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

I'm with you on this one, Shortround; the Battle was originally designed to specification P.27/32, which was for a single engine day bomber Hart/Hind replacement (the production order for the Battle was P.23/35), the 'P' in Air Ministry specs stood for Medium Bomber; it only became a light bomber after reclassification with the appearance of the heavies. Here's a quote from afforementioned H.A.Taylor;

"Designed to replace and improve upon the Hawker Hart and Hind two-seat biplane day bombers, and as a comparative back-up for the B.9/32 [Heavy Bomber - both types were later reclassified as Medium Bombers] aircraft (Handley Page Hampden and Vickers Wellington), the Battle met the specification with an adequate margin - but it lacked speed and defensive armament necessary to survive attacks even by the monoplane fighters of its own design era."
 
I must add that in the early 1930s the main RAF fighter was the Bristol Bulldog which wasnt much of an improvement over WW1 designs.

The Hurrucane must have been the Starship Enterprise by comparison.

If....and a big if....in my view. ..in peacetime. ...I would take the Hurricane and wait for the Typhoon. As Hawker were the premier fighter designer of the day. Just sayin is all
 
The Basket said:
If....and a big if....in my view. ..in peacetime. ...I would take the Hurricane and wait for the Typhoon. As Hawker were the premier fighter designer of the day. Just sayin is all
Click to expand...

Even if the Spitfire prototpe flies and proves to have substantially higher performance than the Hurricane could ever potentially?
 

Totally and unambiguously wrong: for a start I have never said anything about a "tactical bomber", that's your addition. The specification called for a two seat monoplane replacement for the Hart light bomber series, nothing more.




The observer/gunner also acted as a bomb aimer (bombadier) in the Hart.

In 1935 a third crew member was added, much to Fairey's annoyance:

 

The P. in Air Min specifications stood for no such thing; as an example, the P. prefix was also used for the Henley light day/tactical bomber:



 
Last edited:

You can say that again. Ive lost it now, but for years i had a contemporary book on modern aircraft that my father owned when he was boy. The book was proabably from about 1936-7. Dad told me that he got it when he was 4 or 5, so the dates doe correlate. It was obviously british- centric, but the way they waxed lyrical about the hurricane (they didnt even mention that name....so it was a very contempporary account....they could not even report much on the performance, it was all very hush hush), confirms everything you are saying. The Hurricane was the bees knees in 1937....
 
The P. in Air Min specifications stood for no such thing; as an example, the P. prefix was also used for the Henley light day/tactical bomber
Click to expand...

The British Aircraft Specifications File is a good book and I'd like a copy in my library. Interesting and I'll have to go with you on that, but it sure doesn't stand for "light bomber" (not that I'm saying you said it did, just for clarification, mind...); P.13/36 prduced the Manchester and there's no way you could call that a 'light bomber'.
 

The book should still be available from Air Britain for a reasonable price https://www.air-britain.co.uk/actbooks/acatalog/The-British-Aircraft-Specifications-File-66.html but get in quickly because the Battle File disappeared soon after I ordered mine. It is well worth having, so best of luck.

The prefixes to the specifications seem to have been applied almost at random, with some specifications having no prefix. When prefixes were applied they were standardised, with P. meaning light bomber:

 
Yes, thanks Aozora, I saw it for 10 quid on Air Britain's website, very good price. The use of 'P' for Light Bomber is also quoted in British Secret projects, by Tony Buttler (which I do have), but P.13/36 was definitely not for a light bomber and was a contemporary to B.12/36, so its use was pretty random. I also found this from here:

"Each specification name usually followed a pattern. A leading letter was usually present to identify the aircraft purpose. The codes used included B for "heavy bomber", e.g., B.12/36, P for "medium bomber", e.g., P.13/36, F for "fighter", e.g., F.10/35, and A for "army co-operation", e.g., A.39/34. The second part was a number identifying it in sequence and then after the slash, the year it was formulated, so in the example given above, B.12/36 signifies a specification for a heavy bomber, the twelfth specification of all types issued in 1936. Specifications were not always issued in sequence."

List of Air Ministry specifications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This isn't the first use of 'P' to describe medium bombers I've seen. Although the Air Britain book does stipulate 'P' for light bombers, it seems that P.13/36 is a contradiction. Is there a description under that spec in the book that might enlighten us?

Despite this however, I still haven't changed my mind about the Battle's strategic credentials; the origins of the single engine light bomber go back to the use of Avro 504s (and Sopwith tabloids) by the RNAS to bomb German airship sheds in 1914. Both the Airco D.H.4 and Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter carried out strategic bombing raids against targets in Germany, the latter in RNAS hands - somewhat natural as the Royal Navy was in charge of the strategic aspects of Defence of the Realm. There's no doubt that it was used in a tactical role in France, but even Harts and Hinds carried out both strategic and tactical warfare whilst policing the distant colonies.
 
Last edited:
nuuumannn said:
Yes, thanks Aozora, I saw it for 10 quid on Air Britain's website, very good price.
Click to expand...

The only downside is the £30 postal charge to NZ...


The Wikipedia article is completely unreferenced so not worth using as a source. As it is I have already posted an explanation as to why the P prefix was used in this one instance:



I cannot find any other instance where a medium bomber was allocated a P. prefix and by no means does this prove that its use was random - it simply means that this specification was probably considered to be a halfway house between a light bomber and a heavy, multi-engined bomber.


You might continue to believe that the Battle was "strategic" in purpose, but that wasn't the role for which it was conceived, nor is that how it was primarily used, either in France or East Africa: the fact that it and other light bombers were used on occasion in other roles is immaterial. The same argument could be advanced to state that the Spitfire was intended to be a fighter bomber or Photo Reconnaissance aircraft.

The Battle was a replacement for the Hawker Hart but, unlike the Hart and many of the RAF's other light bombers, its performance was in no way comparable with contemporary fighters, leaving it exceedingly vulnerable (the Hart had a top speed of 184 mph, the Hawker Fury I 207 mph).
 
wuzak said:
As a production fighter?

I guess it wasn't in 1938.
Click to expand...


No, it said it was a prtotype at the time of publication. I remeber it talked about the hart and Fury, and also has pictures of the Rusian multi engined "Maxim Gorky" It really was a great book for its time.
 
In late 1937 the Hurricane was in production. The Spitfire prototype had been flying for a year or more. And the Spitfire's first public appearence came in late 1936.

The Hurricane prototype flew in November 1935. The Spitfire prototype flew in March 1936. So, I would say, the period for the Hurricane being "the bees knees" as a prototype was a mere 5 months, and the production Hurricane was the "bees knees" for 9-10 months.

I would suggest that your publication was from 1936, before the Spitfire was revealed to the public.
 

From Africa were flown 6 Hurris at the end of Jan.41 and 5+7 during Mar. 41.
 
Hurricane vs different opponents, from older threads in this site

During early part of N Africa campaign, before 109s appeared there Vokes filter Hurricane Mk Is and Bf 110Cs/Ds fought a draw, if in their combats there were winners they were usually those who saw their opponents first.

bf110 exchange ratio (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf110-exchange-ratio-26265.html)

JoeB 09-13-2010 05:04 PM
…
By my count in the book "Battle of France-Then and Now",
Iin BoF:
Hurricane dest by Bf109 v Bf109 dest by Hurricane: 151:74, 2.04:1
Spitfire dest by Bf109 v Bf109 dest by Spit: 32:24, 1.33:1
Total 1.87:1
Hurricane dest by Bf110 v Bf110 dest by Hurricane: 63:37, 1.7:1
Spitfire dest by Bf110 v Bf110 dest by Spitfire: 15:6, 2.5:1
Total 1.81:1

Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued) (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/worst-aircraft-ww2-continued-626.html)

JoeB 09-12-2008 10:51 AM
…
Hurricane v Type Zero Fighter: 35 Hurricanes lost for 6 Zeroes, 5 combats
Hurricane v Type 1 Fighter ('Oscar'): 20 Hurricanes for 4 Type 1's, 8 combats
Hurricane v Type 97 Fighter ('Nate'): 8 Hurricanes for 5-1/11 Type 97's, 8 combats
Overall 1:4.17 against the Hurricane in fighter-fighter combat, only slightly better than the Buffalo, and worse v the modern Japanese fighters. Even excluding the 'unfair' 3:27 result v Zeroes in 2 combats over Ceylon in April, the Hurricane went 1:4 v the modern types in 11 combats, the Buffalo went 1:3.3 in 13 combats.
 

The Hurricane's forward deployment in the BofF meant that they would suffer higher losses than the Spitfire, which mainly participated in the fighting over Dunkirk, and as we have seen earlier, Spitfire and Hurricane losses there were almost identical along with a nearly identical number of kill claims. The Bf-110 lost heavily to the Hurricane over Britain, Malta and North Africa.

The RAF history states that 23 (15+8 ) Hurricanes were lost over Ceylon but the majority of these were lost when caught taking off on April 05.

Also, taking fighter versus fighter claims only is highly misleading, as it is total kills versus losses that counts and fighter versus fighter losses are highly variable depending on the tactical situation.
 
RCAFson said:
...Also, taking fighter versus fighter claims only is highly misleading, as it is total kills versus losses that counts and fighter versus fighter losses are highly variable depending on the tactical situation.
Click to expand...

You are right that's why JoeB's and my numbers are real losses not claims and as I wrote, before 109s arrived to complicate the situation, Hurricanes and 110s fought a draw in NA.

Juha
 
Juha said:
You are right that's why JoeB's and my numbers are real losses not claims and as I wrote, before 109s arrived to complicate the situation, Hurricanes and 110s fought a draw in NA.

Juha
Click to expand...

What about kills versus non fighters which is a critical piece of info that's lacking?

So the Hurricane, which had to cost about 1/3 of a 110 fought it to a draw over NA...hmmm.
 
Last edited:
wuzak said:
Even if the Spitfire prototpe flies and proves to have substantially higher performance than the Hurricane could ever potentially?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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