Hurricane's claims to fame

As per link on the top of this page!!!

“Peace in Hurricanes
You can have peace with God In the midst of hurricanes “

Now who can disagree with this statement!!! the ultimate accolade!

Cheers for that Malcolm. When I made the comment above I was under the impression that a few had been delivered to Belgium. From reading a few other sources since then it seems that this was not the case. It still got around though. 😮

Best wishes
Steve P

Much as I hate to admit it, probably somewhere behind the Brewster Buffalo. Did any of the FAA Buffalos manage to get to North Africa after Crete? Best wishes Steve P

According to the Kagero book on the Buffalo (written by Andre Zbiegniewski) – 3 got to Egypt via Cyrus but vanish without trace after the quick reequipment of 805 Squadron with Martlets. A fourth aircraft was left behind on Crete and captured by the Germans.

“Those were Typhoons. The Hurricane was used for mail-delivery in Normandy.”

not sure about the when but I remember reading in someone’s memoirs recalling an incident where he was escort to a flight of Hurribombers sent into a target i beleive after DDay and shot to ribbons by flak 🙁

Probably Dieppe (& someone’s ballsed up the dates)

Yet to read/hear of any 6 Sqdn – Rocket firing Mk IV’s escorted over Yugoslavia in 1945 (although I’ve seen combat photo’s of ’em attacking targets there – probably the last active missions Hurricanes undertook in the E.T.O.).

.

Where is the Mossie in all this? Served in most combat areas ..Europe,Far East,Middle East ( again with Isreal ) and with how many different airforces? for how many different roles? and for how long?

Much as I hate to admit it, probably somewhere behind the Brewster Buffalo. Did any of the FAA Buffalos manage to get to North Africa after Crete?

Best wishes
Steve P

To bad the name “Hurricane” wasn’t chosen for the F-35…………….

cant see it happening ..doubt if there will be a new Spitfire either!!

or a Mustang either!

To bad the name “Hurricane” wasn’t chosen for the F-35…………….

Devil’s Advocate!!!

According to Robert Jackson’s Book ” The Red Falcons” the Soviets recd 143 Spitfire Vb’s & 1186 Lf IX’s.It would seem very unlikely that they didnt put them into combat given their situation.Lets not forget that Stalin ordered the destruction of all Western aircraft & records after the war to deny the level of help that was received .

Where is the Mossie in all this? Served in most combat areas ..Europe,Far East,Middle East ( again with Isreal ) and with how many different airforces? for how many different roles? and for how long?

“Those were Typhoons. The Hurricane was used for mail-delivery in Normandy.”

not sure about the when but I remember reading in someone’s memoirs recalling an incident where he was escort to a flight of Hurribombers sent into a target i beleive after DDay and shot to ribbons by flak 🙁

” The 109 was in it from go to whoa, but had already seen pre-war service in Spain and then was used afterwards by the Czechs, Yugoslavians and the Spanish.”

Dont forget its use in Isreal or rather the Czech Built Avia C 210

“The Hurricane remained in frontline service until 1947, when rocket firing examples were used, I believe, in Palestine.”

With 6 squadron i think?

“It could even be flown off – and landed on – aircraft carriers with no specialist equipment and training, then operated from semi-prepared fields.”

Lets not forget that the Spitfire/Seafire, fine aircraft as it was ,found itself at a disadvantage in these circumstances due to its narrow undercart..as did the BF 109!

“The major fracas was the self induced battle of Los Angeles which saw the forces of all that is right committed against the forces of all that is imaginery.”

they still seem to make that mistake dont they!!!! :rolleyes:

I really hate to write this, but I guess I must. I phoned a friend of mine who has a copy of C-F Geust’s Red Stars in the Sky Vol. 4 which deals with Lend-Lease aircraft. And it seems I was wrong…
OK, the Spitfires were never used operationally against the Finnish AF, but they did see operational use in Northern Russia, 122. IAD in Murmansk used them from June 1944, and RAF pilots flew PR missions with Spitfires from Afrikanda, up north as well. Some were based in Voyenga, northern Norway.
The northern part of Finnish front was taken care of by Germans.
PVO 7. IAK in Leningrad used Spitfires starting in 1945, by that time the war against Finland was over.
Sorry for having written BS, only defence being the discussion over the claims of Spitfire kills by Finnish AF pilots having been on my mind.
I’ll have access to Geust’s book next week, and study it more carefully. Anyway, interesting topic, taught me something.. 🙂

The matter of Soviet Spitfires has been discussed at length in Finland. C-F Geust, the co-editor of “Red Stars in the Sky” series of books, and arguably one of the leading authorities on Soviet AF history, says that Soviet Spitfires never saw any action on Finnish, or other northern fronts.

PR Spitfires in RAF and Soviet service saw plenty of action on ‘other northern fronts’, best proved by the fact that quite a few of them have been recovered in recent years in places like Norway.

IIRC the Soviet Spitfires actually saw no action on any front, but on this one I am not sure.

You remember incorrectly. Spitfire Vs of the 57th Guards Regiment saw a lot of action, scoring kills and losing aircraft shot down, during fighting over Kuban Peninsula. This is relatively well covered in various publications, including those in English language (not necessarily by the author you mentioned).

Geust & Co have recently published a two-part book which lists all Finnish aerial victories, checked against Russian archives, and even in these books all “Spitfires” have been corrected, mostly to Yak-7s.

I never said Finns shot down any Spitfires, have I?

Again, personally I do not have any access to Soviet records, but Mr Geust has, and according to his research no Spitfires ever operated in Leningrad area.

I do not have my sources at hand, but I am quite positive that a number of PVO Regiments equipped with Spitfires were based around Leningrad, and I think some were also based near Murmansk. The most reliable published source I can think of is ‘Spitfire International’, I am sure someone here has it at hand to check. I also recall that a victory over a reconnaissance Junkers was claimed by Soviet Spitfires in the area towards the end of the war. I’ll try to dig out more details.

The matter of Soviet Spitfires has been discussed at length in Finland. C-F Geust, the co-editor of “Red Stars in the Sky” series of books, and arguably one of the leading authorities on Soviet AF history, says that Soviet Spitfires never saw any action on Finnish, or other northern fronts. I do not have his books on hand right now, but if somebody has, please check this one. IIRC the Soviet Spitfires actually saw no action on any front, but on this one I am not sure.
Geust & Co have recently published a two-part book which lists all Finnish aerial victories, checked against Russian archives, and even in these books all “Spitfires” have been corrected, mostly to Yak-7s.

Again, personally I do not have any access to Soviet records, but Mr Geust has, and according to his research no Spitfires ever operated in Leningrad area. I hope he visits this forum and will shed some light on this matter.

I doubt, but am not sure that RAF PR Spitfires would have flown over Finland. Why would they have? Swedish, well, quite possible. The only chase over Finnish territory that I am aware of was a B-47 (RB-47?) that was chased and shot at by Soviet MiGs over Lapland.

This is a bit off-topic, but Spitfires never fought over Finland, though several Finnish pilots claimed shooting down “Spitfires”. They were probably misidentified Yak-7s.

Do you mean that the Soviet PVO fighters which defended Leningrad towards the end of the war and even shot down a Ju 88 north of the city were Yak-7s misidentified to such a degree that even today’s Russian historians call them “Spitfire IXs”? Or do you have access to detailed operation records of those units and can tell for sure that they never flew combat sorties over Finland?
In any case I believe that PR Spitfires (both RAF and Soviet) operated over Finland.
And we should not forget the Swedish Spitfire 19s violating Finnish airspace during the Cold War on their way to and from some Soviet ports (IIRC one was chased and damaged by MiGs while flying across Finland on the way back from Murmansk).

I thought it was the other way around – used in more theatres/campaigns but in less numbers, as there were fewer built in the first place.

I’m not sure quantity helps here anyway. Around 14,000 Hurricanes were built, as opposed to 22,000 Spitfires. In similar vein but possibly the opposite, 11,000 Wellingtons and 8,000 Lancasters. What does that prove?

From all I’ve heard, the Defiant was an excellent, very strong, well-designed and well-built aircraft. The fact that the basic premise of a single-engined turret fighter was no use is why they stopped making them very quickly. I guess it could have been as capable and versatile as the Hurricane if the turret had been binned and thoughts given to what use could have been made of the airframe. Not a wise move considering the urgency of production at the time I agree and the right decision was made but I see no reason why the Vickers ‘S’ gun couldn’t have been fitted to Defiants.

My point about the Hurricane being an outdated design was an extended answer to this – the Hurricane had a more diverse career because it was no longer suited to its original design purpose.

Not necessarily. If I may quote D. Weston Burt, Sq. Ldr no. 6 Squadron on the tankbusting MkIID ‘The ‘S’ gun was (with one exception) the biggest calibre weapon to be carried in any RAF aircraft and the Hurricane had been found to be the best aerial platform upon which to mount it’. In short, you can’t adapt an unsuitable design. Where were the droves of tank busting Defiants? Or rocket firing Gladiators? I’d like to know if the dainty Spitfire could be stressed to take the ‘can opener’ gun.

The Hurricane remained in frontline service until 1947, when rocket firing examples were used, I believe, in Palestine. There were enough other aircraft to replace them but they held on because they were tough, popular with crews (some in the last squadron to use them, can’t remember which, sorry, refused to give them up in favour of Spitfire MkIXs or Tempests), could be used to mount just about any weapon (same weight of bombs as a Blenheim, rockets, Vickers ‘S’ gun etc.) and could take plenty of punishment both from the enemy and from the user and be patched up to fight again.

A note on ubiquity; this did not spring from nowhere – it was the qualities of the aircraft that enabled its use in such large numbers in so many diverse theatres. It was used, perhaps in not more theatres/campaigns than the Spitfire, but in greater numbers and in some cases more success. It was a tough, well armed and easily serviced aircraft which survived the Western desert and the Russian winter. Oh, and its ability to be built in large numbers from the off probably saved the free world. It could even be flown off – and landed on – aircraft carriers with no specialist equipment and training, then operated from semi-prepared fields.

We’re onto quality again, but I fail to see entirely how the two can be separated. The quantity is in part a mark of the quality.

Do we have an advance on the MiG 21 for our jet contender?

That’s a hard one – it’s certainly been seen in more places that Paris Hilton. But let’s not ignore the Hunter. Europe, South America, Middle East, Far East and India/Pakistan with guest appearances anywhere the sales team went.

Mirages IIIs also have been spread far and wide. However these days there aren’t the same real classical theatres of war that we had in WW2.

Hold it James, you’re a bit too quick for me. … And so on…

Fair enough!

You’ve also put your finger, I think, on a flaw in the statement, which is that of ‘theatres’. Campaigns are certainly more likely, and while I don’t intend to tot them up, I’m reasonably sure that the Hurricane appeared in more campaigns than any other fighter; where the Spitfire was later (such as Normandy) there also was the Hurricane in a second-line role.

If one accepts that a theatre remains the same from the beguinning to the end, then it’s an indefensible argument, I agree.

Thanks for the link, Steve P, and inputs various; yes, even you Malcolm. 😀

Did the Hurricane ever fly high altitude uarmed reconisonse flights?

Yes, the Hurricane flew a few high altitude reconnaissance flights although I don’t think as high as the Spitfires. Burma rings a bell. Most photo-Hurris were Tac R types, rather than dedicated PR. Were you going for the ‘above 20,000 ft theatre’? 😀

It’s good to excercise the old grey matter sometimes.

Do we have an advance on the MiG 21 for our jet contender?

I’m trying to find the John Houston film ‘Battle for the Aleutians’ which gives the lie to this generalisation.

Damn 😮 sprung as it were with a generalisation. Just for you I’ll concede that the Aleutians are technically North America, 😉

But even your good self must concede that Hurricanes had very little, if nothing, to do with that campaign. It was our gracious, if slightly late, allies the Septics. And they were using their own equivalent of the Hurricane – the P-40.

Now in North America proper as distinct from that curvy bit at the bottom left hand side of Alaska, the only aerial activity was the odd Japanese balloon, and one overflight or two by Japanese seaplanes launched off submarines. So I really believe that my original statement holds true. 🙂

The major fracas was the self induced battle of Los Angeles which saw the forces of all that is right committed against the forces of all that is imaginery.

Now back to my other statement about the Hurricane being a little lacking in the aesthetic sense – well it was :rolleyes: (so there :p ). However you will note that I did not say that this slight lack of classical beauty detracted in any way from its ability. Its a little like the coarse rejoinder about mantle pieces and fire stoking 😀 This is a matter best left for forums of whose existence I know not. 😮

I have conceded its ubiquity but like some celebrities, is being seen almost everywhere a blessing or a curse? 😉

Finland never had any Spitfires (although Spitfires fought over Finland),

This is a bit off-topic, but Spitfires never fought over Finland, though several Finnish pilots claimed shooting down “Spitfires”. They were probably misidentified Yak-7s. Similarly, in at least one occasion early in the war Russian pilots had reported a fight with Finnish “Spitfires”, which in reality were Fokker D.XXIs!
Also claimed by Finnish pilots were several Russian P-51s, which never saw any action with Russian AF. Not easy to recognize planes, when they try to shoot you down, I guess.

I read that as them being decoys in Singapore.

As to ‘Sauve qui peut’ the duty of airmen in retreat is to save as many munitions (or destroy them) as possible. I agree the idea of ‘decoys’ is a little odd.

Hmm, you may be right. I’m not sure. Though I don’t think that a) after the fall of Singapore the RNZAF were still there (except in POW camps and graveyards) as what was left of them were shipped back to Australia and eventualy NZ. And b) they certainly didn’t have any airfields in Singapore to stick decoys on any more.