a Sea Henley as a FDB - would be faster than the Skua, bigger bomb-load, and wouldn't be difficult to add for machine guns.

Shortround6 said:

They knew the Battle wasn't very good in 1936-37, But they needed aircraft and it was ready to go. NOBODY knew when the shooting would start, everybody was hoping for later but trying to prepare for sooner.

Click to expand...

Both the British the French governments were bending over backwards to avoid a shooting war; in 1936, when Hitler sent troops into the de-militerised Rhur, neither side lifted a finger to shoo them out, which would probably have finished Hitler politically. 1938 Austrian Anschluß, the Sudetenland, Munich agreement etc etc.

Shortround6 said:

The Battle was built in a brand new purpose built factory by Fairey AND a Brand new Shadow factory run by Austin.

Click to expand...

Nice new facilities and workers who had gained experience building the first 136 Battles, and who could then be employed on aircraft which would have been useful.

Shortround6 said:

The British Aero Industry was in bad shape in the early 30s and it took a lot of time and money to get it to where it was even in 1940.

Click to expand...

What better way of getting the industry into shape by designing and building the best possible aircraft, rather than deliberately allowing aircraft which were known to be mediocre, such as the Battle, to be designed and built just to make up some numbers?

Shortround6 said:

Some of these older designs did more for the total war effort by giving experience to factory managers/planners, workers and in training squadrons to both aircrew and ground crew than they ever achieved in combat.

Click to expand...

The Battle was not an "older design" compared with the Hurricane, and Henley, which were at least half a generation behind, but more useful aircraft.

It's easy for us to underestimate the Battle knowing what we know seventy or more years later, but it is worth remembering that the first production order for the aeroplane was placed nine months before the prototype had flown for the first time on 10 March 1936. Once the first one had flown, reports were favourable and in testing it met its required range/payload/performance criteria. H.A.Taylor, author of Fairey Aircraft since 1915 had this to say:

"The writer - who flew his first Battle solo without any prior instruction and after little more than an hour's conversion in a North American Harvard trainer in September 1939 can vouch for the fact that it was a very easy aeroplane with good handling characteristics and no obvious vices."

"The Farnborough pilots obviously liked the production Battle and found little fault with it, though complaining about an over light elevator at low speeds."

At that time no one could have guessed it was going to be a disaster in France in 1940. In the short (long in political terms) period between its first flight and 1940 it became recognised that the Battle was obsolescent, but still production orders were placed and the aircraft continued to roll of the production line, so effort was being knowingly wasted, so to speak.

Aozora said:

Both the British the French governments were bending over backwards to avoid a shooting war; in 1936, when Hitler sent troops into the de-militerised Rhur, neither side lifted a finger to shoo them out, which would probably have finished Hitler politically. 1938 Austrian Anschluß, the Sudetenland, Munich agreement etc etc.

Click to expand...

They were bending over backwards because they weren't ready. You don't build factories and get them up to speed on production in a few months. The Battle prototype first flew 3 days after the Germans moved into the Rhineland in 1936.

The Gloster Gladiator, hardly the most advanced of aircraft first flew in 1934 but didn't enter squadron service until Feb 1937, it took another 8 months to get 8 squadrons in service. The British were taking deliveries of Hawker Fury IIs in 1936-37.

Aozora said:

Nice new facilities and workers who had gained experience building the first 136 Battles, and who could then be employed on aircraft which would have been useful.

What better way of getting the industry into shape by designing and building the best possible aircraft, rather than deliberately allowing aircraft which were known to be mediocre, such as the Battle, to be designed and built just to make up some numbers?

Click to expand...

You don't get a true mass production factory building a batch of 70-80 planes. It often took 5-7 months for a factory to hit triple digits per month and actually most factories took around 1 year to deliver the 500th airframe.
Yes they built too many Battles but in 1937-39 what else should they have been building to get the number of service squadrons up to what they wanted? Prior to the Battle and Blenheim the British had been ordering bombers by the dozen, 14 Fairey Hendons in 1934 (delivered in 1936), 24 Boulton Paul Overstrands also delivered in 1936. 96 Vickers Wellesley's show up in 1937. Granted the Hawker Hind was produced in much larger numbers, over 500 between 1935 and 1938 but if the Battle was useless in modern combat one shudders at the idea of using Hinds in combat against even 109B&C's in 1938. The last Hinds were not pulled from Home service bomber Squadrons until late summer of 1939.

Aozora said:

The Battle was not an "older design" compared with the Hurricane, and Henley, which were at least half a generation behind, but more useful aircraft.

Click to expand...

The Henley might have been more useful but it was built to a different specification. Fairey's Version of the Henley was put into production as the Fulmar fighter. The Battle carried twice the bomb load and an extra crewman a bit further than the Henley.
The Battle was a strategic bomber, a small/cheap flawed strategic bomber but a strategic bomber none the less and needs to be viewed as such.

The Battle was a strategic bomber, a small/cheap flawed strategic bomber but a strategic bomber none the less and needs to be viewed as such.

Click to expand...

Indeed it was, but prior to 1940 this was not the perception of it and so often we forget this. The Battle was well designed, well built, easy to fly, had performance and load carrying capability that met expectations as they were at the time for the role it was carrying out and was available in considerable numbers. it had only been in service for two or more years at the outbreak of WW2 and the RAF squadrons that operated it had no reason not to be confident in their aeroplane, even if the Air Staff were beginning to have their reservations about it. The basic concept of the single-engined day bomber is the issue here; it was flawed, deeply so as it was proven and even if the Henley as a dive bomber was sent to France to carry out the exact same ops the Battles did the result would have been the same. It's suicide to send a bomber flying straight and level at just over 200 mph to attack a heavily defended target at medium to low altitude, with enemy fighters swarming about. The reason I state the Henley wouldn't have done any better as a dive bomber is because during the Battle of Britain the Stuka suffered at the hands of RAF fighters and was withdrawn from the fight in August 1940, so there should be no reason to expect the Henley to fare any better than the Battle did in France.

First the Battle was in no sense a strategic bomber - it was a light bomber, a modernised de H 4/9 or Hawker Hart, armed to the same WW1 vintage standards, and it should always be viewed as such. As I carefully explained senior air staff already recognised that it was not worth building and urged that it not be built. By the end of 1938 461 had been built, which was more than enough to equip all of the squadrons that used the Battle.

As it is this whole thread has been based on a proposition that one aircraft type should have been scrapped for another. I think there were far better reasons to scrap the Battle program, an aircraft that remained in production for political and expediency reasons, and concentrate production on aircraft that were actually needed. But, this is all purely hypothetical so it ain't worth getting worked up over.

The 1930s were awash with new concepts and ideas which worked or didnt so one cannot take things at face value. The Defiant and Battle is a good case as they were 'good' at some point of there lives. Understanding why the Defiant was built is just as important as the aircraft itself in pure aviation buff terms.

One aspect of the Spitfire story and a vital one is the Bf 109. How much info did the British have of this aircraft? Was it actual or typical propoganda?

Or was bombers and thier speed more important in getting the Spitfire in production?

I know K5054 crashed but it was of less importance when it did.

I think the whole idea of developing fighters, in all countries has to be considered against the backdrop of what people were thinking would be the dominant elements of airpower. all the major air minded nations, Germany, the Us, Britain, Italy, to name the front runners believed that the bombe was dominant in the 1930's. it was, but it had a hidden reliance on fighter protection that was not apparent from what could be observed in the latter part of that decade. Just about everybody believed in the un-interceptability of the bomber. That was the observed pattern in Spain and the theory said the bomber will always get through. here you have people like Douhet say, "air defence is pointless!!!!!ra ra ra" A lot of people beleived that. A lot of people also belieed that if the bomber was unstoppable, why do you need much in the way of defence???? From those basic conepts were borne the ideas like the Battle and Defiant.

The battle was developed, because at the time it was believed that effective defence against bombes did not exist. In the 1930s the systems and organizations simply did not exist that would allow a defender to place fighters in the right place ant the right time. In that context, building such a thing as the battle made sense....if the best defence waas a good offence, and the best offense was to attack in numbers, then the Battle made perfect sense.

The ddefiant was part of thinking that was doubting the conventional theory. in Britain and germany in particular, a dedicated core of the respective air forces thought that technology could help solve the conundrum of effective aiur defence. And to an extent it did....radar and CIC systems came to the party in increasing sophistication. The Spitfire, the Hurricane, the Bf109 were all part of that quiet counter revolution.

In reality, neither the all or nothing defence nuts or the all or nothing bombing nuts were completely right. In our post war revisionist environment, we have come to think that defences had the advantages, and that fighters were the key to every air battle. Not so. Unescorted bombers were basically duck meat, but escorted raids usually camcelled the effects of the defnsive advantage. only in exceptional circumstances could a pure defender win battles, like in the BoB. Fighters dont win air wars, and they dont confer huge advantages for one side or another, unless there is a marked imbalance in the forces. air operations are basically pointle unless you have an offensive element. you will lose if all you have are fighters.

Some aircraft are exceptional and revolutionary. For various reasons, the aircraft that really come to mind are the Spitfire, the 109, the Zero, the Mustang, and the Mosquito. I suggest each of these for different reasons

the Spitfire, coupled with radar restored the primacy of a well organised defence against unescorted or poorly escorted bombers. The Bf109 did the same, but also introduced the concept of extreme high performance. I consider that a revolutionary concept....before the 109, it can be generally said that fighters were outshon by bombers. The Zero did two things, it gave range to the singlke engined high performance fighter, and it gave a high performance to a carrier aircraft (it also gave advantage to the japanese, an Asiatic people generally discriminated against in the West). The Mosquito trumped all of them. It dispensed with the need for escorts, allowing a return to the idea of tthe unescorted bomber. It had punch and it had performance....probably the first true multirole aircraft of the modern age.


It really isnt as simple as people are thinking

Aozora said:

First the Battle was in no sense a strategic bomber - it was a light bomber, a modernised de H 4/9 or Hawker Hart, armed to the same WW1 vintage standards, and it should always be viewed as such. As I carefully explained senior air staff already recognised that it was not worth building and urged that it not be built. By the end of 1938 461 had been built, which was more than enough to equip all of the squadrons that used the Battle.

Click to expand...

The Battle could carry twice the bomb load of a Hart (understandable given progress in general) TWICE as far which was ridiculous for a tactical bomber. The added requirement for a bombardier also calls into question it's intended role compared to the Hart.
That the British did not view it as a "tactical bomber" can be seen in specification P4/34 which resulted in the Henley and the Fairey P4/34 (which turned into the Fulmar fighter) both of which had two man crews, the same bomb load as the Hart (1/2 the Battle's load) and a bit shorter range than the Battle.
The same 1000lb bomb load was in the original specification for the Mosquito.

What other aircraft was ready for production in 1937-39 to equip BOMBER squadrons, and please remember, the RAF had NO INTENTION AT TIME of being long range artillery for the army however useful such a role might have been.

The Lysander was the modern equivalent of the Hart.

And as far as single engine strategic bombers go:



There is no way on God's green earth that this was a tactical bomber.

The Fairey Battle was a design in response to a 1932 requirement using the most powerful available engine at the time. As such it was an astounding success with a structure and performance way ahead of many of it's opposition at the time. Fairey had always had in mind two related successors. A lighter faster version which ultimately became the Fulmar fighter. But for the Battle follow up Fairey wanted an engine in the 1,500-2,000 bhp size in the existing airframe. Projected were the Vulture, Sabre, Centaurus and Fairey's own P 24

The Fairey P 24 and the Sabre were installed with performances that needed the undercarriage to be fixed to use the full power within the airframe rated figures. With a Battle airframe uprated to cope with the extra power and a Frazer Nash 4 gun turret the renewed Battle would have been a very different beast and a proper 1940 design instead of a 1935 one.

However these were not available until later (and not at all for the P 24). Fairey had been suggesting a twin engined Battle since the beginning. Initially not taken up because the Battle was designed to fit into a never agreed international bomber size limitation treaty. Later, I assume, not taken up to avaiod production delays, inability to supply twice as many engines and, latterly because the Battle was to be replaced in production anyway.