Was the Hurricane the most successful ww2 fighter?
Thread Starter
"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............
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............
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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
