‘How the SPITFIRE won the Battle of Britain’. “Finally lays to rest the myth that the Hurricane won the Battle of Britain rather than the numerically inferior,yet more glamorous Spitfire’
Now I have nothing against Dilip, in fact it was through reading his book on Johnnie Johnson that I discovered the ad on the above book.
I love a good book on the Spitfire and the Battle of a Britain but I fear it would be difficult to read this book with the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped in the background…………particularly after perusing the list of the authors other releases.
If Dilip has his way new students of the BoB will be brainwashed into thinking the RAF only possessed RJ’s finest during the battle.
I’m sticking with Stephen Bungay and Dr Alfred Price.
As for the Hurri winning the Battle, I always assumed the Spit and Hurri complemented each other ?
I was never under the impression that either won it themselves.
By: mike currill - 30th March 2015 at 13:07
As one German pilot of the B of B was heard to remark in more recent times If the whole British fighter force had been Hurricanes Germany would have won but if it had been all Spitfires then the Luftwaffe would have lost a lot more aircraft and pilots than they did. Also if you look at the victories per aircraft lost by squadron it comes out at an average of 5.5:1 for Hurricane squadrons against 7.4 for Spitfire squadrons.
By: hampden98 - 28th March 2015 at 10:38
Did we win the BoB or just endure it?
If the Germans hadn’t changed tactics, who knows….
By: MikeHoulder - 27th March 2015 at 14:30
Naturally, I would like to see much more of the historical technical engineering & production on the forum, but I must admit I have enjoyed this thread with its banter. In addition, some serious technical points have been raised. So a good thread!
Mike
By: mike currill - 27th March 2015 at 13:06
Well personally I have always subscribed to the view that it was the wonderful combination of brave young men, hard working and heroic ground crews, wiser older RAF tacticians, radar, the group and sector controllers and their staff plus both the Hurricane and the Spitfire, not to mention the brilliance of AVM Keith Park and ACM Dowding that won the Battle of Britain. I find the need to single out one of those factors for the accolades at the expense of the others quite pointless.
Without doubt, a team effort in spite of political wrangling. I also have no problems with Dilip Sarkar’s writing as far as his style is concerned but he does seem intent on forcing his point of view on others. In that repspect I prefer Leo McKinstry’s efforts as he restricts himself to reporting historical facts but still manages to keep it interesting.
By: Maple 01 - 27th March 2015 at 08:55
Unaccustomed as I am to posting here…….I’m a bit perturbed by the whiff of schoolmarmism I’m getting, as ex-mob, though not the vintage of the BofB crowd, I’d expect to see a bit of the spirit of the RAF here i.e. banter, going off at tangents and light taking of the pi….. in the finest traditions of the service, as well as the well informed comments – let’s not lose our senses of humour……
Anyway, everyone knows the key element to winning the BofB was the NAAFI waggon.
By: John Green - 5th October 2013 at 21:27
Here is some interesting comment:
‘The Narrow Margin’ D. Wood & D. Dempster, Tri Service Press. Page 226:
“On many occasions all the aircraft of a squadron formation, were replenished with fuel and ammunition and got ready for another battle, eight to ten minutes after landing “.
By: Arabella-Cox - 5th October 2013 at 18:17
The analogy was supposed to be ridiculous.
And the date of ‘Battle of Britain’ day, or when it fell, was perhaps not particularly significant in the overall battle.
And yes, the relative re-arming times etc was and is an interesting discussion.
By: otis - 5th October 2013 at 18:06
I never quite see the point of the “What if?” theorising on the Battle of Britain, or anything else come to that.
The ‘Would we have still won if we only had Hurricanes?’ question is one of those questions that might as well be something like ‘Would the Germans have won if they had the Me 262 in 1940?’
That anaology re the 262 is ridiculous. That is a fantasy scenario. I don’t think I’m suggesting anyone discusses anything other than what has already been talked about for 4 pages ?
I just went back to the original thread topic, and looked at the figures kindly quoted from the book, supplied by EdgarBrooks. Having examined them, I wonder if the performance difference between the Hurricane and Spitfire is that marked ? There does not seem much between them to me ? Perhaps not enough to make the difference between the battle being lost and won being accredited to one type of plane’s superiour performance ?
One hundred fewer lost Luftwaffe planes, may just have changed the date of Battle of Britain day to October 1940 ? Perhaps other factors, as already suggested, have skewed the figures ?
Why not discuss the what ifs ? I am sure I am not the only one here finding the comparisons on Spitfire and Hurricane re-arming times interesting ?
By: John Green - 3rd October 2013 at 18:53
Yes, not only fun ! But also fascinating, interesting and very often compelling. ‘What if’ should always be complemented by ‘if only’.
By: PanzerJohn - 3rd October 2013 at 10:04
But fun!.
By: bazv - 3rd October 2013 at 06:58
Kerosene burns just as well as petrol when your engine blows up !!
Even if they had not invaded so many countries and had managed to have some trading partners for exotic alloys…they would not have had a reliable axial engine much before 1947 -50,as i said previously in the early axial flow thread – they would have also had to have a complete redesign of the engine rotating parts and the fuel control system !
Might have been different if they had gone the centrifugal route but that would be pure speculation…
As Andy posted – what ifs are a pointless exercise !
By: snafu - 2nd October 2013 at 22:57
Kerosene … Simples 🙂
Argh. Me and engines…(sniff)
By: PanzerJohn - 2nd October 2013 at 22:20
The Final Countdown. Exellent film…love this clip….Tomcats V Zeroes…
By: D1566 - 2nd October 2013 at 22:12
Would they have been able to supply fuel suitable for the early jet engines?
Kerosene … Simples 🙂
By: snafu - 2nd October 2013 at 21:37
‘Would the Germans have won if they had the Me 262 in 1940?’
Hmm. Would they have been any more reliable with the might of German industry behind them, rather than the one that was frequently under attack day and night as it was later in the war? Would they have been able to supply fuel suitable for the early jet engines? Would they have done better with the more experienced pilots that they had in 1940 rather than the trainees of 1944/5? And would the Japanese have been slaughtered had the Americans had a modern aircraft carrier and accompanying jet fighter to defend Pearl Harbour in 1941? (I’m sure there was a Hollywood documentary about that a few years ago…)
By: Mr Merry - 2nd October 2013 at 20:27
I have read Spits had about 20-24 panels needing to be removed to re-arm. The Hurricane had 6.
I’m going to dig out the book and see if it’s correct.
By: Arabella-Cox - 2nd October 2013 at 19:10
I never quite see the point of the “What if?” theorising on the Battle of Britain, or anything else come to that.
The ‘Would we have still won if we only had Hurricanes?’ question is one of those questions that might as well be something like ‘Would the Germans have won if they had the Me 262 in 1940?’
By: trumper - 2nd October 2013 at 16:29
Would the numbers shot down be as important as the delay to invasion plans so the weather had changed for it to be postponed.
By: otis - 2nd October 2013 at 07:45
Forgive me for asking again…….
Several persons have said that if we had just Hurricanes, we would have lost the Battle. Was just playing with those figures above……
Hurricane units destroyed 5.5 planes less each per Squadron, on average.
Replacing those 19 Squadrons of Spitfires with Hurricanes, destroying only 22.5 per unit, kills 104 less axis planes.
This means 8 percent less Luftwaffe planes shot down, out of the actual tally shown of 1186.
Assuming that we could have produced enough extra Hurricanes, if Spitfires were not built ( and I can not see that being an issue ), then would that 8 percent deficit necessarily have meant we lose ?
By: trumper - 29th September 2013 at 18:19
You would need good Bino’s to see fighters at 30,000 feet or through cloud and overcast.
Sign In
September 23, 2013 at 1:49 pm