Was the Hurricane the most successful ww2 fighter?

[Asturias56]

In “The British Fighter since 1908” by Mason he states the Hurricane shot down more enemy aircarft than any other Allied fighter in WW2

I can't see a source for this claim

Any ideas?

[Cornish Jack]

Very likely - there were more of them.

[nipva]

... and their main targets were the bombers whereas the Spitfires were used primarily against the fighters.

[Capt Kremmen]

A first rate explanation and analysis of the Battle of Britain specifically and the European air war generally: " The Most Dangerous Enemy" Stephen Bungay, ISBN 978-1-84513-481-5, Aurum Press, gives a complete account of the capability of the Hurricane.

[Asturias56]

has anyone got any sources tho' for the claim?

[dook]

It is often said that the Hurricane, not the Spitfire, won the Battle of Britain.

It was slower but with its' thick wing it could out-turn a Spitfire and an Me109. This is why German pilots would try to avoid a turning fight with the Hurricane, although they could out-run it.

[sandiego89]

Interested as well. A quick internet search I did not find a kill total numbers for the Hurricane. So what kind of numbers are we talking about? Soviet kill numbers might be less reliable.

As for US fighters, the P-51 and F-6 Hellcat both have 5,000+ claimed kills.

[mikemmb]

Not quite the question asked, but for interest, in the Battle of Britain the Hurricane shot down more enemy aircraft than everything else (including anti-aircraft guns) put together!

[B2N2]

What is considered successful?
Most ‘kills’?
Least training deaths?
Capable of taking more damage?
Percentage that survived the war?

[Asturias56]

I presume shooting down enemy aircraft in combat - so excluding ground attack - who knows - I just can't even find a number for Hurricane kills....................... Mason was pretty pedantic - I can't imagine him throwing round strange claims in a definitive text book.............

[flyinkiwi]

It is often said that the Hurricane, not the Spitfire, won the Battle of Britain.

It was slower but with its' thick wing it could out-turn a Spitfire and an Me109. This is why German pilots would try to avoid a turning fight with the Hurricane, although they could out-run it.

It also was a more stable gun platform and it's closely grouped guns (when compared with the Spitfire's) made the most of the rather small 0.303 rounds hitting power.

[27/09]

It all depends what metrics are used to measure success.

I think there is no doubt the Hurricane due to its greater numbers shot down more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain. However the Spitfire was eventually made in far greater numbers (circa 14,000 for the Hurricane, 22,000 for the Spitfire). As the war went on the Spitfire must have evened the kill rate.

The Spitfire was in production from the beginning of WWII till the end of the war. I'm not sure the same can be said of the Hurricane or any other fighter from WWII. On its own that is a metric of success and that it remained a front line fighter all that time.

[megan]

Given the propensity to over state the number of kills by all sides, I'd be some what sceptical of any figures produced. Causes of many losses are unknown.

[treadigraph]

I've seen somewhere that more 109s were lost in landing/take off accidents than were ever shot down - no idea if that is true.

[The Baron]

Surely you can't be saying the Hurricane was more successful than the Messeschmitt Bf109? Over 33000 produced and the highest number of kills of any fighter in WW2. A simple wicki will be enlightening for some. And don't bring up the old inflated kill numbers crap that has been refuted over and over ad nauseam by respected researchers.

[Asturias56]

Baron - my problem is that if I Google the subject there are dozens of claims for just about every fighter that ever flew in WW2 - what is the source - that's all I'm asking - but it seems there IS no source :{

[FlightlessParrot]

It all depends what metrics are used to measure success.

I think there is no doubt the Hurricane due to its greater numbers shot down more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain. However the Spitfire was eventually made in far greater numbers (circa 14,000 for the Hurricane, 22,000 for the Spitfire). As the war went on the Spitfire must have evened the kill rate.

The Spitfire was in production from the beginning of WWII till the end of the war. I'm not sure the same can be said of the Hurricane or any other fighter from WWII. On its own that is a metric of success and that it remained a front line fighter all that time.
Exactly. My first question would be what, exactly, does Mason claim. The quoted claim is that the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than any other allied aircraft (so, immediately, the Bf 109 is not in question). But the title of the thread says "most successful" which is an entirely different thing. Then, I would wonder if the very probably true claim that during the Battle of Britain the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than any other aircraft has been misquoted to be a claim about the war as a whole.

But maybe it could be the case. One thinks first of the F4F or the F6F--but maybe the kills were split between the two in a way that leaves the Hurricane ahead. Still more so for Russian aircraft, where different type numbers were used in many cases in which the West would have used Mark differentiators for the same type, so there's an artifact of identification in play. But above all you'd think of the P-51.
The London Telegraph quotes a claim of 1,593 kills by Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain: Telegraph on Hurricane (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/battle-of-britain/7851030/Battle-of-Britain-without-the-hurricane-the-battle-would-have-been-lost.html)
There are two uncertainties there: one is that claims certainly exceeded actual kills, and the other is the Telegraph, but for all its faults, it cares about military history. The only figure for the P-51 I've found is on a site of unknown reliability, which claims an accredited 4,950 kills: https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/weapons-of-world-war-two/p51-mustang/
Whilst we might not put much credence on either figure, the ratio might have some validity: it certainly fits with one's intuition, that in the BoB there were many more Hurricanes than anything else in the RAF, and they concentrated on shooting down bombers; and that in the last years of the war, there were vastly more aircraft involved, so the dominant fighter might have more successes. But you'd still want to see a ceteris paribus figure of the Soviet fighters. There were over 14,000 Yak-9s produced during the war (according to Wikipedia). Even if you assume a 2-1 exchange ratio with German aircraft, that would beat the P-51 claims.

[Asturias56]

Mason mentions enemy aircraft destroyed quite often - on page 256 he sates "hurricanes out numbered all other RAF fighters during the Battle of Britain by about 5:3 and accounted for more enemy aircraft than those by all other defences by roughly the same ratio...."

He ends the Hurricane section on page 257 withe words:-

"The Hurricane it was that therefore fought at times and in theatres under greatest threat, and suffered heavy casualties accordingly. Yet, on account of this weight of responsibility, Hurricane pilots destroyed more enemy aircraft - German, Italian and Japanese - than any other Allied fighter during the Second World War, and by a substantial margin."

[Innominate]

it's (sic) closely grouped guns (when compared with the Spitfire's) made the most of the rather small 0.303 rounds hitting power. Both types' guns were harmonised so their fire converged into a fairly small area. The distribution of the guns along the wing should not be a factor.

The Spitfire was in production from the beginning of WWII till the end of the war. I'm not sure the same can be said of the Hurricane Some years ago there was correspondence in one of the magazines (possibly Aeroplane Monthly) about the relative merits of the Spitfire and Hurricane. A former Hawker man pointed out that, although the Spitfire was steadily developed, reaching the Mk 24, the Hurricane was also developed "but we called it the Typhoon and Tempest." IIRC the fuselage of the Tempest is based around a tubular frame, similar to that of the Hurricane (and earlier Hawker fighters) covered with aluminium, rather than fabric.

[Steepclimb]

Mason doesn't provide figures. Without that it's mere opinion. Sure the Hurricane served in every theatre and undisputedly was the most important and successful RAF fighter in the Battle of Britain. But the Spitfire also served in every theatre and it was the better fighter overall. The Hurricane was essentially obsolete by 1943 at least in the West as an air superiority fighter . At Dieppe the RAF had 8 Hurricane squadrons, all fighter bombers. But 48 Spitfire squadrons.

That's a telling statistic.

I can readily accept that that the Hurricane was very successful but the most successful?

I'm not so sure.

[Asturias56]

"Mason doesn't provide figures. Without that it's mere opinion. "

I agree that's how we have to play it but he never came across as the sort of writer given to hyperbole. In fact he's mind-numbingly pedantic generally

As the debate wears on I'm becoming more & more surprised that no country seems to have totaled up the figures (however they were checked or not) at the end of the War............. I feel a PhD coming on............

[Capt Kremmen]

If the claims by Luftwaffe pilots engaged on the Russian front are substantially true, then, the Me 109 must be the leading contender for chief executioner during WW2.

For those seekers after statistical bliss, "Britain's War Machine", David Edgerton, Penguin History, fits that need. This wonderful book is a complete analysis of the type, tonnage and appearance of the nuts and bolts of conflict during WW2. I am at the moment re-reading it and If I find a relevant nugget or two, I'll pass it on.

His book is an in depth coverage of the war fought worldwide. It covers ships, aircraft, tanks, artillery and the entire logistical minutiae of international conflict .

The only reference of any note appears to be in Leo McKinstry's "Hurricane" dealing with the Battle of Britain. He writes that the Hurricane was responsible for 55% of all German aircraft destroyed during this period.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Doing a bit of research, but not yet finding the answer, I was surprised to read that Bomber Command and Coastal Command aircrew losses during the Battle of Britain were greater than Fighter Command.. 718 Bomber Command crew members, and 280 from Coastal Command were killed between 10 July and 31 October.

[megan]

Remains to be defined as to what is "successful" meant to mean. The three top 109 pilots had over 900 kills between them, so the 109 must have had a prodigious number of kills. One German admitted he would have had nothing like the success he had on the Eastern front if he been on the Western, and doubted he would have survived if he were. Each aircraft had a niche, whether it be range (Merlin P-51), dogfight ability and range (Zero), tank busting/V1 chase (Typhoon/Tempest), naval fighter (Hellcat) etc etc. The wind was put up the allies when the 190 made an appearance, the RAF sweated on an upgraded Spitfire to counter it, the Air Ministry even made an investigation of the feasibility of producing the P-51 in the UK to counter the 190 in case the new Spitfire didn't pan out.

[Asturias56]

Doing a bit of research, but not yet finding the answer, I was surprised to read that Bomber Command and Coastal Command aircrew losses during the Battle of Britain were greater than Fighter Command.. 718 Bomber Command crew members, and 280 from Coastal Command were killed between 10 July and 31 October.


Quite a few were killed in low level attacks on German invasion barges :(