RAF WW2 Query BOB

Battles are won not by fighting to the last tank, ship or aeroplane but by persuading the enemy to give up. In this the appearance of invincibility is paramount. That, after all, is how the Germans conquered mainland Europe.

The Battle of Britain was won by the same process in reverse. The Germans were persuaded to fly elsewhere by the seeming invincibility of the RAF. We now know how close run it was in reality.

While the Hurricane was a very fine fighter in every way, it would have had a much longer, harder struggle on its own, during which the lack of numbers and any worthwhile reserves would have been exposed, giving incentive to the Germans to keep going.

I do believe the Spitfire played a crucial role in the image of the RAF in the minds and on the decision-making of the German leaders, just as their Stukas certainly played on the minds of the French when they decided not to fight.

Graham,
Last sentence yr post – or not, as the case may be!
Resmoroh

There is no possible way the Spitfire could have been available in sufficient numbers, so that one’s easy to deal with.

The Spitfire was the better performer, and ideally (not always or perhaps often enough achieved in practice) was tasked to take on the 109s leaving the Hurricanes to attack the bombers. Has there been no Spitfires, there would have been more RAF fighter losses. Whether this would have been significant enough to change the result is another matter, and I suspect impossible to judge. Perhaps a very highly detailed wargame with professional (service/historian) players would be needed to get any realistic idea.

well as the Hurricane shot down 4/5ths I would say the margin would of been a lot more narrow. The Lufftwaffe were more frightend by the Spitfire so I wonder how much that had on the outcome.
One other thing. More pilots were burnt in Hurricanes and put out of action but you can analise this more and more but its just conjecture.
I pass this on to others to shoot me down.

Tacka Tacka Tacka Tacka

TA out