James, at the risk of repeating information I posted recently; J Alcorn’s study concludes; 19 spitfire sqn’s are credited for 282 fighters (109’s) and 247 bombers total per sqn 27.8, . 30 Hurricane sqn’s are credeted for 222 fighters and 434 bombers ,total per sqn21.9, You do the maths.

You say “it’s simply not true” and that I “can’t even get the basic numbers right” ; if this is not true the onus is on you to prove that, until then, you cannot accuse me of not getting it right, when I am quoting an established source.

You also say that I am incapable of grasping the basic facts, these being that there were more Hurricanes than Spitfires at that time, because they were in a better position to build Hurricanes; Don’t see anything in my posts to support that ,its obvious that there were more (even the figures that I quoted support that) ,and the reason was ease of manufacture , again no argument there.

“The Hurricane was certainly good enough to do the lions share over france, Dunkirk , the battle of Britain,” yes it was; its role in France I believe was interception of bombers, that were on route to the Dunkirk beaches and the Ships; wasn’t it Dowding that stopped the Spitfires from being based in France, why did he do that ? possibly because he thought we might need them, shortly.

Is it me that is incapable of grasping the facts? seems to me as if you have missed a few yourself.

I don’t. The fact was that the Luftwaffe had to cross the channel and WIN the BofB. The RAF just had to not lose it. The fact remains that Hurricanes shot down more Bf109s and many more Bf110s than were themselves shot down. Therefore there is no reason to believe that had the Supermarine factory been bombed as it might easily have been, and Spitfire production reduced to a trickle, the BofB would have turned out particularly differently.

In fact, the Spitfire was potentially the factor that allowed the previously invincible Luftwaffe to keep face. In the face of such confirmed Spitfire snobbery as the Luftwaffe had, how would they have felt at the bald assertion that they were effectively defeated (in the air if not tactically and strategically) by the ‘tired old puffer’ Hurricane? Potentially an even bigger morale defeat??

On the other hand, were it not for the presence of the Spitfire throughout the period that marked the end of the Hurricane’s usefulness as a fighter and the onset of the Tempest, the first British fighter that was markedly better in most areas, it’s hard to see where Fighter Command would have been.

Really your views and mine regarding the BoB are irrelevant, as we are neither of us fighter pilots, nor were we there, unlike you I accept the views of these men of history, specifically that the Hurricane was not really a match for the 109.

In a similiar discussion a week or two ago it was shown that the Spitfire sqn’s shot down more 109’s than the Hurricane sqn’s despite there being significantly less spitfire sqn’s, the kill ratio for spitfire sqn’s was also higher for both fighters and bombers; 27.8 against 21.9 for the Hurricanes.

The attitude that there were other better homegrown fighters than the Spit flys in the face of established fact ;the Spitfire was the only fighter to stay in the frontline throughout the war, and beyond that was used in various roles including PR up until 1955; and not because of sentimentality.

Never the less detatchable heads were adopted, for all mks of engine; I’ve seen a Merlin with detatchable heads that was from a Lanc crash site.

I’ve just had a look through my extensive archive (alright,one draw in the bookcase!) and in the Ford motor history it says ,”Ford built mostly the mkXX variant, 12,500 by 1944; Ford also built the mk22, the mk24, for the Lancaster and the Lincoln (respectively) and the mk25 ,used exclusively in the Mosquito”

I think that whilst it says on the box of a .22 LR,” dangerous up to 1 mile” it doesn’t mean deadly ; whilst on the face of it there dosen’t seem much difference between a .22 and a .223, the actual shell case on the later is about 4 times the size of the former, essentially 4X the powder charge.

the other thing to consider is that the sa80, is semi automatic, the fire rate is much higher with a short cartridge ,rather than a long one (.30 cal), as the loading cycle is quicker for the shorter round; in modern warfare, fire rate is probably seen as more advantageous than accuracy over a long distance.

At the very great risk of stirring up a veritable hornets nest of criticism , my own view is that ;if you accept the views of many of the pilots that fought in the BoB, that the Hurricane would have been unable to win that battle without the Spitfire, and that either a negotiated peace or else invasion would have followed, then the US would probably not have entered the “European” war.

Neither the UK or the US would have sent any planes to Russia, and Germany unencumbered by fighting a war with England, would probably triumphed on the eastern front, gaining the “living space” that they desired for so long.

It is possible that the war would have come to something of an end, with the main protagonists subjugated, and Nazi Germany the dominant force in Europe.

As to how long this occupation of main land Europe could have lasted , the jury’s out; how would we as a nation feel having been “slapped down” into submission?

If the above seems an acceptable scenario ,then the Spitfire (or the lack of) wouldn’t have mattered.

It was really only the context in which the word “survival” was being used,that I was questioning; if by that it meant evading capture, then .22 is a strange calibre, if it is taken to mean a means of providing food (meat) then it is not. It would also make more sense if it were (as previously stated) a take down weapon, where concealment would also be an issue.

Didn’t Fords primarily build the Merlin XX, which ironically wasn’t fitted to the Spitfire?

Jonathan,fair point; I think there are two reasons why myths are perpetuated,one is that it is easier to repeat something you’ve heard ,rather than do some in depth research,and two, the myth is actually better than the truth, i.e “the Merlin got its name from the mythical wizzard,from the legend of King Arthur” reather than “its a small bird of prey”.