Well, there's a different view
Thread Starter
Well, there's a different view
Dismantling the Spitfire myth | Hush-Kit
Revisionist rubbish? Or bringing a sacred cow down a notch or two?
Revisionist rubbish? Or bringing a sacred cow down a notch or two?
BoB
But we won didn't we? So who cares what this guy thinks.
On a similar vein:
Didn't the Navy win the BoB?
Didn't the RAF win the Falklands air battle?
Didn't the RAF win Taranto and the Battle of Trafalgar?
BV
On a similar vein:
Didn't the Navy win the BoB?
Didn't the RAF win the Falklands air battle?
Didn't the RAF win Taranto and the Battle of Trafalgar?
BV
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Pathetic article. Quoted "facts" are all conditional.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Spitfire: Over 23K built. Saw active service till 1948.
Hurricane: Total built 14.5K. Effectively left active service as a fighter in 1943, but remained in service in ground attack and general duties till 1945.
Says it all really, If it cost up to 3 times much in time and money to produce, the Spitfire must have been doing something right....
Hurricane: Total built 14.5K. Effectively left active service as a fighter in 1943, but remained in service in ground attack and general duties till 1945.
Says it all really, If it cost up to 3 times much in time and money to produce, the Spitfire must have been doing something right....
He's right to say that the idea was to shoot down German bombers, a job which largely fell to the Hurricane. When he says:-
He is wrong. The 109s were there to defend the bombers, ie to shoot down the Hurricanes. It was the Spitfire's job to stop them doing that. Replacing the Spitfires with more Hurricanes might not have succeeded in achieving that.
As for the MB3, it first flew in 1942, so wasn't available in the pre-war expansion that got us prepared sufficiently to win the BoB. Though perhaps Mr Willis agrees with Goering that we didn't...
The point that is often made that the Spitfire could better deal with the Bf 109 is irrelevant, as Fighter Command needed to knock down bombers and actively avoided engagements with fighters
As for the MB3, it first flew in 1942, so wasn't available in the pre-war expansion that got us prepared sufficiently to win the BoB. Though perhaps Mr Willis agrees with Goering that we didn't...
I would venture to suggest that the Hurricane was apparently more damage tolerant and also easier to repair. Very important when fighting to maintain serviceability levels in onging high intensity operations.
Quote Haraka
" I would venture to suggest that the Hurricane was apparently more damage tolerant and also easier to repair. Very important when fighting to maintain serviceability levels in onging high intensity operations."
Sorry, but you are going to have to quote your statistics to back that up.
OAP
" I would venture to suggest that the Hurricane was apparently more damage tolerant and also easier to repair. Very important when fighting to maintain serviceability levels in onging high intensity operations."
Sorry, but you are going to have to quote your statistics to back that up.
OAP
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Some additional complexities relating to the BofB include:
Which a/c factories were fully geared up for production?
Individual targets/tactics on the day vs. Luftwaffe fighters/bombers?
Which a/c factories were fully geared up for production?
Individual targets/tactics on the day vs. Luftwaffe fighters/bombers?
Interesting thread this one. I'm just in the process of reading the splendid book, Fighter Boys; Saving Britain 1940 by Patrick Bishop. An interesting read indeed for someone who grew up reading everything I could on B of B etc. Quite surprising when he compares the two aircraft, Hurricane and Spitfire. I believe he correctly states that the Hurricane was a simpler to manufacture, partly using more traditional methods. Also mentioned is the fact that the Hurricane was slightly slower and had a lower maximum service ceiling. With the ME109 escort fighters being armed with canon, the Hurricane was less susceptible to canon strike as areas allowed the shell to pass through, without it exploding. It was also, in its MK2 form I believe capable of easy modification to mounting canons in the wings, the thin aerofoils of the Spit meaning they had to be placed on their sides and caused feeding problems. That said, the Spitfire was more suitable to the higher altitude anti fighter work, necessary to allow the Hurricanes to get at the bombers. In my mind, there's no doubts that both types had their "unique" assets and drawbacks, both were great aircraft and both saved our bacon back in 1940. I'm certain I could never draw the same conclusions as those in the article from Martin the Martian. I do know a bloke who flew Spitfires, our own Danny42c, who may offer a better appreciation of the article. Meanwhile, if you have an interest in both types Patrick Bishop has produced a worthy piece of work.
Smudge
Smudge
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Age: 61
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as a us navy aviator once said "range IS everthing, to be in the fight...first you have to get there".
my heart says spitfire, but my head says hellcat..or mustang.
sorry...FISH.
my heart says spitfire, but my head says hellcat..or mustang.
sorry...FISH.
The Hurricane was an evolutionary aircraft, basically a Hawker Fury monoplane, and indeed was the true victor of the B of B, shooting down more aircraft than everything else put together. It was an excellent gun platform.
However, at least one currently alive member of 'the Few' described it as 'obsolescent' even during the B of B.
The Spitfire was undoubtedly more difficult to manufacture-it was an all metal monocoque, a revolutionary design for the time, but its performance (in combat) was better than The Hurricane, and the equal (if not better) than the Bf109E if largely faced in the B of B. It did have short 'legs' but maybe that wasn't as important when you could land in a field when operating in GB? And if you want to talk about 'short legs' then the 109 was legendary for it.
However, at least one currently alive member of 'the Few' described it as 'obsolescent' even during the B of B.
The Spitfire was undoubtedly more difficult to manufacture-it was an all metal monocoque, a revolutionary design for the time, but its performance (in combat) was better than The Hurricane, and the equal (if not better) than the Bf109E if largely faced in the B of B. It did have short 'legs' but maybe that wasn't as important when you could land in a field when operating in GB? And if you want to talk about 'short legs' then the 109 was legendary for it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who won the war, Daddy ?
Smudge (your #12)
Danny has only just noticed this Thread (which appeared 1616 last afternoon). IMHO, the article in Hush-Kit appears to be a synthesis of all the revisionist histories of the Battle of Britain which have appeared during the past 70 years.
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing ? Let's put ourselves into a time-machine and go back to 1939. We thought that we were going to pick up where we left off in 1918. Hitler and Guderian thought otherwise - and then it all went pear-shaped !
There is no use trying to disguise Dunkirk as anything but the humiliating rout that it was. Our Expeditionary Force (for that was what it was) crawled back minus all its artillery, its armour and its transport - a few of the troops managed to hang on to their rifles, that was all. And we had to prepare for invasion. The Navy was stretched to the limit, trying to protect our western approaches (as they must, otherwise we starve). Later disasters (eg Malaya) show what happens to Naval units which put themselves, without enough air cover, in reach of an enemy land-based air power (in this case, in the Channel).
Surrender was in the air (it was a distinct possibility). Then Churchill revitalised the nation in the May of 1940. We had to fight with what we'd got. And what we'd got was what the pre-war Governments had planned in the (very) late thirties. They could see into the future as far as today's planners can (which is not at all). It all came down to the RAF that summer. We were fighting "in the last ditch". And we won, that's all.
What the Hell does it matter if the Spitfire was better than the Hurricane, or the other way round ? Or if some of the kit we'd got was marvellous, and some was useless ? Our part of the War was won with what we'd got (and we could echo the words of the Iron Duke at Waterloo: "It was a damned close-run thing !") There's no more to be said.
Of course, at the very end of Hush-Kit's diatribe comes the familiar:"It was the Red Army that did it". Nothing and nobody won the war alone. Germany was brought down by the combined weight of all the force ranged against it: there was no "silver bullet".
That I should live so long and have to listen to this !
Grrrr!
Danny.
...I do know a bloke who flew Spitfires, our own Danny42c, who may offer a better appreciation of the article...
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing ? Let's put ourselves into a time-machine and go back to 1939. We thought that we were going to pick up where we left off in 1918. Hitler and Guderian thought otherwise - and then it all went pear-shaped !
There is no use trying to disguise Dunkirk as anything but the humiliating rout that it was. Our Expeditionary Force (for that was what it was) crawled back minus all its artillery, its armour and its transport - a few of the troops managed to hang on to their rifles, that was all. And we had to prepare for invasion. The Navy was stretched to the limit, trying to protect our western approaches (as they must, otherwise we starve). Later disasters (eg Malaya) show what happens to Naval units which put themselves, without enough air cover, in reach of an enemy land-based air power (in this case, in the Channel).
Surrender was in the air (it was a distinct possibility). Then Churchill revitalised the nation in the May of 1940. We had to fight with what we'd got. And what we'd got was what the pre-war Governments had planned in the (very) late thirties. They could see into the future as far as today's planners can (which is not at all). It all came down to the RAF that summer. We were fighting "in the last ditch". And we won, that's all.
What the Hell does it matter if the Spitfire was better than the Hurricane, or the other way round ? Or if some of the kit we'd got was marvellous, and some was useless ? Our part of the War was won with what we'd got (and we could echo the words of the Iron Duke at Waterloo: "It was a damned close-run thing !") There's no more to be said.
Of course, at the very end of Hush-Kit's diatribe comes the familiar:"It was the Red Army that did it". Nothing and nobody won the war alone. Germany was brought down by the combined weight of all the force ranged against it: there was no "silver bullet".
That I should live so long and have to listen to this !
Grrrr!
Danny.
Sorry, but you are going to have to quote your statistics to back that up.
It is true that the Me109 was easier to manufacture than the Spitfire. Also that the Hurricane was a less sophisticated design than the Spitfire. Although the narrow-track undercarriage was less tolerant of poor landing techniques than the wide-track Hurricane, given the plethora of omnidirectional grass aerodromes in the UK at the time, that wasn't really a major factor.
The Spitfire V and IX were decisive developments capable of dealing with the Me109G and Fw190. The Hurricane could not have been developed to achieve the same performance.
Although its design and construction was more complex than the Hurricane or Me109, the UK had sufficient resources to be able to supply the number of Spitfires required by the RAF, at a time when pilots rather than aircraft were the limiting factor. So the complexity proved not to be a major factor either.
However, it was indeed a great shame that the excellent MB 3 wasn't ordered by the RAF - it had great promise as indeed had the later MB 5.
Ironically, one of the best Spitfires ever to fly was EN380, a captured Spitfire V fitted with a DB605 engine from an Me110. It was reportedly superior to both the Merlin powered original and the Me109.
The Spitfire V and IX were decisive developments capable of dealing with the Me109G and Fw190. The Hurricane could not have been developed to achieve the same performance.
Although its design and construction was more complex than the Hurricane or Me109, the UK had sufficient resources to be able to supply the number of Spitfires required by the RAF, at a time when pilots rather than aircraft were the limiting factor. So the complexity proved not to be a major factor either.
However, it was indeed a great shame that the excellent MB 3 wasn't ordered by the RAF - it had great promise as indeed had the later MB 5.
Ironically, one of the best Spitfires ever to fly was EN380, a captured Spitfire V fitted with a DB605 engine from an Me110. It was reportedly superior to both the Merlin powered original and the Me109.
Last edited by BEagle; 8th Dec 2015 at 06:10.
Slight thread drift but if it makes any difference the Hurricanes were certainly 'harder on the arms' wnen pushing them into the shed at close of play than the baby Spitfires. FWIW as for certain battle damage repairs, I was always told it was easier and quicker to BDR a Hurricane. There was certainly lots of good natured banter between drivers of both types at Northholt on the 70th anniversary. Let's face it, without both types and the air and ground crews we'd be buying pommes mit Mayo rather than a fish supper.
Bratwurst mit Senf und Pommes mit Mayo' - ausgezeichnet!
Flabby haddock, soggy chips and mushy peas....
No doubt the Rolls-Royce aficionados will disagree, but to my mind the fuel injected variable pressure supercharged Daimler Benz DB 605 was streets ahead in its design over the Kestrel / Peregrine-inspired Merlin, with its crude 2-stage blower and need for Mrs Shilling's orifice to stop the thing cutting out under negative G.
Flabby haddock, soggy chips and mushy peas....
No doubt the Rolls-Royce aficionados will disagree, but to my mind the fuel injected variable pressure supercharged Daimler Benz DB 605 was streets ahead in its design over the Kestrel / Peregrine-inspired Merlin, with its crude 2-stage blower and need for Mrs Shilling's orifice to stop the thing cutting out under negative G.
If, as the author suggests, we had built more Hurricanes instead of Spitfires, it surely would have made little difference in the B o B because it was pilots that were the limiting factor, not so much aircraft.