Battle of Britain won by Royal Navy?

Theres no argument from me, the Luftwaffe definately lost the battle of britain.

Perhaps one should consider the underlying argument that the Lufwaffe in fact lost the “Battle of Britain”, before embarking on supporting various claims as to who “won” it.

Yes, the culprit is the media and not one or other school of history. Take it from me as someone who works with the gentlemen of the press that we should expect little more. I can tell you now, if ye seek the truth don’t bother looking in TV documentaries, however scholarly and reliable they may seem.

Can I suggest James and Stuart settle any remaining differences like gentlemen, I think the BBMF can provide the weapons – Night Reaper for JDK and a Vb for Stuart. Place your bets…

Learning to behave as a gentleman may take me a while yet, as supposidly thats what I’ve been trying to do for the last 45 years…we have agreed ,essentially to disagree, and for my part I have learned a hard lesson, that being, don’t argue with someone who types with more than one finger!!

Thanks James (and my apologies for not getting a copy of HT to you as I promsied – there’s only one in my whole organisation and I just couldn’t lay hands on it!). Exactly the sort of clarification of intent that was needed. It’s a little like the recent “future evolution” story that all the papers ran with as “what scientists say we’ll all look like in a 1000 years”. In fact, the guy that theorised was NOT an evolutionary biologist, and was being paid by a men’s magazine to speculate on future evolutionary pressures.

The same sort of misrepresentation and bandwagon jumping, followed by indignant protestation (understandable to a degree), occurred with this story. The media think that the public won’t understand the subtleties, so they extrapolate their own simplistic conclusions and run with them.

Yes, the culprit is the media and not one or other school of history. Take it from me as someone who works with the gentlemen of the press that we should expect little more. I can tell you now, if ye seek the truth don’t bother looking in TV documentaries, however scholarly and reliable they may seem.

Can I suggest James and Stuart settle any remaining differences like gentlemen, I think the BBMF can provide the weapons – Night Reaper for JDK and a Vb for Stuart. Place your bets…

Thanks James (and my apologies for not getting a copy of HT to you as I promsied – there’s only one in my whole organisation and I just couldn’t lay hands on it!). Exactly the sort of clarification of intent that was needed. It’s a little like the recent “future evolution” story that all the papers ran with as “what scientists say we’ll all look like in a 1000 years”. In fact, the guy that theorised was NOT an evolutionary biologist, and was being paid by a men’s magazine to speculate on future evolutionary pressures.

The same sort of misrepresentation and bandwagon jumping, followed by indignant protestation (understandable to a degree), occurred with this story. The media think that the public won’t understand the subtleties, so they extrapolate their own simplistic conclusions and run with them.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. 🙁

Having just received the November 2006 edition of History Today (www.historytoday.com) I was very interested to read the following letter. I was also interested to note that no-one else has bothered to bring it to our attention; either here or in the media who were so keen to jump on a self-evidently absurd story bandwagon, and who clearly did not bother to contact the JSC&SC staff for comment or clarification. I stand by my first comment in the thread.

Pie in the Sky

As senior historians at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, some time ago we were interviewed by Brian James, at his request, for his article ‘Pie in the Sky?’ (September 2006). We had no part in writing the article and were not given, ahead of publication, the opportunity to comment on the use that was made of the interviews.

News of the appearance of this article came as a complete surprise. Indeed, two of us only found out about the article through reports in the media.

We are disappointed that the media furore that followed the publication of this article has seriously misrepresented our views on the Battle of Britain. None of us argued that the Royal Navy ‘won the Battle of Britain’ – a self-evidendy ridiculous notion, given that this was an air battle. The defeat of the Luftwaffe by the Royal Air Force’s Fighter Command was a critical factor in preventing the German armed forces from attempting an invasion. Moreover, this victory was of enormous strategic, political, and psychological importance, for which Fighter Command deserves full credit.

Our argument, which has been previously advanced by a number of historians over a period of nearly half a century, is that one should adopt a holistic view of Britain’s defences in 1940. This must include consideration of the role of the RAF’s Bomber and Coastal Commands, the Royal Navy, and land forces, as well as Fighter Command.

We are preparing a joint article in which we will set out our case in full.

Andrew Gordon
Christina Goulter
Gary Sheffield

Joint Services Command and Staff College

Clearly any comments here directed at poor history and that favourite straw horse ‘revisionism’ need to be laid at the feet of (in order) Brian James, History Today (in whom I’m personally unimpressed – they should know better) and perhaps most significantly the poor journalism of the Telegraph for not bothering to check sources – rule and error one. Still, they managed to enrage the choleric Colonels one more time, which is the Torygraph’s job, so no change there then.

Regards

PS: On a completely different tack, it’s worth noting that Stuart Gowans and I took our discussion to PM and have reached an understanding not evident above; others may want to comment, and they’re welcome.

James an unfortunate spelling mistake ,a bit of a gift for you, pleased to see that you latched onto it to illustrate your superiority in this battle of wills.

I see little point in going over old ground, but just to add a few points; If the close grouping of the Hurricanes guns weren’t harmonised perfectly, the close proximity of the guns, would mean that the bullets would converge and interfere with each other before the intended point of aim; this wouldn’t happen on the Spitfire.

Camm in my view ,didn’t come close to Mitchell as a designer his A/C were a series of re hashes the Hart into the Hurri, the Hurri into the Typhoon, the typhoon into the Tempest, the Tempest into the Sea Fury, the Sea fury into the Sea hawk, the Sea hawk into the Hunter; there was no direct lineage from the S6 sea plane and the Spitfire.

The reason that supermarines didn’t have a fighter to replace the Spitfire, ( apart from the fact that they didn’t need one) is because they had started to build his revolutionary four engined bomber the B12/36, unfortunately the production was destroyed in an air raid,and by that time, the need was to mass produce fighters rather than bombers; one can only wonder what a contribution to the war effort this four engined heavy would have made ,with an initial bomb capacity of 21,000 lb and a top speed of 360 mph, swept wings and retractable turrets.

I mention Joe Smith ,mainly because I hear many people say that it was he who made the spitfire successful, whilst it is true that he kept it competetive, the basic design stayed the same, even up to the griffon engined 12’s and 14’s.

As for my own efforts, the fame of the Spitfire isn’t lost on me, in my opinion it is the most beautiful aeroplane ever designed , and the experience of working on one is humbling ; we like to think we are clever s*ds , but the complexity of design is about as much as I can handle, yet this man designed it seventy years ago.

Excellent post Stuart,
See what you can do when you concentrate? 😉 Some excellent points, some I agree entirely with, and others I don’t.

James, what a disappointment it must be for you to respond to someone with such poor punctuation, especially as this forum has such high standards with respect to grammar, but please bare with me

It’s not my standards or the forum’s that I’m bothered about – without a degree of precision in language, one’s meaning is easily mistaken or obscure. You aren’t helping yourself, that’s all. I’m certainly never going to ‘bare‘ with you, but I’ll bear with you here. That’s mildly amusing, but amply illustrates the dangers of imprecision.

The first point worth addressing is that Hawkers didn’t build a fighter capable of being modified to keep pace with german A/C design; the Typhoon, in the main differed little with the hurricane the forward fuselage was of tubular construction, bolted together with plates,it was wholly unsuccessful as a fighter primarily because of the thick wing (like the Hurricane), and was adopted for ground attack in which role it excelled (as long as you didn’t mind the tail coming off), but was a failure in its intended role; replacing the entire wing was not a modification, it was a redesign and appropriately it was given a new name (tempest).

A good summary. As the Tempest was Hawker’s contemporary to the Griffon Spitfires, the only difference was that Hawker’s development went through greater modification from an earlier methodology through to and beyond anything Supermarine’s achieved – Supermarine 224 vs Fury, Spiteful vs Sea Fury, Swift vs Hunter, etc…

You are quite right that the Typhoon was a failure as an interceptor fighter, though not quite as abject as you paint it. We could descend into point scoring of Hawker vs Supermarine successes and failures, but that really is pointless.

Neither Hawker nor Supermarines foresaw the compressibility factors with the thick or thin wings – Supermarines (and we) were lucky, and Hawkers unlucky with their 1930s choices; but it was luck, not good engineering in both cases. No-one credits RJ Mitchell with foreseeing the superior performance of the Spitfire’s wing, though many hint in that direction.

Supermarines had nothing (in 1940) to replace the Spitfire with, but intended to stretch the design, while Hawker’s had developed a new aircraft. Was that a conscious plan? RJ Mitchell’s death must have been an interruption to the schedule, and without the Spitfire, Supermarines were a bit prone to turning out failures. (That’s not to knock the Spitfire, which was, in every sense, an exceptional aircraft.)

It’s an interesting concept, and I think may be what you are trying to say, that if Hawker’s had tried to stretch the Hurricane and Supermarines had discarded the early Spitfires and looked to the next ‘type’, then it would have been disastrous. An interesting idea as a contrast to reality, but only an illustration. Both teams realised what was required; both did a great job. However (as we persist in moving away from the Battle of Britain) when it came to fighters for the RAF, only one of the two companies produced effective designs over a significant period of time.

A hypothetical question as it was, that would be an accurate answer, had they not have built the hurricane, in large numbers their next “fighter” would not have aquitted itself at all well in the BoB.

True enough. And so what? The performance and achievements of the Spitfire and Hurricane during the Battle of Britain are an utterly different question to what happened after that Battle.

Returning to the main theme of the guns, I mentioned in my first post (all those pages ago) that gun harmonisation at the out break of war was a spread pattern, and yes the accepted idea at that time was that there would be sufficient lead in the air to cause substantial damage; this was an assumption made by the air ministry not A/C designers; it is also worth bearing in mind that at the out break of war there was no armour plate fitted.

Agreed.

If we look at the wing flex issue ,neither you or I have figures to show the measured amount of flex, to hand (although I do have some original wing stress calculations ,and may be able to work it out from that) the amount of flex toward the wing tip may be sufficient to alter the trajectory of the bullets, but it is worth remembering that it would only affect the two outer guns, and then only under high g .

It would be an interesting exercise to do the maths. I’m basing my understanding on the oft repeated statement that the Hurricane was a good / better gun platform than the Spitfire. There are facets to that – Ian’s input is useful; firing under high g loads is not a good way of achieving kills, and how much of the relative difference was transmitted vibration or similar I don’t know. I wonder if anyone has that data quantified?

The ‘outer gun’ is one for each wing, or 2 out of eight. 20% of a barely adequate firepower is a percentage you don’t want to lose, but you shouldn’t be firing in high g unless it’s not going well.

Having read Sailor Malan’s biography, there is no mention of any problems with the Spitfire not staying on target, and indeed with over thirty confirmed kills to his credit I think his achievements speak for themselves (as did Beurlings in the malta campaign).

Most effective aces got in close (Malan particularly so, writing the manual!) or were crack shots with an exceptional skill level in deflection and so forth. The average squadron pilot’s hit rate relied on the advantages (or was affected by the disadvantages) of their aircraft type much more. Yet again, despite the desire of the ‘Hurricane’ or ‘Spitfire’ camps, the difference was not so great, and the skilled pilot was a much more significant factor than those minor differences.

No you didn’t understand correctly what I was trying to say regarding gun harmonisation , and yes I do realise that invariably the man facing the firing squad remained reasonably stationary, as opposed to a fighter A/C moving around the sky in excess of two hundred mph, but the principle of harmonisation to a pin point remains the same.

I didn’t mention movement, but relative position. A different way again of explaining it. A Hurricane’s bullet tracks diverged after the aiming point a lot less than a Spitfire’s, (and were closer on their way to the aiming point). Thus a Hurricane’s lethal kill range was greater than a Spitfire’s – if both were harmonised with all guns to a point at (let’s say) 200 yards, then all the Hurricane’s bullet tracks would be passing through a three yard ‘tube’ from let’s say 160 to 240 yards. The Spitfire’s, the bullets having a greater convergence to achieve would be less – let’s say 180 yards to 220 yards. Thus a Hurricane’s pilot would hit a target with all the guns at any distance from 160 – 240 yards, while a Spitfire pilot would have only 40 yards. Of course that assumes all other things are equal, etc, and is only one facet of a successful attack.

I’m not sure that you are fully able to quantify your statements by adding the word “fact” to the end of each sentence,…

No it’s just a little pointer to the bit that is the fact. You know, to help. This is what I think, and the bit marked ‘fact’ is the data it’s based on. Beliefs and opinions aren’t facts, and for the most part you’ve not provided any facts to support your views. Feel free to do so.

…but it makes you feel better, please carry on; one thing I will say is, in a previous exchange of views, you said to me; “Bluntly I know more about this than you”…

I did? I don’t recall. Can I rely on you to quote me accurately? You aren’t precise in your own statements, so…

…you were wrong then,as you are now,..

That’s an opinion. I don’t see any supporting evidence. Feel free to prove it.

I won’t bore you with my qualifications on the subject, but I’ve been doing it for thirty odd years;

I wouldn’t be bored, please share. However qualification and duration have never been an accurate measure of achievement, and are only a rough guide to competence. We’ve both known highly experienced and qualified idiots, and unqualified mercurial achievers.

And finally (hopefully you’ll forgive the starting of a sentence with “and”)

Not at all, I think I did earlier. It’s not confusing, like some other other points.

I don’t have a Spitfire “replica nose”, what I do have is a Spitfire project that is 50% original (and I don’t mean by weight either) what you might have seen is a photo of the assembled forward fuselage, but I assure you the rest is there.

That’s great, and I take my hat off to you. Why don’t you talk more about that on the forum? I could only comment from one photo and an allusion by Mark12.

With regard to my obvious bias towards the Spitfire ,I can say only this, that I have looked long and hard for a project that would provide me with a challenge to test my abilities, the spitfire is that and more (one need only look at the wing spar construction to see the genius of the man),

Good for you. The popularity and fame of the subject weren’t factors then?

…the hurricane is mechano by comparison…

Yesss, exactly. That’s why Hawker Restorations needed to be set up, to make ‘Mechano’ bits! As I was told by Tony Ditheridge the Hurricane was easy to build, but a **** to restore; generally held to require a lot more infrastructure to make those parts now, while the Spitfire’s popularity has ensured a lot of available support throughout the post-war period.

Part of the Hurricane’s 1939/40 success was its ease of repair by substitution of parts; another success I outlined above was its ease of production using established Hawker processes. Had Hawker’s chosen Supermarine’s path of stressed skin construction for the Hurricane it is unarguable that not enough Hurricanes would have been produced for the Battle of France and Britain; and as it was a close run thing, could have been a decisive difference.

…and as good a robust fighter as it was ,it was an old man (in 1940)whereas the Spitfire had just been born.

Well, yes, that’s never been in contention with me. But there weren’t enough Spitfires in 1940; there couldn’t have been. Lucky the old man was more than good enough to stem the tide while the young lad grew up!

I would add just one thing to this, and that is a quote from Joe Smith; ” no other man in my experience has produced anything like the number of new and practical fundamental ideas, the whole hearted and continuous application of this genius was an inspiration to all who worked with him”.

Lovely. Worked for Supermarines, didn’t he? Not with (say) another designer that turned out a few more successful high performance aircraft, like, um, Hawkers? 😀 I have the highest admiration for both Joe and Reginald; but Joe’s experience was with Vickers Supermarines – only one of the premier aeronautical engineering companies of the time. I’d have invested in Hawkers, not Supermarines…

In terms of successful fighter designs for the RAF, RN and foreign users, as well as thirties multi-role types Hawker’s are so far ahead of Supermarines that it’s no debate. If I were being particularly awkward, I could say that RJ Mitchell achieved two brilliant designs, the latter taken forward by another (too often) overlooked designer. Mitchell was competent with flashes of genius, but Camm’s legacy is a greater achievement by numbers (of types) over time (measured to Mitchell’s death and the end of their contemporary work or beyond) actual global sales and reliable performance. That’s an over simplification, and neglects the Spitfire’s uniquely massive success, but is one of the things that makes these debates interesting.

We’ve wandered waay off topic – twice removed at least, and it’s been interesting and (for me at least) educational.

It still remains a nub that there seems to be a problem for some Spitfire aficionados with the fact that the Hurricane, in greater numbers, shot down more enemy aircraft during the Battle of Britain, than the Spitfire. Why this is difficult to stomach I still don’t see, and it has nothing to do with the Spitfire’s glorious subsequent career. All the detail and argument here can be seen as an attempt to overwhelm an inconvenient bit of historical fact to support an over-simplified and inaccurate comfortable myth about 1940.

You mentioned highly-qualified praise of Mitchell, I would like to set it alongside a similar paean to Camm – to say Mitchell or Camm was ‘better’ is to miss an important point – both did vital jobs, and both deserve their fame.

“Camm had a one-tracked mind – his aircraft were right, and everybody had to work on them to get them right. If they did not, then there was hell. He was a very difficult man to work for, but you could not have a better aeronautical engineer to work under. […] With regard to his own staff, he did not suffer fools gladly, and at times many of us appeared to be fools. One rarely got into trouble for doing something either in the ideas line, or in the manufacturing line, but woe betide those who did nothing, or who put forward an indeterminate solution.”
A recollection by Robert Lickey, an engineer who worked for Camm at Hawker Aircraft. (From here )

I suspect this may be a good point where we agree to differ – we’ve both got better aeronautical things to do than try and convince each other; I look forward to hearing more about your Spitfire project.

Cheers,

James, what a disappointment it must be for you to respond to someone with such poor punctuation, especially as this forum has such high standards with respect to grammar, but please bare with me;

The first point worth addressing is that Hawkers didn’t build a fighter capable of being modified to keep pace with german A/C design; the Typhoon, in the main differed little with the hurricane the forward fuselage was of tubular construction, bolted together with plates,it was wholly unsuccessful as a fighter primarily because of the thick wing (like the Hurricane), and was adopted for ground attack in which role it excelled (as long as you didn’t mind the tail coming off), but was a failure in its intended role; replacing the entire wing was not a modification, it was a redesign and appropriately it was given a new name (tempest).

A hypothetical question as it was, that would be an accurate answer, had they not have built the hurricane, in large numbers their next “fighter” would not have aquitted itself at all well in the BoB.

Returning to the main theme of the guns, I mentioned in my first post (all those pages ago) that gun harmonisation at the out break of war was a spread pattern, and yes the accepted idea at that time was that there would be sufficient lead in the air to cause substancial damage; this was an assumption made by the air ministry not A/C designers; it is also worth bearing in mind that at the out break of war there was no armour plate fitted.

If we look at the wing flex issue ,neither you or I have figures to show the measured amount of flex, to hand (although I do have some original wing stress calculations ,and may be able to work it out from that) the amount of flex toward the wing tip may be sufficient to alter the trajectory of the bullets, but it is worth remembering that it would only affect the two outer guns, and then only under high g .

Having read Sailor Malan’s biography, there is no mention of any problems with the Spitfire not staying on target, and indeed with over thirty confirmed kills to his credit I think his achievements speak for themselves (as did Beurlings in the malta campaign).

No you didn’t understand correctly what I was trying to say regarding gun harmonisation , and yes I do realise that invariably the man facing the firing squad remained reasonably stationary, as opposed to a fighter A/C moving around the sky in excess of two hundred mph, but the principle of harmonisation to a pin point remains the same.

I’m not sure that you are fully able to quantify your statements by adding the word “fact” to the end of each sentence, but it makes you feel better, please carry on; one thing I will say is, in a previous exchange of views, you said to me; “Bluntly I know more about this than you” you were wrong then,as you are now, I won’t bore you with my qualifications on the subject, but I’ve been doing it for thirty odd years;

And finally (hopefully you’ll forgive the starting of a sentence with “and”) I don’t have a Spitfire “replica nose”, what I do have is a Spitfire project that is 50% original (and I don’t mean by weight either) what you might have seen is a photo of the assembled forward fuselage, but I assure you the rest is there.

With regard to my obvious bias towards the Spitfire ,I can say only this, that I have looked long and hard for a project that would provide me with a challenge to test my abilities, the spitfire is that and more (one need only look at the wing spar construction to see the genius of the man),the hurricane is mechano by comparison and as good a robust fighter as it was ,it was an old man (in 1940)whereas the Spitfire had just been born.

I would add just one thing to this, and that is a quote from Joe Smith; ” no other man in my experience has produced anything like the number of new and practical fundamental ideas, the whole hearted and continuous application of this genius was an inspiration to all who worked with him”.

I found this while clearing up our library yesterday. While not able to bring the debate over which was the better gun platform to a conclusion, it adds a bit more to the fact that the Spitfire, while a superb aircraft, was not without its faults.

I would consider this chap to be an authority, he fought in both the Battle of France and Britain on Hurricanes and went on to be instrumental in testing the Typhoon and Tempest, which he took into battle with 609 Sqn. He was also part of the team that evaluated captured enemy aircraft and after the war he played a major part in developing the Lightning, Canberra, TSR2, Jaguar and Tornado. So I guess he knew something about aircraft.

Apart from the common faults, noted by most pilots who flew the Spitfire, i.e heavy ailerons at higher speeds, the poor forward view while taxying etc…. He also noted the following

The ailerons were pleasantly light at low combat speeds but all controls heavied up considerably above 300 mph, and with the prevailing turbulance and in sharp combat manoeuvring directional stability was marginal and seemed likely to interfere with gun-aiming.

Switching on the GM2 gunsight I picked out a target and made some attacking passes varying the speed from 220 to 320 mph, and this confirmed the very limited vision over the long nose and through the restricted windscreen, and also that directional damping was indeed poor and resulted in excessive wander of the gunsight aiming point around the target in the prevailing rough air.

Dear Stuart,
I can hardly hope you’ll agree with me, but I’d appreciate a little punctuation so we can see what you are trying to say.

JDK, James,looking and thinking eh ?

Yes. Doesn’t mean I’m right, but it also doesn’t mean I’m hanging onto my beliefs in the face of reasoning and fact.

alright my first question what would we think of the Hurricane if it were out numbered by the spitfire by the same ratio, your answer ;”Err what most people actually think about the battle,i.e the spitfire won it ” etc, isn’t actually an answer to the question .

It is an answer, it’s just not the one you wanted.

Heres an example of an answer ; “we might have thought that in the relatively small numbers the Hurricane, was in service,that Hawkers would have been better off tooling up to build something that could see out the war and could be modified many times over to keep pace with German A/C development. It might not be the answer that you had in mind, but it does at least address the question.

As Hawkers built the Hurricane in some numbers and in the late 1930s were well into designing the Typhoon/Tornado, which was developed into the Tempest, Fury and then Sea Fury, they did do what you are asking them to have done. Camm knew that the patent Hawker method was going to be in its last shot with the Hurricane, but it was necessary, if only to get lots of fighters in RAF service for the war. Had Hawker tried to switch to stressed skin construction in the 30s the Battle of Britain would (almost certainly) have been lost due to insufficient RAF single-seat fighters of any type.

Conversely Supermarines had not developed anything to replace the Spitfire. Magnificently, in Joe Smith’s (not Mitchell’s) hands, it was capable of enormous and remarkable performance growth. But if it had not been (as reasonable a postulate as your ‘question’) then Supermarines would have been in the position Curtiss was. Hawker never failed to be providing the aircraft that the RAF required ‘next’. The Typhoon was a failure as a fighter, a blip in a string of types that can be traced back to the Pup and on to the Harrier. Supermarine’s fighter legacy is somewhat slimmer, with ONE brilliant type in multiple versions.

The rest of your post seems to be your attempt to rubish what I am saying, by breaking whole an comprehensible sentances down to “sound bites “that are easier to snipe at,

No Stuart, it’s called dissecting an argument, and taking it point by point. Sadly you have a lot of argument, few facts and no sustainable logic in your posts. Personally I don’t think I’ve been ‘sniping’ at your ‘arguments’ Stuart, I’d prefer ‘crushing’. 😀

I refrain from commenting on the difficulty of understanding your intent behind a block of strangely punctuated text; let’s just say no one in a position to test your theories professionally would accept how you present them here.

if you are involved in something on a day to day basis and you haven’t heard a bad report about the item in question ,it isn’t such a silly idea to think that if your peers aren’t aware of a specific problem , and consequently haven’t comunicated the absence of said problem to you ,that it may not exist.

And if someone says or implies that something else is known as a ‘good’ or ‘better’ item at that job, that will mean it’s better, and one’s favourite might be less good. Yet again your contortions to prove your a priori belief are interesting, but completely unsustainable or credible.

If we look at a firing squad as an example , the spread of the squad is roughly that of the guns in a Spitfire, their point of aim was obviously the chap against the brick wall , that would roughly speaking be a definition of “pin point” as opposed to a “spread” ;

Odd comparison, but anyway. An enemy aircraft does not stay at the carefully prescribed range like the condemned man. That’s why a set of guns that are closer together will all be able to hit the target with more lead when they are closer or further away than the ideal range, as the area before and after the idea aiming point will still be in the path of all those guns for a greater distance either side than a set wider spread at the start. A wide set array of guns will only have a very short coincidence of all the bullet paths.

are you saying that if the firing squad climbed on top of each other that their accuracy would be greatly improved?

No, you are. Silly isn’t it.

how far out in the wings do you think the outer guns are? yes the wings flex, all wings do ;how much flexing do you think they do? its not a B52….

As an engineer will tell us, all things ‘compress’ to some degree; many flex. However, the Spitfire’s wing in combat turns etc. was simply much more flexible than the Hurricane’s, a stiffer construction (being thicker, this was easier to achieve). As the Hurricane’s guns were also mounted in two blocks of four together, they fired at the point chosen, not where the wing flex at three quarter span had pointed them. Just to keep it simple for you. The Spitfire’s wing was more flexible than the Hurricane’s. Fact.

Your views seem to be based on the Spitfire being ‘perfect’ and the Hurricane being some distraction from that perfection. Neither design was perfect; both had strengths and weaknesses, and both had areas of superiority to each other. Overall, the Spitfire, technically, was a more manoeuvrable fighter, and ultimately the ‘better’ aircraft, except for one thing. However that does not follow that the Hurricane was not an adequate fighter for the period; the point is proven by the facts.

The ‘one thing’ was the Hurricane was able to be produced in sufficient numbers to take the majority role in the Battle of Britain. It was able to achieve the kill rate the RAF needed. There was no chance for more Spitfires at the time. It was lucky the Hurricane was there and good enough. That’s the facts, Stuart.

Finally just looked at you last post, about gun harmonisation why would you think that the guns can only be harmonised at one distance?

I don’t, and again, that’s not what I said. What I did say was:

If you look at a diagram of the way a Spitfire’s and a Hurricane’s guns can be harmonised, it’s clear that the area of lethal grouping will be longer and tighter with the Hurricane’s two blocks of four arranged closer to the centreline set-up than the Spitfires eight individual guns spread to three quarters of the span, whatever harmonisation is chosen.

The underline is a clue. You can harmonise closer or further away, or plan a different pattern. The lethal cone is longer and has more bullet tracks in it for a closer set of guns.

get a piece of paper , put eight dots at one edge one dot at the other edge then another dot slightly behind that ,and, with a ruler, draw a series of lines ,and you can clearly see that the outer guns can be harmonised ahead of the inner guns without any intersection of bullets that effectively is a “string” of bullets, when attacking from the rear ,(by far the best way)

If I understand this correctly, you are saying you can have a couple of the guns offset so if you miss with the main aiming point, then a couple will hit something. Hardly concentration of fire.

and as a former clay pigeon shooter I understand deflection (lead) spread patterns ,shot strings, etc,etc

You may do. However you’ve amply demonstrated that you clearly don’t understand the use of guns in the RAF in 1940. Either way I’m not getting anywhere near you when armed! 😉

Before the war it was believed that eight .303 would land enough bullets on target in the brief opportunity to achieve a kill. In that case a spread, rather than harmonisation to a point was a good idea. (Like using a shotgun.) Due to the introduction of armour, and the discovery that enemy aircraft could be hit with hundreds of .303 rounds and still get home, it was realised that a point harmonisation was necessary to achieve a knock down kill. (Like using a large calibre rifle.) You can use a shotgun on big game, if you like; sure, something will hit them, but it won’t kill them. A concentration of fire at a lethal point is what became necessary; in the metaphor, a large calibre bullet in the creature’s brain, in the Battle of Britain, a single harmonisation point placed on the enemy aircraft’s engine or cockpit or fuel. Spraying the target (such as a He111) didn’t work.

I appreciate your passion and conviction Stuart, and I salute your efforts with the Spitfire replica nose. However there’s no point in me rehashing the facts of 1940 for you; you clearly ‘know’ your beliefs are ‘right’, but have failed to deeply a logical fact based argument to support or even prove them. Your post 49 was good.

I’ll be delighted to continue the discussion when you offer a worthwhile thesis.

Regards,

JDK, James,looking and thinking eh ? so many points to take issue with so little time… alright my first question what would we think of the Hurricane if it were out numbered by the spitfire by the same ratio, your answer ;”Err what most people actually think about the battle,i.e the spitfire won it ” etc, isn’t actually an answer to the question . Heres an example of an answer ; “we might have thought that in the relatively small numbers the Hurricane, was in service,that Hawkers would have been better off tooling up to build something that could see out the war and could be modified many times over to keep pace with German A/C development. It might not be the answer that you had in mind, but it does at least address the question. The rest of your post seems to be your attempt to rubish what I am saying, by breaking whole an comprehensible sentances down to “sound bites “that are easier to snipe at, but to address some of these in brief; if you are involved in something on a day to day basis and you haven’t heard a bad report about the item in question ,it isn’t such a silly idea to think that if your peers aren’t aware of a specific problem , and consequently haven’t comunicated the absence of said problem to you ,that it may not exist. If we look at a firing squad as an example , the spread of the squad is roughly that of the guns in a Spitfire, their point of aim was obviously the chap against the brick wall , that would roughly speaking be a definition of “pin point” as opposed to a “spread” ; are you saying that if the firing squad climbed on top of each other that their accuracy would be greatly improved? how far out in the wings do you think the outer guns are? yes the wings flex, all wings do ;how much flexing do you think they do? its not a B52….Finally just looked at you last post, about gun harmonisation why would you think that the guns can only be harmonised at one distance? get a piece of paper , put eight dots at one edge one dot at the other edge then another dot slightly behind that ,and, with a ruler, draw a series of lines ,and you can clearly see that the outer guns can be harmonised ahead of the inner guns without any intersection of bullets that effectively is a “string” of bullets, when attacking from the rear ,(by far the best way) and as a former clay pigeon shooter I understand deflection (lead) spread patterns ,shot strings, etc,etc

Does anybody know what the loss ratio percentage to type strength was for both types during the battle.

Isn’t Google a wonderful tool ????

The nineteen Spitfire squadrons operating during the Battle of Britain are credited by recent research with 521 victories (an average of just over 27 per squadron) and a victory-to-loss ratio of 1.8. In comparison, the thirty fully engaged Hurricane squadrons are credited with 655 victories (an average of just under 22 per squadron) and with a victory-to-loss ratio of 1.34

Well if you don’t believe the pilots who do you believe, you’ve got a nerve

Well if you belive the pilots we shot down 180+ germans on 15th September. Actual figure was less than 60.

coming out with such a dismissive statment about the people who flew both the Spit& hurri and have said on both tv interviews and other publications that the BB would have been lost with an all hurricane force, how many times are you and others going to keep on about “But the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spit”, we blo&dy well know, but at the end of the day the Battle of Britain will be remembered as a battle won by Michell’s finestnot by the hurricane, not by radar, not by command an control, but by pilots from all over the world and Empire flying Spitfire’s over the fields of Kent, 😀

Had that been the case, why did Park and Dowding not load 11 Group with every Spitfire Sqn that they could. Reason, The Hurricane was good enough to do the job (they could have got away with having just Hurricane Squadrons up north as there was no BF-109 threat there) . Does anybody know what the loss ratio percentage to type strength was for both types during the battle.

As for the Radar and Integrated Command and Control systems, Why are they now the number one targets in any modern air power doctrine?

I think in the Internet vernacular, the expression is “PWNED!!!!11111”.

Regarding the guns in Spitfires and Hurricanes, here’s an interesting item from Tony William’s site here .

Two other considerations were the location of the armament and the ballistics. Wing mounting had the disadvantage that the guns could all be harmonised to strike the same point at only one distance (the RAF initially selected 360 metres but reduced this to 225 metres in the light of battle experience). At shorter or longer distances, the fire was more dispersed (particularly from the Spitfire, whose guns were spread across the wing). In fact, at very short distances a good shot, firing at a Bf 109 at zero deflection, could conceivably miss altogether, the two clusters of bullets passing to either side of the slim fuselage and just above the wings (although they might clip the propeller tips!).

Oh dear, I seem to have caused an upset with some people’s rose-tinted histoy specs. Still we live and learn. (Well some do…)

Well if you don’t believe the pilots who do you believe…

Historians? It was a slightly flippant remark. 😉

…you’ve got a nerve coming out with such a dismissive statment about the people who flew both the Spit& hurri…

Yup. Having a nerve doesn’t make me wrong, or disrespectful. Fighter pilots have provided excellent source material, and they are well worthwhile, as fighter pilots. As I said, trusting people to have the best understanding and view ‘because they were there’ is stunningly naive and proven misguided so often it’s simply not worth arguing.

…and have said on both tv interviews and other publications that the BB would have been lost with an all hurricane force,…

If I could be bothered I could find as many Hurricane advocates as Spitfire fanciers in fighter pilot lists. It doesn’t prove anything.

…how many times are you and others going to keep on about “But the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spit”, we blo&dy well know…

So why are you upset?

but at the end of the day the Battle of Britain will be remembered as a battle won by Michell’s finest

In part, unarguably. By those to whom history is a closed book, entirely. But as I don’t read the Sun, I don’t need to follow an ignorance-based myth, personally. Neither do you, but you do seem to have some internal struggle going on about this. Can’t see why.

not by the hurricane, not by radar, not by command an control, but by pilots from all over the world and Empire flying Spitfire’s over the fields of Kent

Pity about Suffolk, Essex, Greater London, Surrey, Hampshire…. Oh, sorry, it is a bit complex for you? And there were no hurricanes in the Battle of Britain, but there were a lot of Hurricane aircraft, BTW.

thats how it’s been for 66 years and that how it will be for ever

Indeed, for those who like their history served pre-digested and simplified for the hard of thinking. May I ask you not to complain when Hollywood does the same to something you cherish? It’s the same attitude. 😉

how that sticks in your throat you will just have live with it. On here your just Preaching to the confirmed

I don’t have a problem with a logical argument supported by fact – and I actually rather like the Spitfire (sorry) but I don’t put my beliefs and preferences in advance of the (sorry to use this word again) facts.

I rather hoped to be having a mature debate with people who could discuss the matter and manage a caps key simultaneously. However that seems to be a challenge for those who’ve clearly posted in heat without reflection. But do carry on, it’s most interesting. 😀 However conviction comes from items like Stuarts post 49, rather than the item dissected above.

PS: Personally, Mitchell’s finest was the Seagull V, but I’m happy to see that as a minority view.

Are you quoting from fact ????

Yes each part of the infrastructure had it’s to play, however to say that if one wasn’t in place or lost, the Battle would have been lost, is ludicrous. With hindsight it’s easy to make claims like that, because the history books have always put a lot of emphasis on the role that RDF played. Without RDF it may/would have meant a rethinking of tactics, possibly pulling Squadrons further in land to give them, that extra bit of time to form up, possibly running standing patrols along the south coast. In any case the Luftwaffe still had to cross 20 miles of water, and if the Squadrons had been pulled back, then to reach their targets they would have had to cross that 50 – 100 miles of extra land, remember in the initial stages the RAF bases were the intended targets.

I wonder if this had happened if the High Command would have done exactly as they did with the V1 threat, create a belt of antiaircraft along the south coast ???? Mind you V1’s were travelling a lot lower than your average JU88 or HE111.

Well just look at what happened to the Air Forces in Poland, France, Belgium, Holland and Russia without RDF, massive losses on the ground. Standing patrols, fine, just one problem. The RAF didn’t have resources to do it effectively, one of the reasons that the development of RDF and the integrated command system had a high priority in the late 1930’s. Pull the Squadron’s back. Well in the case of Manston, that’s just what Park had to do as the place was being hit by low level raiders with no warning at all and they couldn’t keep the field operational. For the rest of the Squadron’s, had the RDF chain been attacked as it should have been, they would have had to have been pulled back and rely on the ROC. However you would have no idea of raid size with cloud (At least RDF gave a rough idea of raid size) The other thing about Chain Home was it didn’t just give warning of the bombers crossing the coast, but of them forming up and the fact that there was not a second raid right behind to catch your fighters on the ground refuelling and rearming after trying to stop first attack. You also have to remember that the aircrews were exhausted with RDF warning. What do you think would have happened with the standing patrols thrown in. RDF in 1940 was by no means perfect, however I would say that it was vital.

As for the Guns in 1944, there were two reasons that they were so effective against the V1’s and they are: reason 1 . RADAR in the form of the American SCR gun laying radar and reason 2. RADAR in the form of the Radio Proximity Fuze that turned a near miss into a kill. Both did not exist in 1940.

Hi Phil,
Your emotion is rather running ahead of either research, facts, or even what I said,rather than what you think I said.

Shocking as it may seem, I’ve never taken a fighter pilot’s word for anything, unvalidated. Brave chaps, but generally not deep thinkers, among other technical problems for qualified comment. ‘Being there’ is the most over-rated historical qualification by those studying by emotion. 😉

Well if you don’t believe the pilots who do you believe, you’ve got a nerve
coming out with such a dismissive statment about the people who flew both the Spit& hurri and have said on both tv interviews and other publications
that the BB would have been lost with an all hurricane force, how many times are you and others going to keep on about “But the Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spit”, we blo&dy well know, but at the end of the
day the Battle of Britain will be remembered as a battle won by Michell’s finest,
not by the hurricane, not by radar, not by command an control, but by pilots from all over the world and Empire flying Spitfire’s over the fields of Kent, 😀 thats how it’s been for 66 years and that how it will be for ever 😉 no matter
how that sticks in your throat you will just have live with it. On here your just
Preaching to the confirmed 😉
Pip Pip, Old Bean

G’day,
I’d change your autosig, Stuart, if you are going to make posts with as little factual or logical support as these. 😉

What would we think about the Hurricane, if the Spitfire out numbered the Hurricane by the same numbers?

Err, what most actually people ‘think’ about the battle, i.e. that the Spitfire won it, (virtually) unaided. That’s the problem. See my note at the end.

…if the majority of the squadrons were equiped with Spits…

But they weren’t. That’s the point.

my guess is that the Hurricane would be mentioned in the same way as the P40

By whom? The P-40 was another aircraft that was the best available at the time and did the job, in the defence of China with the Flying Tigers, and the defence of Australia, among others. Better aircraft would have been nice, but there weren’t any.

…a good aeroplane but outclassed by later designs. People delight in “pulling the spitfire down” , by saying that the Hurricane shot down more A/C, but rarely mention that, there were more of them to start with…

I did:

There were more Hurricanes. They shot down more enemy aircraft than the Spitfires. More, actually, than everyone else put together.

I don’t want to ‘pull the Spitfire down’ – I don’t care about status or ego, but I care passionately about accuracy of fact, and that history is a damn sight more complex than it’s usually presented. The Spitfire was a great fighter aircraft; but in the Battle of Britain it achieved less than the Hurricane. I don’t think that’s a good thing or a bad thing, it’s a fact.

…and that their role was (in the main) targetting the bombers, larger slower moving targets…

One of those tactical statements that I believe (and I may be wrong) that reflected the desire rather than the practice of the battle.

…apparently the Hurricane was a “stable gun platform” ,what happens to the Spitfire when its guns are fired?

Well, as you asked, the Spitfire was a less stable gun platform. How is this difficult to understand? That is to say when the button was pressed the aircraft was more prone to drifting off the aiming point as a result of the firing. It was a minor, rather than a major problem. However, it might be worth noting that the Spitfire’s wing would flex in a tight turn, meaning that the guns would not hit the aiming point. The Hurricane’s thicker wing was less flexible and the two ‘batteries’ of four guns hit their objective all other things being equal. The Spitfires outer guns could, and did, drift off target.

I’ve never heard it said that the Spitfire fell out of the sky everytime the gun button was pressed! so one can only presume, it too was a stable gun platform.

Amazing ‘logic’. “I’ve not heard it was awful, so it must be great.”

Just because the guns are grouped together at point of origin ,doesn’t mean that the groupings would be any tighter at point of impact…

It does, actually, mean just that.

Choice of harmonisation is a different question. If you look at a diagram of the way a Spitfire’s and a Hurricane’s guns can be harmonised, it’s clear that the area of lethal grouping will be longer and tighter with the Hurricane’s two blocks of four arranged closer to the centreline set-up than the Spitfires eight individual guns spread to three quarters of the span, whatever harmonisation is chosen.

Al Deere (who was there) said in his opinion that the Hurricane was able to shoot down more bombers (than it other wise would have) because of the protection afforded by the Spitfire in tackling the fighters (as well as the bombers). The figures show that the Spitfire did indeed shoot down more fighters than the Hurricane and by considerably less A/c. Al Deere goes on to say that in his opinion the Hurricane could not have won the battle alone, but the Spitfire (in sufficient numbers) could have.

None of that (except the numbers – I don’t have that data) is in dispute. Al Deere was a highly qualified and competent pilot and fully capable of making those analysis. But, I’m sorry, what might’ve happened isn’t history. However well found it’s speculation.

What the RAF had, and used, was a few Spitfires and a lot of Hurricanes. That mix achieved the result which is that the Hurricane did the lion’s share of the work. Only a fool would state that the Hurricane could have done it alone, likewise it’s an interesting point regarding an ‘all Spitfire’ or ‘all Hurricane’ fighter command in 1940. But ultimately, it’s neither what happened, nor provable.

A couple of general points. The aircraft, RDF, ships et al were all just tools. What made the difference then, was the men (and women) who used those tools. Those of us fascinated by the technology often overlook that, in our obsession with clinical technical differences.

To get back to the point, I’d bet on an experienced, tactically savvy pilot in an inferior aircraft over a less experienced pilot using bad tactics in a ‘superior’ aircraft every time.

Most pilots who were killed didn’t even see the other guy – hit hard, get out was the saying, and surprise counted for more than all the assets of any aircraft type.

The differences in performance between the Spitfire Mk.I/II, Messerschmitt Bf-109E and Hurricane Mk.I were unarguable, but usually less important than the skill, luck, sheer numbers and positioning of the formations in combat.

Up to the Battle of Britain, and well into the battle, contemporary reports and fame rested with the Hurricane – the Spitfire was a much less known quantity to both the man in the street and the pilots who had only experience of one or other. From ‘Downwind Gillam’ to the (over-praised in contemporary British reports) performance of the Hurricanes in the Battle of France, the Hurricane was seen as the RAF’s top performing fighter. A good case can be made that the Hurricane pilots were more experienced – but that’s not a point I’d push. The RAF’s crews had to learn fast or they were dead.

The Spitfire acquitted itself well in the Battle of Britain, there should be no denying that; but it should be remembered it was the start of the aircraft’s legend – quite rightly. Because of the Spitfire’s fame in the succeeding years, the Spitfire’s status rose and the Hurricane’s declined, eclipsed by the type that went on to achieve more. Thus, after W.W.II, the Spitfire is the more famous aircraft of the two, and in a measure of its achievements after the Battle, generally quite rightly. However, that is a mis-measure of actual achievement during the Battle.

Finally, it is an axiom that God is on the side of the big battalions. Due to Mitchell designing a hand-built prototype that was hard for Supermarines to put into production, Spitfires simply were not going to be available in greater numbers than they were in 1939/40. Because Camm chose to extend the Hawker technology one more time, to the ultimate dead end, Hawkers were able to produce enough Hurricanes to equip enough squadrons, and both types were desperately needed. Hurricanes were quicker to turn around in repair, both on station and at the CRUs. Both compromises paid off – the RAF had ‘enough’ Hurricanes for the Battle, and was able to go onto the next stage of the war, where the Spitfire’s increasing numbers and performance growth would be able to count, after the Hurricane had dropped from the front line.

Interesting, and factually based.

Cheers!