The iconic fighter plane from World War II for England was the Spitfire. But the Brits won the Battle of Britain with a Spitfire-Hurricane team. So which was more effective?
It seems that the answer is the Hurricane. Consider:
- 55% of German planes were shot down by Hurricanes.
- The Spitfire cost £9,500; the Hurricane cost £4,000.
From a cost per kill perspective, the Hurricane seems to be almost three times as effective as the Spitfire.
16 comments:
But, there's always a but, right?
If I'm reading this correctly
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/world-war-two-in-western-europe/battle-of-britain/battle-of-britain-statistics-2/
There were about double the number of Hurricanes in service at any one time during the BoB. This matches that the loss ratio of Hurricanes vs Spitfires was about double as well.
But with double the availbility and double the loss the Hurricanes only slightly surpassed the Spitfire in kills.
With that in mind, double the cost for the Spitfire actually looks like it was worth it.
GuardDuck, at the price point of each platform I'd *expect* there to be twice as many Hurricanes.
- Borepatch
The comparison of kill ratios misses a rather important point - what planes were killed by each?
In the BoB the Hurricane squadrons were typically tasked to go after the bombers and the Spitfires took on the far more nimble and dangerous fighters.
The Spitfire was a newer design than the Hurricane and was more of a match against the German ME-109s than the older airplane. That made it the preferred platform to use against the escort fighters. The Hurricane was outclassed by the ME-109s.
According to Flying Officer Jeffrey Quill (Hough & Richards,” The Battle of Britain”, 1989, Norton pg. 341) “The Hurricanes achieved greater damage to the enemy… but without the Spitfire squadrons to fight the 109s their casualties might well have led to losing the battle.”
“In mid-August…orders had been issued to all [ME109s] to escort the bombers more closely. [Air Vice Marshall Sir Keith] Park countered this move by instructing hos controllers to dispatch Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons against the bombers, which had previously been more or less the exclusive preserve of the slower Hurricanes.” (Ibid, pg. 235)
So, the comparison based on kills alone is inapt.
The Battle of Britain was the perfect intersection of both the Hurricane and the Spitfire. The Hurricane was almost at the maximum of its development potential. The Spitfire was still, in a lot of ways, in its infancy.
Though, well, the Hurricane did wonders and used far less precious metals than the Spit, being partially built of wood.
I've always liked the Hurricanes. Very unsung, did hero-level work everywhere the Empire went. And provided a much-needed fighter for the Fleet Air Arm, from one-shot catapult-mounted fighters (one launch, hope you make it to land...) to carrier fighters.
For a comparison of them, read'Fly for your life' by Stanford Tuck.
Bad beat me to it. You're trying to do an apples and oranges comparison without enough data to give it a true metric.
It's not my circus, flying or otherwise, but as Beans suggests, the Spitfire had some performance areas beyond the Hurricane. Bare performance numbers don't show major differences but the Spitfire had a significant advantage in power/mass and slightly lower wing loading. The Spitfire was also about half to three quarters of a generation ahead of the Hurricane, which probably shows up in handling qualities and turn radius, which I don't see listed.
Hurricanes went out of production in 1944, Spitfires in 1948. The Hurricane was. like the P-40, almost obsolescent soon into the war.
As far as I know, the only piston fighter produced after 1948 was the Corsair.
Hurricanes went out of production in 1944, Spitfires in 1948. The Hurricane was. like the P-40, almost obsolescent soon into the war.
As far as I know, the only piston fighter produced after 1948 was the Corsair.
The Hurricane was mostly used as a bomber interceptor.
The Spitfire was used to attack the fighters so the Hurricanes could reach the bombers.
Didn't always work that way, but that was their basic division of employment.
Due to their fabric, wood, and metal construction form, the Hurri was quick and easy to repair, and easier to land with their wide set landing gear.
The Spit was a more demanding aircraft to fly in combat and land, and required more time and effort to repair battle damage.
Pilot training was poor, and this was reflected in battle damage and bad results in air combat for both models. The British were very slow to learn lessons from combat, compared to other countries.
Already said, apples to pineapples:
1) How many Spitfires vs. how many Hurricanes?
2) How many kills for each plane type, respectively?
If someone wants to present data, rather than commit the fallacy of Lying With Statistics by presenting irrelevant data or incorrectly setting up the problem, they would also tell us the kills per Spitfire vs. kills per Hurricane, and then go deeper, and tell us the monetary value of the kills were to the enemy, and account for the cost of the friendly losses as well, and even get into loss of pilots, as most of the battle meant a German pilot was likely to die or be captured, whereas any good Limey could expect either a soft landing over home territory, or a rapid air-sea rescue before freezing to death in the Channel.
And if 80% (pulling numbers out of my underpants, not giving actual data) of the planes were Hurricanes, and 20% were Spitfires, even a napkin-math examination would show the Spit was the better plane in a 55/45 kill percentage, wouldn't it?
@Comrade Misfit,
Though is was a strike a/c and not a fighter, the piston-engine Douglas Skyraider was in production through 1957, and a Navy A-1 got an air-to-air kill of a Soviet biplane over Korea in 1953 (the type's only A2A victory, btw.)
Piston-engine F-4U Corsairs which inarguably was a fighter, (which production in various forms didn't end until 1953) also racked up 2140 kills in WWII, and 12 a/c kills in Korea, including a very foolish Mig-15 pilot who tried a turning duel and came up second-best.
The Hurricane was a versatile platform. They were equipped with 40 mm cannon for use against armor, and, rockets for use against just about anything.
The A1 Skyraider was produced until,1957.
Pineapples to cumquats?
In the middle stages for air control over Malta, the Brit's only had Hurricanes to go up against the BF-109's. The Hurricanes, which were a match for the Italian fighters, got chewed up by the Messerschmitts
After the battle of Britain, Spitfires began to show up on the island starting in 1942. That aircraft in numbers turned the tide for air superiority over the Mediterranean.
Reference: Fortress Malta by James Holland
Aesop:
I'm pretty sure that a Skyraider got a Mig kill on a mission to support a Jolly Green extracting a downed pilot in North Vietnam.
Also, a Hurri/Spit pilot had a huge problem with the main fuel tank mounted between the cockpit and engine, that wasn't self-sealing. Lots of pilots were so badly burned that reconstructive surgery became a common bit of health care. That's if they survived bailing out while the plane burned around them.
(All the other tanks pumped into that tank, so if the plane was in the air, it had fuel in it.)
The already low fuel amount carried would take a noted hit, so TPTB fought adding the cost and smaller tankage to an already marginal range package. Some later models of the Spit had the better main tanks, but not all, and none of them had all their internal tanks self-sealing.
"Sigh for a Merlin" is an excellent book about building and testing the Spit, written by the head test pilot for Spitfire production at Castle Bromwich.
Post a Comment