Could The Hawker Hurricane Have Won The Battle Of Britain Alone?

[@CalibanRising]

🧥 Have you always wanted a distinctive and authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the fantastic range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/

[@AlanBarker]

I think the major factor was Dowding's defense system. While Radar and the Spitfire contributed greatly, and a body of water between Britain and the enemy was a huge advantage, without Dowding's system it all would have come to nothing. A centralized control with secure lines to observers, radar, sub-control stations and airfields allowed Dowding and Park to run the battle efficiently. It must be remembered that Dowding's strategic task (and both Dowding and Park understood this thoroughly) was to keep the RAF in existence. As long as the RAF was a viable force, Sealion could not succeed. So all-out air defense of Britain was not the goal. The goal was to prevent the destruction of the RAF. With Dowding's defense system (which was the first integrated air defense ever built) Park and Dowding could intercept raids and prevent the worst damage while keeping enough of the RAF intact to prevent an invasion.

[@LeopardIL2]

I agree the man was brilliant. Sadly he ended absorbed in Spiritism and visions of his beloved dead fighter boys.

[@AlanBarker]

@@LeopardIL2 He was spiritually open; he saw what most of us do not. I think that was a part of his greatness that we do not yet understand. Perhaps he should have kept quiet about it, but it seems he could not. And his rivals were too small, self-absorbed and spiritually dead to see or even try to understand.

[@samrodian919]

And of course he had pissed off Churchill when he refused to send more squadrons to aid France. Churchill was never one to forgive and forget and as soon as a viable alternative became available after the battle poor Hugh Dowding and Keith Park got the chop. Dowding's dismissal may have been because of his spiritual views, but Keith Park didn't put a foot wrong during 1940 and it was only Sholto Douglas, and Leigh-Mallory's incessant ear bending to Chief of the Air Staff Portal, and directly to Churchill caused Park's demise, in my view.

[@tonywilson4713]

Well thought out comment. I think when you take into consideration his tactics that if the Spitfire had not been available then something else would have been to do that role. Remember the Spit wasn't the only option, there were the Martin Bakers for instance. I used to know a WW2 fighter pilot, Des, who had flown BOTH Spits and Canes including for the Fleet Air Arm. The only thing he'd really speak about much was chasing V1 flying bombs in clipped wing gunless Spits and tipping them over. I once saw a documentary comparing Spits and Canes as to their effectiveness in the Battle of Britain (BoB). In the end that documentary concluded the Cane was the "more effective plane." The assessment was based on many things but the conclusion was mainly based on maintenance. If a Spit got a bullet hole it could be out for 2 weeks because of the very high skill set (for the time) in sheet metal work required. The Polish sent their Spits back and reverted to their Canes. Its one of the lesser things known that Britain didn't just have a shortage of pilots it had a shortage of people who could keep planes flying and especially so with people who could work with aluminum. When I put that to Des his initial reply was garbage, the Spit was a way better plane and no pilot in his right mind would opt for a Cane over a Spit. I then asked why the Poles did just that and we then discussed the maintenance issue. He then said *DURING* the BoB that aspect of the Cane made it a key asset. But the then pointed out that only the best of the Cane pilots could realistically take on the German fighters. In very general terms that's why the Spits went after the German fighters and the Canes went after the German bombers. Des was very specific that in terms of just flying the Cane was just not in the same class as the Spit and particularly when it came to higher performance roles like chasing V1 Flying bombs. His description of that task was interesting. There's an interesting discussion with an American test pilot who says very similar things with respect to the F35 over the previous generation fighters like the F15, F16, F18,... etc. Given the choice no current pilot would go back to any of them.

[@niallodonnell7827]

@@tonywilson4713 I don't think that there was anything around early war that could have replaced a Spitfire which along with the bf109 were out on their own at a world level. The Hurricane was the norm if you consider the Warhawk or the French and Italian planes and if there were no Spits it surely meant that Hurricanes would have been the choice and it would have worked too. The 109s were not that much better. But of course there was one exception , theoretically available to the Germans-the A6M2. Had Germany purchased these planes in numbers the Hurricanes were lost while the Spitfires were at least faster

[@xgford94]

As a huge fan of the Hurricane i think it would have been just fine on its own. RADAR and the Planning Room were the real “Key Dominos”

[@mattholland8966]

I just can't imagine Georing asking his pilots what they need and any of them saying a squadron of Hurricanes? As they did with the Spitfires.

[@PxThucydides]

Apparently that's a myth. It made it into the movie but Galland said it never happened.

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

@@PxThucydides It never happened. On a technical level both Bf109E3/4 and Spitifre Mk1a/II were too close to make any significant difference. Both could run on 100 Octane/C3 fuel, both had superchargers, The DB601 had fuel injection and 33.0l displacement, compared to the Merlin II/III's displacement of 27.0l. The 109 had 2x 20mm cannons and two 7.92 MGs, the Spitfire had 8x rifle calibre .303 guns spread out along a wing that flexed under load... I'd choose the Messerschmitt over the Spitfire if I had to fight the battle. It's advantages, although slight are obvious. Leadership was the key to victory. The RAF had a technocrat in Dowding and an inspirational leader of 11 Group in Keith Park, an unsung hero of that battle. Goering however was a bumptious drug addict, whose previous wartime commands of JG1 in 1918 led to near mutiny. He appointed his mate as head of LW intelligence, the startingly mediocre Joseph 'Beppo' Smidt who guessed wrong about everything, never considered Radar as the key to the RAFs deployment and was telling frontline crews that the RAF were down to their last 50 aircraft for weeks when they actually had more in service than the LW by the end of October. The LW was pretty much dysfunctional for the rest of the war.

[@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus]

@@PORRRIDGE_GUN There were a number of problems with the Luftwaffle estimates of the RAFs strength, and problems with the RAFs estimate of Luftwaffle strength. Both sides started out counting squadrons, but there were 20 planes in an RAF squadron and 16 planes in a fliegerstaffeln. Both sides used there own unit sizes to calculate the enemies strength in aircraft. The Brits over estimated the German ability to replace aircraft, and of course the Germans underestimated the Brits ability to replace aircraft. You can see where this is going. To add stupidity to ignorance, the Luftwaffles used their pilots' kill claims to estimate the opfors losses with no adjustment factor. So the Luftwaffle KNEW they had the RAF on the ropes, when that was not even close to being true.

[@lorenzbroll101]

The H would have done it in my opinion considering the severe limitations of the ME109 over Britain. Glad to hear someone who agrees. Alternatively the British could have applied to the Germans to build 109's under license maybe?

[@snipedude4953]

Hurricane was a workhorse. I have a special place im my heart for unsung and undervalued hero's.

[@tranceguide9752]

Given your specific scenario, the successor to the Hurricane, the Typhoon, would have been rushed through development much faster. You would have had the existing stock of Hurricanes backing up the Typhoon, which would have been superior to the Spitfire, if its developmental problems had been ironed out much faster. The Napier Sabre engines produced 2,200 hp rising to 3,500 hp in later variants, compared to the Mk1 Merlin engine which produced just over 1000 hp. In 1941, The Typhoon was the only fighter capable of taking on the Focke-Wulf 190, which outclassed the Spitfire Mk Vs at the time. Another point to make is that ANY plane which has a Merlin engine attached, suddenly becomes a thoroughbred. The original model of the Mustang had an Alison engine and was a joke. Put a Merlin on it and it becomes a legend. Yet another point....if they had been scratching round for something to fill the void, the War Ministry might just have given Frank Whittle the time of day, allowing jet fighters to be ready for the Battle of Britain.

[@markgranger9150]

The original was the Apache \Invader and they were not a joke the Allison was .not a performer above 12,000 feet but under 12,000 and it could outperform the Merlin. The FW 190 was no match for the spit at high altitude. The Allison was easier to maintain and was used in PT boats. The Merlin got its horse power from 120 octane fuel. And that was U S fuel. The Tempest/Typhoon was plagued with problems Up to the end of the war.

[@markgranger9150]

And Whittle had.the turbo jet done he needed the resources to make the jet better and the air ministry wasn't going to give its limited resources to a project that was a test bed and unproven in combat.

[@australianmade2659]

You could’ve strapped a Merlin engine to a Cessna and had a fighting chance

[@sandy7m]

Without Spitfires would the RAF have had more Whirlwinds and other light twin engine fighters. The argument being that the power plants that were needed for the Spitfire would now have been used in alternative fighter models.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Personally, I'd think the 50 kph speed difference between the Hurricane and the 109,combined with the 109's superior climb makes a pretty significant disadvantage. But the BOB was won'/ost, because of tactics, not aircraft, so it's a moot point.

[@Ashleigh50]

If no Spitfire OTOH fighter Command may not have survived - Pilot losses from downed Hurricanes were higher than that of spitfire, and Hurricanes were easier for German fighters to shoot down, without any spitfires to worry about. OTOH, the RAF would have known that they would have needed something better than the Hurricane, hence the single-seat Defiant may have made an appearance - easy to make - same production line as the two-seat Defiant. Just maybe the Whirlwind could've been in squadron service earlier - but then only good for low/medium altitude combat. Request please, WI- the Boulton-Paul P.88 (Hercules) cannon fighter was in service!?

[@goforitrazz]

The rate of climb of the Spitfire and Hurricane with the same propellor and same 1940 Merlin was almost identical.😊

[@CalibanRising]

This would surprise me, so I'm going to have to look it up. Anecdotally I'd say the Spit climbed faster but I'm always happy to learn something new.

[@rickywood4448]

The Hurricane had a much better gun platform than the Spitfire, love them both.

[@garyshoell9245]

Something which jumps out to me is that if your engaging a bomber formation there more guns that can fire on you from different directions, how if you engaging fighter they can only shoot at if your in front of them, another interesting is the the hurricane could out turn both the 109 and spitfire, plus a lot of the hurricane was covered in canvas, so you could repair a hurricane much quicker on the airfield, than the metal covered spitfire. These I believe are important factors, add to that, there were other aircraft companies who had fighters on there drawing boards. Also the let’s not forget that hawker had the typhoon and the tempest in mind.

[@CalibanRising]

I agree, attacking bombers is much more dangerous than a fighter.

[@jhoag56]

I think it was just that, the Sptfire myth...during the Battle of Britain the Hurricane destroyed 70٪ of bombers and 75% of fighters (Aviation History) The newer Spitfires were produced at a slower rate, about 1 to 5 according to Aviation History, giving the Hurricane superior numbers. Another myth that should be addressed was climb rate at the time, the majority of Spitfires operating still had older Merlin IIIs, giving the Hurricanes a faster climb rate, which were equipped with newer engines (Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WW2). Then there's the Hurricane's opponent, the BF-109E. It had one major advantage over the Hurricane, a fuel injected engine; and that's where its advantages ended. Its wing weight was high due to its narrow wings, its nose mounted cannon added more weight to the front of the aircraft, causing it to nose down in turns, many lacked bullet resistant glass, some even lacked self sealing gas tanks. In reality, not having Spitfires wouldn't have much of an effect during the Battle of Britain, but would have after that as the Hurricane could not really go much further technologically. The Spitfire, though, was just in its infancy during that time and would go on to become one of the best aircraft of the war, even finding service in the USAAF.

[@samuelgordino]

The bf109 E dint had nose cannon. They had the 2 FF canons on the wings. The first 109 with the nose canon was the F version.

[@samuelgordino]

No idea where you get that idea they don't had bullet resistant glass or self sealing tanks. Or why you didn't mention the biggest disadvantage, their range.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

I can't count the number of falsehoods you've posted. The Hurricane was on its way out, even with the Merlin XX, and had no room for further development.

[@murraybartlett4571]

Don't forget that with only one airframe to work on the Hurricane would have seen more development and upgrades. The saddest part is with no spitfire would the Merlin engine make it into the P51?

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

There were plenty of Merlins in use without the Spitfire.

[@noodleincup]

Hurricane had no room for improvement, being a lightweight glass cannon that barely kept course in stronger winds

[@philiphumphrey1548]

I think that's broadly right. One problem for the Luftwaffe not mentioned is that they simply ran out of time. The weather window for any invasion was going to close mid to late September, that's probably why they quit attacking the airfields. It wasn't working fast enough for them and they were losing planes and pilots at an unsustainable rate. Even if they faced Hurricanes only, they still would have had the same problem.

[@CalibanRising]

Yes, that's something I should have mentioned. I was always under the impression that the Germans would have had a difficult time invading Britain given their preparations in 1940.

[@wbertie2604]

@@CalibanRising They tried pretty hard. But they relied on Goering, who failed to destroy the British Army at Dunkirk, to destroy the RAF in summer 1940, failed to prevent Berlin being bombed, failed to supply Stalingrad... You get the picture. The Allies were very lucky to have him.

[@seventhson27]

Hitler really thought that he would go wipe up Russia in a couple of months. Then come back with all of Russia's resources behind him.

[@nuadtrainer]

If Spitfire never existed , here in France we would speak German, In England maybe too, and in Russia, not many could speak at all. So high is the debt of many to such limited number of Spitfire pilots.

[@johnmurphy7953]

It is possible that the Hurricane could have won the Battle of Britain, but the margin would have been even slimmer than the narrow victory actually obtained. Since the objective of the Germans was to destroy Fighter Command, they would have inched closer to their goal if there had been only Hurricanes. British production would have kept up with losses, but pilot training might not have kept pace. Experienced pilots are hard to replace. Germany ultimately lost control of the skies over Europe due to fuel shortages and an increasing lack of experienced pilots. The Hurricane alone might have battled to victory over Britain, but the better survival rate of the Spitfire allowed the RAF to outlast the Luftwaffe in a close contest.

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

The whole notion of the BoB being a slim victory for the RAF is British stage managing. The Luftwaffe was never in a position to fatally compromise Fighter Command, much less deal with the RN and enable an invasion of Britain. The losses suffered by the Luftwaffe during Eagle Day and its succeeding days were sufficient to cause the Germans to give up the idea of an invasion almost immediately, and while the losses (on both sides) were heartrending, there was very little doubt about who won. Churchill did a delightful job of speechwriting to make it seem like a more dramatic victory than it actually was, but the matter was never really in doubt.

[@ricbarker4829]

A more accurate question should be "Could the Spitfire have won the Battle of Britain alone"

[@gedeon2696]

If no spitfire, they would have used the Westland Whirlwind (and the Miles M20)!!

[@iancarr8682]

Still in 1940 the productionalising of Spitfire proving was difficult, particularly at the expansion factory, Castle Bromwich. If they had been building Hurricanes I surmise there would have been more total RAF fighters. 1941 and onwards would have been more difficult as the Hurricane become more obsolete.

[@CalibanRising]

I agree. Would this have sped up production/ development of another Hawker design?

[@James-nl6fu]

If Supermarine and Hawker collaborated, instead of competing. Many lives could have been saved. In particular, the casualties of the problematic introduction of the all metal Typhoon could have been avoided. The old fashioned, "short snout" Hurricane's mass was more centralised making it capable of 'out turning any other aircraft of world war two. With no Spitfires at all and Hurricanes cheaper and much faster to build. There would have been a 1,500 plus force of them waiting to shoot the Luftwaffe out of the sky.

[@CalibanRising]

I can see your point, but I also feel that the Typhoon had to be pushed in its development in order to have the more capable aircraft needed in 1942-43. It's an interesting question though, how much time and effort did the Typhoon take up for Hawker during 1940?

[@James-nl6fu]

@CalibanRising A failure to recognise the German practice of inter--company cooperation was an enormous mistake, which continues to this day.. Putting it bluntly. Which apparently is the sole method of communication with this and many other "ignorant" generations. The Germans knew whose side the were on. The aggressive British enjoyed hating each other more than the enemy. Competition at any price will always be their first choice even to the point of extinction. We'll done, Adam Smith, you turned the British into the first "robot ' humans.A cybernetic triumph for 'artificial/ignorant" Intelligence.❤️

[@SillyMoustache]

The Spitfire had constant upgrades throughout the war, so whilst ostensibly the same aeroplane he later marks were considerably more powerful and effective than the Mk1. The Hurricane did have a number of variants, but apart from some mods to the Merlin I'm wondering that IF there had been no Spitfire, would the Hurricane have received a lot more improvements to make it more competitive against the 109 and the190 ?? improvements or imponderables!?

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Nope. The Hurricane was already at the end of its development. In 1944 Hawker experimented with laminar wings on a Hurricane (6 years too late), but the Tempest was already in the air.

[@eze8970]

Despite the Spitfires being faster, most tales of the early to mid BoB fighting shows both Spitfires & Hurris having the disadvantage of being under the attacking planes. Altho Spits were supposed to take the Me109s, & the Hurris the bombers, a lot of times, due to the nature of fighting, it ended up the other way round. Hurricanes were tougher & easier to repair, & a better gun platform. I mention the above as Hurris had to deal with ALL types of German/Italian aircraft, & not just the bombers, & they proved capable. I believe the Hurricanes could have won the BoB (not forgetting the Defiants, & even the Gladiators & Blenheims) mostly alone, but at a higher cost & loger duration. Having Spitfires gave the RAF extra tactical flexibility, especially during the later BoB stages, with better developed merlins, that meant that they could have the height advantage for the first time. That said, the British had other fighters in development, & 'A.N Other' fighter would have taken the place of the Spitfire to use up capacity. Supermarine may even have gone onto producing heavy bombers, they had a prototype but it was destroyed when their factory in Southampton was bombed.

[@KevTheImpaler]

The Hurricane was slower than the Spitfire by about 30 to 40 mph. However, it surprises me it was as fast as it was. It was way bigger and looks much less aerodynamic than the Spitfire. I wonder whether it made better use of the Meredith Effect with that radiator.

[@CalibanRising]

That's a good question. Hopefully an aeronautical engineer can weigh in for us.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

It could be extended upwards indefinitely, look at the Spitfire Mk XIV. There was a longer path for the airflow to become turbulent that far back, the flow at the front of the Spit radiator was still being accelerated a bit allowing for attitude and probably was cleaner. Neither had a splitter to divert dirty air but with the XIV’s depth it wouldn’t matter as much. (Not engineer, did books n exams).

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The Hurri made minimal use of the Meredith effect and the Mk II had an even bigger rad hanging out in the breeze. The Spit made min use of the effect due to short ducting. The 109F, once perfected was about 100 mph faster than the obsolete Hurri.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

@@bobsakamanos4469 The Hurricane had a exit duct flap so the heated air could be expelled at a higher speed. It probably overcame most of its drag. Wiki says it did use _Meridith._ It looks a hundred times better than the overblown (!) P-38’s _Prestone tm_ radiators.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 an exit flap doesn't mean it used the meredith effect efficiently, details of which other designers understood perfectly in 1935. The rad was not even partially burried, nor did it have ducting to slow the inducted air (but increase static pressure), so the benefit of the rear flap was mostly negated by high drag. Hawker simply used their Fury design minus one wing. Yes, P-38 had it's own teething problems 'til late '44.

[@ark-mark1]

It almost did. There were not so many Spitfires as there were Hurricanes. Every plane was important and the margin of victory was not so big. Germany did not lose because of Spitfire being superior but because they did not have enough range in their fighters and because of catastrophic tactical mistake which was that the fighters were ordered to escort the bombers instead of using their speed advantage and ambushing the british fighters from above.

[@Hmebrickstube6000]

If America Got earlier in the war they can supply P 51 Mustangs To British

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

The RAF’s new Mustang fighter got noticed by the USAAC/F who were perfectly happy with their new V-12 upgrade to the P-36. They got to keep the P-38 and P-39. The RAF liked the P-47, they were used in India/Burma/China.

[@cliffbird5016]

the Hurricane did win the battle of britian alone as the spitfire was uselss in dogfights against the ME109. Most RAF pilots prefered the hurricane to the spitfire. in 1939 the RAF had 2k Hurricanes and 100 spitfires the luftwafee had 300 ME109's. My foster dads brother was a fighter pilot during the battle of britian. he startyed out in a hawker furry biplane and loved that til he got the huricane. hgis whole squadron got converted to spitfires and they all demaded the huricanes back as the spit could not take on the ME 109. at the start the spitfires went after the ME109 and the huricane went after the bombers till they lost most of thye spits and swapped the roles around and sent the hurricanes after the ME109's and the spits went after the bombers. The prob with the spit was it had to reduce to half throotel to be able to turn without the stalling and if it tried to dive the wings broke off so it could only climb nothing else. where as the hurricane could tunr at full throttle out dive the ME 109 anhd ha da far tighter turn. 90% of RAF loses during the batle of britin was sptfires even though they only made up 10% of RAF fighters. Even the hawker furry was better than the spitfire as was the Gloster gladiator.

[@cliffbird5016]

the 1st spitfire was made in 1930 but it failed to even take off and al were destoryed as the specs neded was a fighter cablable of doing at least 200 mph the spitfire couldt even get to take off speed of 150mph lol. so al crashed trying to take off. looks wise it was very simular the the German stuka dive bomber. crew of 2 and gull wings with fixed under carriage.

[@andrewclayton4181]

In another video, a veteran pilot points out that the Hurricane shot down as many fighters as the Spitfire, and a lot more bombers. Certainly it's rate of climb wasn't as fast as the Spitfire, but as long as it could reach the bombers, it was doing its job. The 109's would come down to them anyway. In a dogfight the Hurricane could outturn the 109 so it wasn't a slow and vulnerable aircraft. On the ground, as well as being easier to repair, and get flying again, it's turnaround time for refuelling and rearming was quicker. It's my opinion that Britain could have defended itself with the hurricane as the only option, but if we'd had to rely on the spitfire only, we would probably have lost. We couldn't have delivered the numbers of them needed, and because they were not such a good gun platform, with their weapons spread along the full length of the wing, they wouldn't have hit the bombers so hard.

[@wbertie2604]

Is that as many per capita, or just the same total?

[@CalibanRising]

It's interesting about the ease of repair because I was too under the impression that the Hurri was easier to fix up, but read recently that the Spitfire was actually easier to repair. Not sure what to think now.

[@wbertie2604]

@@CalibanRising I'd heard that the Spitfire was harder too. I also don't know what to think.

[@rovercoupe7104]

Read ‘How the Spitfire won the Battle of Britain’ by Dilip Sarkar. M.

[@dave_h_8742]

@@CalibanRising proof please.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

4:20 - something that has been missed - so far - in your alternative history timeline is the substantially and arguably battle winning performance upgrades that both British Fighters received between the battle for France and the Battle of Britain: namely the used of 100 octane fuel and the widespread introduction of Rotol constant speed propellers. It is worth noting that while the Hurricane’s top speed was nearly 30mph lower than either the 1940 spitfires and 109Es that the Luftwaffe flew, that was largely due to the large parasitic drag of the Hawker plane. Once battle is joined, after the merge the most important drag factor is induced drag and in that regard the hurricane was at no great disadvantage. Moreover, the extra performance due to the constant speed props and 100 fuel meant that even the venerable hurricane had greater performance in rate of climb and in energy recovery in a turning fight. The hurricane shot down a heck of a lot of 109s in the BoB. Because it was easier and quicker to produce than the spitfire, it could have been replaced in even greater numbers during the battle. Because it was a more forgiving plane to fly and a great gun platform, it was therefore easier and quicker to turn novice pilots and pilots of ‘average’ ability into war fighters. All in all, the Hurricane would have done the job, even if it faced the Luftwaffe alone. However, the spitfire was the future, as witnessed by the ever increasing performance that Supermarine was able to extract out of the basic design right up to the dawn of the jet age, post ww2 (with the ‘definitive’ Mk24s and Seafire 47s)

[@CalibanRising]

Another great addition, thanks!

[@allangibson8494]

The Hurricane also had its replacement in the works with the Tempest. That probably would have seen more urgent development. The North American Mustang wasn’t far behind either with it entering service in Britain in January 1942 along side the Curtis Tomahawks that were in service from June 1941. Both might have gotten Merlin engines sooner than they did without the Spitfire.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

@@allangibson8494 I don’t think that timeline is correct. The Tempest started life as a development of the Typhoon. While the Typhoon was on Sydney Camm’s drawing board as early as 1938, contracts to produce two prototypes were not signed for another year and the first prototype flew in March 1940. There was a mid air structural failure of the first prototype in May and Lord Beaverbrook put funding for development testing on ice a week later - favouring increased production efforts for the 5 RAF planes types then in service. the second Typhoon prototype didn’t fly until mid 1941. So … if the Spitfire didn’t exist, then it is possible that Beaverbrook would have fast tracked development of the Typhoon, but production variants would likely have also still missed the BoB by several months. However, given the problems with both possible engines that were meant to be used by the Tyhoon in 1940 (the Napier Sabre and Rolls Royce Vulture) THAT would have been unlikely. The follow up Tempest would still have missed the BoB by a number of years.

[@allangibson8494]

@@andrewmetcalfe9898 The engine you skipped was the Rolls Royce Griffin (which first ran in 1939 - and couldn’t be fitted to the Hurricane)… It was fitted to all the later mark Spitfires. I am not saying it would be ready for the BoB but the next step to replace the Hurricane was already in process. Martin Baker could also have possibly gotten the MB2 or MB3 into production or more production of the Westland Whirlwind which would have been ready for the Battle of Britain.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

@@allangibson8494 I’m pretty sure the Griffon didn’t actually run on a test bed until 1940. Beaverbrook temporarily canned development in June 1940 in favour of production and development testing of the Merlin for the BoB - which was producing more performance at that stage than early variants of the Griffon. Rolls Royce had to significantly reduce the frontal cross section to make it relevant as a fighter engine. It wasn’t until 1942 that Supermarine received single stage Griffons (which were then used in the Mk XII Spitfire) and late 1943 for the two stage Griffon 61 (which was used in the Mk XIV). The simple fact is that there was only ONE Hawker fighter in 1940 that was available for the BoB and the process to replace the Hurricane was still very much in the ideas phase. The MB projects were even more remote and obscure in that period. One possibility that occurs to me in passing however, if Britain was down to one fighter only, would have been to rush Lend Lease Warhawks and perhaps even Wildcats (aka the Martlet) into front line RAF service. I dunno. I’ll do some reading and get back to you as to whether that would have been feasible.

[@drno4837]

A major reason the hurricane kills were so high is that they were the aircraft the Poles flew, and the Poles shot down 20% of the Germans lost, so a batter question might be could the RAF have won without the poles?

[@wbertie2604]

I think that's 20% for the period they were deployed, but the RAF refused to deploy them for half the Battle of Britain. Some of those in the Polish squadrons were from other central European countries, all flying and fighting together.

[@spitfiremark1a768]

Lickily they were able to fly fast moderm momoplanes developed in England. If we had Gladiators and Fury's only then they would not have been much help no matter how good a pilot they were. They fought with other air forces which were decimated by the Germans prior to making it to England.

[@CalibanRising]

That's a great question. I have a video coming out next week about the Poles in L'armée de l'air. They were certainly very skilled pilots.

[@andrewborg5111]

The kill number of the Hurricane was higher than the Spitfire was because Hurricanes were mostly shooting down bombers while the Spitfires fought off the fighters. The Hurricane was no match for the 109. No Spitfire no victory

[@andrewborg5111]

Without Spitfires you would be talking in German and not English today i

[@paulbarnes6124]

Never ceases to amaze me how everyone overlooks sir Hugh Dowdings incredible foresight in setting radar and fighter command initially just before start of ww2 . History may have been totally different with out this in place 🤔

[@briansanderson480]

I read so much about the considerable effect the polish pilots it almost seems they won on their own.Why did they fail in Poland but in flying outdated aircraft they learnt to only fire when close enough rather than blazing away too early Just a thought

[@TheArgieH]

There were several options if push turned to shove. A Defiant was trialled without the turret and with wing guns. On testing it was described as a pleasant and capable aircraft with a performance falling between that of the Spitfire and Hurricane. It had a sturdy wide track undercarriage too, useful on the grass strips of the day. Jigs for most of the structure would would already be on hand. The actual emergency fighter envisaged was the Miles (M 20 ?) if needed. Built round a Merlin power egg, it was described as very manoevrable, it had a simplified structure and quick to build, 8 x Brownings, fixed undercarriage. Again it offered performance somewhere in the middle. Carried more ammunition and fuel than either. Who knows?

[@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus]

I'd never heard of the Miles M.20 till I read your post, so off to Wikipedia I went. Could be armed with up to 12(!!!!) .303s. Holly Carp!

[@TheArgieH]

@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus Plus double the fuel and ammunition load of either of the rivals - Holly Carp indeed. Miles was one of the "go to" engineering firms used by the Air Ministry for trouble shooting, prototypes, one offs and oddities, Martin Baker was another. MB sorted out the 20mm cannon jamming problem (debugged the Le Chatterellaut belt feed) and fixed the contrarotating propeller problem (the first had to be dismantled for lubrication after each flight). Miles were set to work on a Mach 1 contender before the end of WWII, and certainly well before the Bell manned missile took took to the sky. The Miles job was to be jet powered (Whittle had an afterburning centrifugal compressor version to provide the thrust), and Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown was lined up for the hot seat. Pity the UK was bankrupt.

[@TheArgieH]

@Fantabulous Snuffaluffagus Further to my last, Miles were not the only guys offering up to 12 x mgs in the wings. Layer on, Hawker upgunned the Hurricane with a concentrated battery of 6 x mgs in EACH wing. The Mk II c had 4 x 20 mm cannon. If you have space for either of those fits you could probably shoehorn a few 50 cal instead. All a bit late for the BoB, but any of those could be a bomber killer, provided you could catch one with all that weight in Ordnance and ammunition.

[@nebunezz_r]

​@@fantabuloussnuffaluffaguslater hurricane and earlier model of Typhoon has that many MG too. It's not so special especially considering the British doctrine is to fit as much .303 as possible inside the plane wing.

[@mel.3687]

@@TheArgieHI was going to like you comment. You certainly know your history. Just a pity you had to make that of the cuff remark about England being bankrupt. As I am certain if you are the person smart enough to know what you wrote you would know why England was bankrupt.

[@manic65cvn]

My old man was a londoner too. He actually worked in a factory somewhere building hurricanes before he joined the airborne. Anyway....I don't know if t wou,d have made to much of a difference. One thing I always ask myself is...what would have happened if the mosquito was built early and in massive numbers.

[@johnblagden5625]

But would it have taken production facilities away from other aircraft? I understand it was wooden and therefore a different workforce, but at the time the Merlin was in very short supply and it wasn't until Packard licensed it and used modern and far more accurate mass-production techniques that the UK got the numbers it needed. Interesting concept though, as the Mosquito could have been a stunning Bomber-Destroyer with its speed plus the in-line machine-gun and cannon combination.

[@screwdriver222]

@manic65cvn what if the Whirlwind was designed for the Merlin engine instead of the underpowered and troublesome RR Peregrine. 4 20mm cannons, bubble canopy.

[@kiwidiesel]

None of it was possible without that legendary Merlin up front from day one to the very end💪

[@raypurchase801]

Agreed. When remembering Mitchell and Camm, we should also remember Henry Royce.

[@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus]

At the end (and the middle) the Griffon was up front. Spitfire MK XII and above .

[@alfredfabulous3640]

PV 12 stands for 'Private Venture' ! Developed by RollsRoyce itself at their own risk!

[@sabrecatsmiladon7380]

Wasnt Merlin from around 1200 AD? =)

[@phinhager6509]

If the US had let them buy Curtis Hawks a little earlier, a lot of that forced induction development would have gone into the Wright Cyclone, and all the iconic British fighters would have been pudgy cuties, with maybe even the Perseus coming soon enough for the British to build the greatest piston fighter of all time.

[@spitfiremark1a768]

The Spitfire was open for development. The Hurricane was already as far as it could go in this respect being based on the Fury biplane. it was originally called the Fury monoplane.

[@wbertie2604]

If you look at the Typhoon prototypes (and Tornado) you can clearly see the Hurricane heritage. Tempest is a Typhoon with new wings, and Sea Fury a Tempest with half the wings. In that sense, the evolution just kept ongoing. The very first jet designs from Hawker (unbuilt) were Fury wings on a new fuselage. Hunter seems the biggest break - new everything.

[@CalibanRising]

Certainly. If the Spitfire never happened, then the British would have need to look elsewhere for a fighter to carry them post-BOB.

[@wbertie2604]

@@CalibanRising The obvious domestic option from 1941 onwards would be the Typhoon, with P-40, P-39, early P-51s, etc. But those options would have been seriously lacking above 20,000 ft. If Germany had developed something other than the Ju-86P with its bomb load (in the sense of a bomb) with decent performance at that height that didn't catch fire, then the UK could have had serious problems. Granted, the Mosquito was adapted for this role as well as the Spitfire before the threat vanished, along with many almost-built planes such as the Welkin or the behemoths from Vickers. Maybe they'd have fixed the Whirlwind, although the big issue there was the engines, and fitting a Merlin in would have been hard, and I am not sure putting in a couple of Taurus would have been that easy. Note, I didn't name the P-38 for high altitude work as the RAF did try it but with the huge and singular advantage at the time of the turbos taken out! But then if the Spitfire had failed the RAF, liking multiple options, would have done something.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@wbertie2604 The Whirlwind's Peregrine engines were fine. It was the use of the different propeller that was the biggest problem and prevented its performance at altitude (vs the prototype)

[@mrjockt]

It’s an interesting concept but the thing to remember is that by the time of the Battle of Britain there were already plans prepared for emergency fighters which would have supplemented the Hurricane, especially if the Spitfire had never existed, there was the Miles M.20 which was estimated to be slightly faster and more manoeuvrable than the Hurricane whilst still carrying the same firepower. Without the Spitfire it’s more than likely the Boulton Paul P.94, the single seat development of the Defiant, would have gone beyond the prototype stage, and Hawker themselves might have put more effort into developing the Typhoon as an air to air fighter replacement for the Hurricane than they did in real life.

[@raypurchase801]

Damned good comment. I'm surprised the Miles wooden fighter wasn't put into production as a catapult-launched fighter, instead of using Hurricanes. Funny how we Brits had prototypes of "emergency" designs flying in 1939 and 1940, whereas the Germans didn't get around to it until their game was already lost. What would you rather have flown: A wooden Miles fighter in 1940, or a 163 in '45?

[@davidmcintyre8145]

@@raypurchase801 The M-20 was considered as both a carrier borne aircraft and for CAM ships but there was by this point a sufficiency of"worn out"Hurricanes which were a cheaper option for the CAM vessels

[@davidmcintyre8145]

The M-20 actually carried 12 0.303 Brownings thus giving it 50% more firepower than a Spit of a Hurri she also carried more ammunition per gun and had double the range of either of the"mainline"fighters

[@mrjockt]

@@davidmcintyre8145 Are you sure on that armament loadout, according to both Putnam's ''The British Fighter since 1912'' and Justo Miranda's ''Enemy At The Gate'', highly recommended for anyone with an interest in non German ''Emergency Fighter'' the M-20 was only armed with the eight .303 machine guns.

[@davidmcintyre8145]

@@mrjockt The figures say 12 machine guns with 5000 rounds(total)carried and 154 UK gallons of fuel. The specification called for 8 but it was found that with the fixed undercarriage 12 could be carried

[@DavidJames-op3kg]

i suspect there may have been more westland whirlwinds made and the engine problems sorted, it could hold its own against the 109 but played no role in the bob, with the 4 cannon it would have made mincemeat of the bombers

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Propeller problems, not engine problems, but yes it would have been formidable.

[@petearundel166]

Had there been no Spitfire I'm sure there would have been Gloster F.5/34s, Bristol Type 146 or Vickers Venoms around. The Venom would almost certainly have been developed in some way since Vickers wouldn't have been building Spitfires. With the added possibility of Miles and Martin-Baker (the MB2 with a Merlin and it's proposed retractable undercarriage could have been a great plane) also waiting in the wings I suspect that the overall result wouldn't have changed greatly.

[@CalibanRising]

Funny you should mention those aircraft, I actually recorded about another 10 minutes talking about possible projects in the 1930s which might have been developed instead of the Spitfire. Pretty much all the declined prototypes of specification F5/34. I decided to leave it out of this video as it was getting too long.

[@BC-op7rj]

@@CalibanRising The big issue is numbers. Could Supermarine make as many Hurricanes to replace non existent Spitfires . No it would probably be focused on building flying boats. That task would fall to Bristol, Vickers, etc. The Hurricane was a numbers produced machine while research to improve was mostly put into the Spitfire, so you'd expect the Hurricane would get a much higher design evolution, and far more variants if there were no Spitfire. Development that resulted in the Typhoon and Tempest would not have quit on certain redesigns if there was no Spitfire already filling that requirement. They would have Merlin engined Typhoons being tuned for high altitude for example. If Bristol and Vickers were the substitute supplier of the alternate it could also be at the cost of bomber production . The next issue is propaganda. German crews had a mindset ready to deal with Hurricanes. Spitfires however evoked their fears disproportionally higher. This gave the Spitfire an armament that weighed nothing and it's pilot encouragement to be aggressive regardless the odds . When people say that the Spitfire won the Battle of Britain, they are both wrong and right. Chain Home Command won the battle IMO, but imagine if they were saddled with P-36,C P-40B , P-43, instead with them reaching intercept only to find bombers above 15, 000ft that they can't touch. Would other plans that never got off the drawing board be available in time? I'd like to evaluate a what if scenario of America being located on the British Isles instead of the UK. Politically it would unlikely go to war on Germany (based on isolationism), but if it did, with 1939 technology such as no radar and inferior military aircraft, I imagine air supremacy would be lost just like all other European countries that the Germans attacked. The size of the population might stop land invasion, but everything would be bombed to a standstill. Considered with that view Britain did exceptionally well to halt the German aggression. In that light I feel Britain is underrated for in contribution to winning the war, all because this effort was in the first half against more capable players. Americans arrived in time to find increasing German substitutes and British experience on what to do. From least to most significant 100 octane fuel, the Spitfire, Hurricane, Chain Home Command and the English Channel are what won the Battle of Britain.

[@johnblagden5625]

@@CalibanRising Put it up as a video in its own right? Or 'Part 2'?

[@CalibanRising]

@@johnblagden5625 I'll try to put it together as its own video. Interesting enough I'd say.

[@sylvaleader]

The Spitfire always has, is and always will be my favourite WW2 aircraft and I am convinced that it's reputation is very well earned. However, when it comes to the Battle of Britain, I would say that it was the RAF's integrated air defence system that did the most to win the battle. I also think the BoB was the most important battle of WW2 (in the west at least). If it had been lost, there would have been no American involvement, no North Africa campaign, and no battle of the Atlantic, no bombing day and night of the German held European mainland or Germany itself. Without this draining of resources and manpower, Germany would have beaten Russia, and the world would be a very different place. The RAF's Home chain has had a huge impact on world history.

[@FinsburyPhil]

For anyone wanting a really in-depth look at the facts of the BoB I can thoroughly recommend 'The Most Dangerous Enemy' by Stephen Bungay. Brilliantly researched.

[@CalibanRising]

A great read indeed!

[@sisleymichael]

I agree, the Hurricane could have done it, but not as well. I am thankful the Spitfire came about. It proved itself very well.

[@morrissoublet25]

Another question to be asked. If the Spitfire hadn’t be built, would that have changed the development of the Mustang that relied on the Merlin engine over the Allison engine?

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Hurricanes tended to get the latest Merlins to try to keep them competitive. No Spitfires might have accelerated Merlin development.

[@pedromelodemagalhaes7763]

Quite well balanced view! Congrats! What about the other way round? No Hurricanes… just Spitfires…

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Only if there were enough Spits, but yes the Spitfire was far superior to the old Hurricane.

[@grahamjones6106]

Brilliant video, and a very interesting question. Personally I believe that there's so many things to take into consideration. However I absolutely agree that the Hurricane didn't get the recognition that it and the pilots deserved

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The pilots certainly deserve recognition for having to go into battle with an obsolete fighter.

[@667crash]

While the Spitfire was worshipped, the real hero of the Battle of Britain was the Hurricane. With an even number of Hurricanes the British would have still won the battle.

[@FlgOff044038]

The Spitfire was a "Hangar Queen" due to its all-metal construction, and weak under cart, the Hurry was ready steady, and had a relatively easy-to-fix frame.

[@mothmagic1]

But as a German pilot once said if the Spitfire didn't exist Britain would have lost. The Hurricane was just about at the limit of its possible development when it entered service whereas the Spitfire was capable of continuous development throughout the war.

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

@@mothmagic1 A German pilot? Well, that ends the debate right there now doesn't it? Seriously though, some (anonymous) pilot is hardly an unimpeachable source, and while the Spitfire was superior to the Hurricane in many ways, it was hardly the war-winner it was portrayed as. The advantages conveyed by the CH and CHL (the latter was FAR more important, given its range envelope), the Observer Corps (possibly the most underrated factor of the overrated battle), and of course the the sector airfield system (which almost never gets mentioned, though it was crucial to the RAF's operations over its own territory) made the German efforts a lost cause even if their targeting had been consistent or they had an actual bomber force designed for this sort of thing, instead of a ground support force pretending to be a strategic bomber force. As a final point, any "the British would have lost" discussion that doesn't find some way to get rid of the Royal Navy is simply nonsense. Even if the entirely RAF had been shot out of the sky with no significant loss to the Germans, there was really no useful way to get rid of a Royal Navy that was defending its home turf.

[@mothmagic1]

@@f1b0nacc1sequence7 i have read quite a few accounts from the German point of view and couldn't be sure who said it and i had no wish to name the wrong person. The pilot was none other than Adolf Galland. He actually said could Britain have won it without the Hurricane? Possibly. Could we have won it without the Spitfire - definitely not. It's a view shared by Ulrich Steinhilper in Spitfire On My Tail. That brings to mind the admiral who told Hitler that as lkng as he was planning to cross the channel slower than the Romans he wad doomed to failure. Again not sure who it was, either Raeder or Canaris.

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

@UwU how so?

[@ulissessimondasilveira225]

@@f1b0nacc1sequence7 The German pilot was Adolf Galland

[@PaulP999]

I often wonder what could have happened if the Westland Whirlwind would have achieved its full potential in time.

[@chrisvernon2269]

Good point. Had there been no Spitfire, I think there is no doubt that great efforts would have been expended to make the Whirlwind aircraft what it really was, a very fast, heavily armed fighter carrying concentrated fire power which no ME 109 pilot would wish to tangle with, and any Luftwaffe bomber crew would have dreaded seeing in the sky. But because the spitfire was there, and one engine meant one fighter in the form of a Spitfire, as opposed to two engines equalling one fighter in the form of a Whirlwind, the former prevailed. Sad for the Whirlwind, a great concept and probably most likely replicated in the form of the de Havilland Hornet, which did not enter service until the jet age, and so was doomed to extinction.

[@TheArgieH]

@@chrisvernon2269 Folk tend to overlook the many problems that dogged the Whirlwind. It had a ferocious landing speed not compatible with the grass fighter strips of the day. It had a very high stall speed compared with its contemporaries. It was not really comparable in structure with the much later DH twin engined Mosquito and Hornet, the rear half of the fuselage was formed from a magnesium alloy. The biggest problem was the choice of engine, the RR Peregrine. It could not be relied upon to provide the necessary power. There were not enough Merlins to go round at the time, which limited practical choices. It would not have been a straight forward job to swap in a different power plant anyway. I suspect it would have had struggled in a fighter to fighter match, given that wingspan and the likely effect on roll rate. At the time it entered service, the four Hispanos were fed by 60 lb drums, 60 rounds apiece giving around 5-6 seconds of fire, possibly around 10 seconds if the guns fired in pairs. All that said, it could have been a very effective bomber killer. This would have needed a more reliable power plant, and the debugged Hispano belt feed to add to the punch. However, given the pressing circumstances of the BoB, there just was not the time or indeed priority to get it all sorted out. It did look good though.

[@mothmagic1]

I think many of us do.

[@EdMcF1]

I have a suggestion for what might have been a useful one-off strike. Fly a load of Defiant Night-fighters over to France as the Luftwaffe are preparing for a raid at night and land them on Luftwaffe airfields and taxy around strafing every aircraft you can see. The confusion would have been immense.

[@daniellastuart3145]

The Royal Navy would of still blown the invasion fleet out of the water like it would of done if it tried to cross the channel anyway And the P40 might of got the Merlin engine?????

[@geordiedog1749]

Also, remember that had the RAF lost the BoB, Sealion would have seen a massive German defeat.

[@johnbeavin9170]

I agree with you, The Royal navy would have a field day.

[@jonsouth1545]

​@Dan Beech not only that the barges sailed at about 4knots and had a very low freeboard you don't need to shoot them to sink them sail past them at more than 15knots and your bow wave is more than enough to swamp the barges and send them to the bottom plus in 1940 the Germans didn't have any armour piercing bombs capable of piercing anything above a destroyer as they weren't developed till 1941 during the Mediterranean campaign and due to low rate of fire etc railway guns are useless against ships the RN would have been more than happy to use some of the older Battlewagons in the Channel a great choice would have been the Old French Battleships Courbet and Paris which had joined the Free French having shelled German troops near Cherbourg and was in Portsmouth IRL they were largely used as an anti-aircraft battery and then an accommodation ship before eventually being scuttled to make a breakwater as part of the D-Day landings but in 1940 if the Germans had attempted to cross they almost certainly would have been used and the RN wouldn't be to bothered about losing them

[@ivanconnolly7332]

The whirlwind though more expensive than the spit might have stood in for it.

[@markwoods1530]

yes an excellent bomber destroyer but complicated and expensive to produce.

[@Sugar_K]

@@markwoods1530 poor engines as well... that was the big issue... unreliable and under developed engine.. whirlwind would have been much more useful other wise

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Only if they realized their mistake with the Whirlwind propellers. The prototype was fine, but the production models used the wrong props inducing compressibility problems; hence it's lackluster performance at altitude.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@Sugar_K there was nothing wrong with the Peregrine engines. It was the props that were the problem (and a few other things).

[@Sugar_K]

@@bobsakamanos4469 the whole package lacked for development as the Merlin was given priority.. shame the whirlwind was a really nice aircraft

[@RonGyver1337]

Like most every other country I would think they would upgrade , import or design what there lacking.

[@janfazlagic8738]

You should also consider that without Spitfire there would be more pressure to modernise the Hurricane, so a hypthetical Alternative Hurricane in the absence of Spitfore couls have been (slightly) better.

[@sturdevantphotography5726]

I think since the RAF had already contracted to have the P51 built, that's the direction things would have gone. That plane was @40mph faster than the Spit with the same Merlin Engine and could be configured to fly for 7hrs, which is a huge deal when the fight transitioned to Europe

[@nickhimaras9331]

A very interesting point of view. It is also very heartening to see so much genuine interest by so many, obviously well-read folks. Thank you!

[@raypurchase801]

Nice to see comments from so many fellow nerds here.

[@shanecarter3154]

I have read (and it may have already been mentioned) that the Hurricane was able to be refuelled and rearmed much more quickly than the Spitfire. Therefore the sortie rate for the same number of aircraft was higher for the Hurricane. Combined with higher production you have mentioned, the Hurricane force would have generated a much higher actual engagement rate then the Spitfire/Hurricane real world force.

[@johnblagden5625]

The Hurricane could fly with patched up damage that would have a Spitfire returned to the factory for weeks.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Being quickly refuelled and rearmed only works if the fighter makes it home. The Hurricanes needed top cover from the 109's & 110's. They were at the end of their design life and were outdated by 1940 as a front line fighter.

[@petemahine]

Without the spitfire the single seat version of the Defiant might have gone into production. In the original timeline it didn’t because it didn’t really offer any advantages over the spitfire, it was about as fast but not as manoeuvrable. But yeah it was the organisation and integration of the raf, observer corpse and chain home that was vital in winning the battle.

[@rob5944]

A single seat Defiant?

[@petemahine]

@@rob5944 yup, the Bolton Paul Defiant, originally a turret fighter made up part of the fighter force next to the Hurricane and Spitfire just before the outbreak of WW2. There was a version tested that had the turret ad gunner removed, performance was pretty good I'm told.

[@rob5944]

@@petemahine strangely enough I've often thought it looked a pretty clean design in itself.

[@jsmith3772]

I agree 100% with your comments. I think when we look at air combat too much emphasis is placed on the aircraft, it being faster or turning tighter when in reality air combat is more about doctrine, training, tactics and positioning. We can see examples of inferior aircraft being used to good effect when they had the advantage of early warning and good pilot tactics. Fokker DXXI and Buffaloes over Finland, the Flying Tigers over China, Wildcats over Guadalcanal. The Hurricane was a capable fighter and would certainly have caused havoc among the German Bomber formations with or without the Spitfire.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Unfortunately, the young replacement pilots had only a handful of hours on type and some had no gunnery training at all. Under those circumstances, they need the best fighter possible to survive long enough to learn actual fighter pilot skills.

[@benjaminrush4443]

Possibly a little more taxing and slightly more costly. I think that England would have prevailed against Goring's Finest. Enjoyed your analysis whereas I usually avoid alternate scenarios. Thanks.

[@spitfiremark1a768]

Alex Henshaw was convinced that without the Spitfire, the Hurricane could not have won the battle alone. And he was a superb test pilot.

[@nickhimaras9331]

With respect to Mr. Henshaw, he was a test pilot for Supermarine and he did fly Spitfires. Of course, he could be correct in his opinion.

[@spitfiremark1a768]

@@nickhimaras9331 He was a very experienced pilot prior to Quill asking him to work for Supermarine. He had several records under his belt for various distance trips. He was a suoerb pilot. Certainly not biased.

[@bradhartliep879]

100% False .. the #Spitfire could NOT have won the battle of britain without the #Hurricane - there simply were not enough Spitfires built, not enough pilots that could fly the Spitfire, and not enough TRAINED Mechanics who could repair the Spitfire .. if the Spitfire had not been built, Britain could have used those resources wasted building the Spitfire to build HUNDREDS [ if not thousands] more #Hurricanes .. and the MASSIVE number of Hurricanes in the sky during any battle would have decimated the ME 109s .. with the right numbers of superiority, the Hurricane could have easily defeated the ME 109 -- the German Pilots just simply could not have defeated them all - and the shear numbers of "older technology" ALWAYS defeat technological advances .. the Hurricane is the Hero of the Battle of Britain, NOT the Spitfire ..

[@WillyEckaslike]

told what to say..who controls the media controls the mind...PG is everything

[@spitfiremark1a768]

@@WillyEckaslike He said this in an interview many years later not lomg before he passed away.

[@davidmcintyre8145]

If the Spitfire never existed then the role would have been taken by a mixture of additional Hurricanes as well as the extemporised Miles M-20(the flying STEN gun) along with P-40s from the US and design of the Hawker Typhoon/Tempest would have been accelerated. There was also the Mosquito fighter variant that was in development and no doubt a few more Westland Whirlwinds could have been built

[@sizzler2462]

They could have used all those Merlins on a redesigned Westland whirlwind

[@CalibanRising]

Perhaps! I have to admit the whirlwind is not an A/C that I know a lot about, apart from building a model when I was a kid.

[@wbertie2604]

They did that for a specific task as the Welkin. I am not sure you'd have fitted in Merlins into the relatively tiny Whirlwind. The Taurus might have been more plausible, but still a lot of work given how closely it was designed around one engine. Maybe the Dagger? Most of the time, specifications asked for a choice of engine options so things weren't too closely designed around a single engine type in case of issues. Exceptions were the P.13/36 designs of which Handley-Page quickly opted to change to four Merlins, leaving only the Manchester stuck with the Vulture (a double Pegasus) and the Whirlwind and the Pegasus. Given that it's sort of Pegasus twice, that seems like a rare Rolls-Royce failure.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Nope. Merlins were too big for the Whirlwind.

[@michaelcampin1464]

There were more hurricanes that spitfires but the hurricane could take more punishment that a spitfire but the spitfire had a problem with its engines if it was inverted. Secondly the time the german fighters had very limited time over the South of England. Thirdly if a British pilot had to bail out it was likely he would be back into the action quickly but a german pilot would be a prisoner of war.

[@littlefluffybushbaby7256]

Both Hurricane and Spitfire had Merlin engines so, until the carboretor tweak was in place, both had the same issue with diving. Inverting wasn't the problem, it was how they fixed it.

[@paulharper362]

I have always thought if the RAF was a rugby team, the Hurricanes were the forwards and the Spitfires were the backs. Without a good pack of forwards you are on a hiding to nothing. They might not be pretty but they do the dirty work that is necessary. ;-)

[@manricobianchini5276]

Careful not to overthink this, my friend. The Hurricane was a crucial fighter, for sure, but the Spitfire was as well. My favorite British fighter, that said, will always be the Mosquito. All time favorite fighter of WW2? The, Vought F4u Corsair!

[@bessiebraveheart]

The hurricanes would have done the job.

[@colinhudson3867]

There were other fighters in the battle of Britain, than just Hurricanes, and Spitfires, unfortunately they are the main fighters that got the credit.... a fighter that could have used by the merlin engine was the Westland Whirlwind

[@johnblagden5625]

I understand that BP Defiants shot down more enemy aircraft (109's) in one action for no loss, but this may have been the Battle for France.

[@Jaxck77]

Strategically swapping to the Spitfire made total sense. It was clearly the superior airframe, capable of a wider variety of rolls than the Hurricane. This played out especially in Africa in 1941-2 where British Spitfires bounced between ground attack & air superiority. Continuous cutting edge development was really what won the Allies the war and that’s what the Spitfire represented. This was especially true in the Pacific campaign by the Americans, as the introduction of engines developed for the Spitfire made Allied fighters untouchable by Japanese Zeroes. The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot and the staggering series of defeats by the Imperial Navy were a direct result of British strategic choices during the Battle of Britain.

[@defender1006]

Thankfully we had both the Hurricane and the Spitfire, BUT to quote an Battle of Britain/RAF Ace when asked what his favorite aircraft was he said 'To fly in a Spitfire, But to fight in a Hurricane', which says that the two aircraft were complimentary and deployed in the correct roles! If the Hurricane had have had the development that the Spitfire had poured into it then we'd have had a Typhoon/Tempest with an up graded/horsepower RR Merlin then I think the out come would have been similar, if a bit later in 1940, as the air superiority would have been maintained, plus then the 'invading forces' would have encountered the fantastic Beaufighter and the brilliant Mosquito. But the Hurricane and Spitfire combination along with the fighter/interceptor air command/control of the time made the most of both those 'planes strengths.

[@glennpettersson9002]

There were many designs that if given the impetus behind the Spitfire could have made a significant contribution to the defence of the UK. The P40 had a variant that did not go into production because there were no Merlin clones available even though it solved that aircrafts performance issues above 15 00ft.

[@tobiasz6613]

The P40 was a better aircraft that it's given credit for I think, a merlin-ed version could've been a useful stop gap.

[@screwdriver222]

Sergeant pilot Ginger Lacy got 23 victories in France and Britain with Hurricanes.

[@billyredtail]

I feel as though this is the wrong question. Because by 1941, the Hawker Hurricane was heavily outclassed by German Bf109F and Fw190 designs. Although the Fw190 was introduced to counter the Spitfire MkV, I would assume that it would have been developed regardless of the Spitfire's existence. The Hurricane had really reached the limit of it's potential at a frontline fighter after the Battle of Britain and only saw service in that role in North Africa, the far East and the Soviet Union, simply because they had nothing else. Although used in Ramrod raids well into 1942, the Hurricane's were the bombers and the ground strafers and would not have had the capability to play the role that the Spitfire played. The war in the air was always an arms race and it would only be up to the speed and efficiency of modifications to existing designs that would have kept up the pace. Likely the Typhoon would have made a good candidate in 1942 though once again with Hawker designs, the large induced drag from the airframe would have minimised the potential to be competitive with German designs.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

So, lacking the Spitfire, i very much doubt the British bigwigs would do nothing... Hawker Tornado with the Centaurus engine? Or force through development of the Vulture? Would they try to rush it and sacrifice the Typhoon instead? Westland Whirlwind with Merlins? Or maybe retain the RR Exe? Possibly try to get the Beaufighters trimmed up some way, enough to let them take part in interceptions at least. There's definitely no perfect way to replace the Spitfire that i can think of at the moment at least. ... It needs to be remembered that one of the reasons Hurricanes DID get as many kills as they did was because the Spitfire's were there taking the heat of the Luftwaffe fighters away from them. Without anything to keep their attention away from the easier targets? The number of Hurricane losses would have gone up much more i'm afraid. Defiants would add NOTHING to the fight as they were. They're a waste of production capacity for the UK. BUT, actually, you COULD go with hoping they do the 1940 12 .303s and no turret. It was faster than the Hurricane, on par with the Spitfire, never produced historically because the Spitfire WAS there, but without it, it might actually be viable. A 4 Hispanos+4 .303s was also considered. Blenheims, remove the turret and 2 crew, remove all bombing equipment, slap 2-3 Hispano 20s either in the nose or in an upward/forward firing position and you at least have something that can destroy bombers decently well. Or if you must, 6-10 .303s close together in the nose. Better yet, figure out if you can easily cut down on the fuselage size(or just weight) and whether the superchargers will run ok a little bit more energetically. At this point, the plane wont even be that much slower than the Hurricane, so while still a poor "fighter", it should definitely be able to do lots of damage to the bombers... ... I do however agree with Alan Barker, the single most important part of the defense was by far the command and control system. And while i do not think you're wrong as such, you're probably a bit too optimistic. The Spitfire myth is definitely based in reality. Also, one important point is that yes, the Hurricane was a bit cheaper, however, the single biggest expense by far on either plane was still the same Merlin engine. And even if that wasn't true, WOULD THEY have manufactured more Hurricanes? Or would they have given the "surplus" engines over to bomber command production? If a better brand new aircraft isn't there to be argued as "more important", i fear that it is absolutely plausible that only some of the extra engines would have gone to more Hurricanes. The question is, like what i started with, what would they try instead?

[@Titus-as-the-Roman]

AS the Americans proved with the Sherman Tank, if you build enough of them whatever small problems they had it didn't matter.

[@martynjames5963]

If they didn't build the Spitfire they would have built many more Hurricanes. But the Spitfire carried technology forward, which bridged the gap to the jet age.

[@z_actual]

Hurricane would have been kinder to crew, as its landing antics are easier than Spitfire, there would have been a slight return on pilots lost to Spitfire landings And as we all know, Hurricane had limited development, just early investigation into Bristol radial engine. There was however another branch to the tree from Typhoon and Tornado. I think if Hurri was the only choice it would have received much more attention, to either be pulled by later development RR Merlins or more powerful radial engines towards Tornado, which is after all around the same age having been first drawn in 1937. To be clear, this would take Hawkers to 400 mph 12 gun fighters, and with more intensive development would have taken it from first flight 1939, and been flying as a production aircraft mid 1941

[@patwilson2546]

It wasn't the Spitfire that won BoB. The Hurricane was far more numerous at that time and did most of the heavy lifting. The Spitfire certainly helped but in the end the Germans lost BoB because the Luftwaffe was never a strategic air force.

[@Gungho1a]

Basically, I don't think the german forces had any actual understanding of what they needed to do. The traditional WW1 vintage figher sweeps conducted over the UK were a total waste of resources in an era of effective radar and an integrated early warning system...those fighters would have been better used escorting bombers, and the bombers, in turn, would have been better employed in small scale, but numerous raids onto the airfields. However, those suggestions in themselves ignore what really killed the luftwaffe effort - the fact that they simply couldn't win under any circumstances. They didn't have the resources, the planning, or the industrial capacity to grind down Fighter Command.

[@plunder1956]

I knew people who were tank crew in the western desert & Italy in WW2. Also ground crew or recon pilots in 1942 & beyond. One snippet of info from old timers was about the many spitfire fuselages in the factory waiting for the much harder to build stressed oval wings of the Spit. Also what about other potential fighters that never got developed & built from 1934 onwards? Were there alternatives that might have replaced the spit in RAF command?

[@towgod7985]

This is just a linear expansion of the known statistics, a process that is known to ignore variables that will effect any new results. Operating one effective type will increase the number and serviceability of the fleet and also allow an increase in the depth of the pilot training, improving their proficiency . Seeing as their are any number of Luftwaffe pilots that say the Hurricane I WAS a match for the Bf109E, the conclusions reached seem somewhat off. If anything, operating a larger force of Hurricanes with pilots with a even higher level of effectiveness would have made the outcome of the BoB shorter and more decisive than it already was.

[@johncartwright8154]

Ah the poor old Hurribus. One never hears of a 'Hurricane Fund' one the time do you? An interesting supposition in the video, and much informed discussion in the comments. One important factor i would add is that the Luftwaffe was wrongly equipped and trained for the task it was set over England, being a tactical rather than a strategic air-arm, with no clear aim against a well-organised defence system.

[@justathought958]

Generally, while the video has much to recommend it, I would suggest that the existence of the Spitfire affected the Nazis in a much more psychological way and thus impacted the battle in ways that the merely adequate Hurricane (about the same performance as one of America's early P-40s, of which endless add ons were available) could not. There is, you will probably recall, that great moment in the film "The Battle of Britain" where the actor playing Goering asks the actor playing Adolph Galland what he needs to win the battle. Galland answers " give me a squadron of Spitfires!" Now this is, historically, TRUE. I take this to be significantly representative of what the Nazi pilots had driven deep into the psyches.........we can fight the Hurricane but the Spitfire is from HELL!" And I think that is why the battle turned as it did. The "Spit" had a psychological advantage going in and the Nazi did not help his cause by failing to use drop tanks to increase range. The Hurricanes were often able to go after the bombers, with their EIGHT .303s (still inadequate compared to U.S. planes armed with .50 cal machine guns) and leave the nimbler Spits to go after the already lacking gas fighters. They PROTECTED the Hurricanes by keeping their "betters" away and dealing with the Spitfires. The combination, like a boxer with BOTH a left and a right fist, worked well. Would it have worked absent the Spit and the psychological advantage? I suggest it would have been an ever CLOSER run thing, and without the Spit, the Nazis might well have persevered. Remember, Fighter Command was on the ropes for a long time and it has been a traditional point of history that it was an accidental bombing of Berlin that led to Hitler shifting the thrust of the Britain battle AWAY from the bases and the fighters and to focus on London instead. Thus, Fighter Command recovered. Otherwise? The attrition fight would have gone on. Poorly for the Brits. It is more likely the Nazis WOULD have invented drop tanks than that the Hurricane alone could cope with the BF 109s. So no, without the Spitfire, the Hurricane would slowly be worn down. That is, so long as an errant bomber does NOT drop a bomb on Berlin. It is THAT which changes the entire chemistry of the battle. Either way, without the FEAR of the Spitfire, the Nazis KEEP COMING. I suspect that, even IF they shift to London, the Hurricane eventually DOES wear out. And it is that reality that would keep the Nazis coming.

[@mricemantoyou]

Slight correction... I think... Wasn't it an accidental release of German bombs on London, that led to the RAF bombing Berlin, that prompted the change of tactic to the Germans bombing London?

[@rednaughtstudios]

@Just A Thought -In Adolf Galland's book, The First and the Last, he mentions the, "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group." He also mentions he said this just to annoy Goering, due to the lack of understanding that Galland's superiors demonstrated by giving orders the German fighter pilots couldn't execute. Galland says, "I preferred our Me 109 to the Spitfire."

[@TheArgieH]

Peter Townsend in his account of the BoB (he flew Hurricanes) remarks on a phenomenon he called "Spitfire Snobbery", whereby downed Luftwaffe personnel frequently attributed their losing to a Spitfire when it was a Hurricane all along. Spitfires were claimed to be present in areas where they were not. Even Uncle Theo (Osterkamp) was guilty of it. So that supports the psychological impact theory, also folk do tend to see what they expect to see.

[@Foxbat320]

Missing one thing when the fighter contract was up, there was more than just spitfire so maybe one of those , We will never know how good they were never in combat . The hurricane would NOT have been alone .

[@CalibanRising]

Oh almost certainly. I think if we considered every avenue here the video would have been about a week long. There are about 5 or 6 aircraft I can think of which would have filled the Spit's boots.

[@Foxbat320]

@@CalibanRising ok fair enough

[@johncunningham4820]

I tend to agree with you . Also , don't forget , De Haviland may well have still built the " Wooden Wonder " . Actually a capable Twin Engine Fighter . And LETHAL at night .

[@jpc443]

To be honest, the outcome would have be much the same if there were only Hurricanes available. The Spitfire was a pretty thing peddled relentlessly by the propagandists as being the best thing since sliced bread. Much of that propaganda resonates to this day. What is important to remember in all this is that it was propaganda.

[@CalibanRising]

📢 Enjoying my videos? Get involved and help me produce more videos like it. Head over to calibanrising.com/support/ and find out more.

[@thefurrybastard1964]

Here's one for you. What if the RAF somehow had Gloster Meteors by 1940?

[@Ulrich.Bierwisch]

I think, if Britain had the 109 and 110 instead, the battle of Britain would be over much faster.

[@thefurrybastard1964]

@@Ulrich.Bierwisch And Dunkirk may have gone the other way too.

[@strikerorwell9232]

Sweden would have sent you the J-22 in this Time-line and with a Merlin engine it would have kicked ass! The J-22 was the fastest fighter in comparance to the power of its engine but it still would outclimb the Focke Wulf and Mustang.

[@jamesrogers5783]

i think the hurricane could have pulled in a win. a big help for the RAF was the short fuel fraction of the 109s

[@jacobmccandles1767]

I believe what you'd have seen is Mitchell's company building Hurricanes, and wider use of the P-40...and further development of both.

[@kenmazoch8499]

considering the hurricane outnumbered the spitfire about 2-1 in the battle, if the spitfire had not been there, considering the germans' problems with the range of the 109 escorts (the 110 was no match for the hurricane), and the british defense system, the battle would have turned out the same in the end, provided both sides made similar strategy decisions they did in real life.

[@sabrecatsmiladon7380]

The Polish pilots kicked ass in the Hurricanes! I think this was a fairly accurate assessment and quite plausible.

[@stephenblake8073]

One only needs to see what happened in Malta when they only had Hurricanes. The 109's ran rings around them and the Hurricanes' didn't shoot down any 109s. Only when Malta recieved Spitfires' was the balance redressed.

[@CalibanRising]

It's an interesting comparison. I suppose for the BOB you need to take everything into consideration, chain home, version of the BF 109 etc. For Malta, you're right, a faster climbing interceptor really was needed. You could also ask the question, what if the siege of Malta had happened exclusively in 1939/1940? Would the Hurri had been enough then?

[@phifflon]

The problem with this argument is that RAF spec F.5/34 still exists Bristol Type 146, Martin-Baker M.B.2, Vickers Type 279 Venom, Gloster F.5/34 all could have been made

[@CalibanRising]

Yes, perhaps. I explored all these aircraft but decided to leave it out of this video as it would have been twice as long. From what I read, all those designs (especially for specification F5/34) were declined because the Air ministry wanted to pursue RR powered aircraft. But, you're right the Hurricane wouldn't have been a lone in reality.

[@RocketHarry865]

@@CalibanRising I imagine that these alternative aircraft might have been improved upon had the spitfire never existed. Considering the Hawker Hurriance still exists it would be using the Rolls Royce Merlin engines. I think there could be the possibility of Martin Baker making a deal with Rolls Royce so they can make a fighter powered by the Merlin Engine.

[@LeopardIL2]

The Luftwaffe was ill prepared for the task. But it should be stressed that Park's airfields were in absolute chaos the day Goering shifted course towards London. It might had been different...

[@johnh1970]

A very interesting line of thought, follow up am more murky discussion could go into what other tactics or procurement decisions would have ben effected by the missing Spitfire, especially as high altitude performance would have been wanted.

[@johnh1970]

some of the craft that more minor roles in the RAF would have been pushed into specific roles, or there would have just been a bigger mix of craft than the generally assumed only Hurricanes and Spitfires, maybe more employment of Tomahawks, wildcats, whirlwinds, or 'heavy fighters'.

[@das250250]

If memory serves me correctly , I thought the poms had very few planes left in the battle of Britain and by luck managed to survive enough till extra planes could replenish. So had this been true this would mean more hurricanes shot down and perhaps that attrition would have led to an early defeat of the raf.

[@littlefluffybushbaby7256]

I think that's a bit of a myth. Plucky Britain standing alone against the bully. Britain actually built almost as many aircraft as Germany in 1939 and 50% more than Germany in 1940. During the Battle Of Britain the RAF had around 750 fighters available (depending when you count). The Luftwaffe had around 2,550 aircraft (numbers vary). The trouble is, this is comparing apples and oranges as the German total includes their non-fighter aircraft. An Arado floatplane or Ju-52 is not exactly a match for a Spitfire or Hurricane (or even a Defiant or Blenheim for that matter). Whilst the Germans did have more single-engined fighters in total, they were not all available for the battle because they needed to keep reserves for the perimeter of their occupied territories. Generally Britain had more pilots available, and losses were replaced quicker, than by the Germans. The 'few' was actually the Germans in terms of fighter forces, a situation that just got worse for them. The Germans ended up losing nearly twice the number of aircraft that the RAF did, and four times the number of aircrew. Goring may have called it a draw, but the numbers show otherwise. Britain was also very far from standing alone. With help coming from the Empire and Commonwealth, and from the USA. Britain started ramping up production well before the war, Munich giving an extra boost, and was more prepared for war than is commonly depicted. Much of that was under Neville Chamberlain as Churchill didn't become PM until France fell. A few months before the Battle Of Britain. What the Germans needed was not to beat the RAF, but to gain local air superiority in the south east. The invasion area. They failed. Once they turned to bombing London they threw away any chance of success.

[@daevidsmiff4420]

How dare you say that the vickers Supermarine Spitfire had a stupid name...I double that the commentator would ever be cranial enough to design a valuable paper plane let alone build something so revolutionary that it changed aviation construction methods for many decades, also how disrespectful to the memory of all the pilots that gave their lives in defence of this realm I wont be watching any more of this persons productions

[@CalibanRising]

I don't normally engage with comments like this, but it was so asinine I couldn't stop myself. Do you actually know anything about the aircraft you are trying to defend? It was R. J. Mitchell HIMSELF who said that "Spitfire" was a bloody silly name. I was using an in-joke with people that are familiar with the aircraft's history. Before you jump the gun, why don't you read the room and actually learn a little something about the subject matter. Please DON'T watch any of my future videos, you are obviously not a member of the insightful and learned audience I normally get.

[@paulsummerside]

Interesting video. The Myth of the spitfire is one where you have two very similar looking RAF fighters up in the sky one is the spitfire and the other is the Hurricane, which by all accounts was often mistaken for the spitfire by the general public on the ground. The rates of attrition etc are interesting, however I do wonder if it was a hurricane only defensive force & you had the potential to get far more aircraft in the air, that in itself would be more than sufficient to change the balance of the attrition rates right there. As if you had more hurricanes to engage each 109 and each bomber, then the survival rate and kill rate would in fact have climbed quite significantly, as the 109’s would have essentially have had no way of escape from the increased numbers of hurricanes we would have been able to have put into the air at all times. Available Pilots of course again would have been the limiting factors, but if we had increased numbers of planes in the air to hit the incoming enemy quicker, then that in itself would have been enough to improve the survival rate of British pilots straight away. The Spitfire was a fantastic airframe and aircraft, however I do wonder if with the lack of the development of the spitfire it would have left a gap that something else may have filled. For instance, the Mosquito first flew in the November of 1940, It or something like it , such as the Westland Whirlwind which already had been developed, or more likely the Beufighter, in the excellent night fighter mode with radar, may have filled that void, and had a faster development to be in the air far sooner. The Mosquito could possibly today have had the mantle owned by the spitfire today. Or of course the Hurricane itself may have been tweaked to such a degree in this void that it would have shined through. The video deals with a big “what if” And by changing one thing it does have the potential to change many things. None of which we really can be certain of. Either way, this video and other premises like it do give us pause for thought.

[@trooperdgb9722]

Well said!

[@WillyEckaslike]

proper gander is an important part of any war and the spitfire which seems to have been flown by the toffs and beinga more elegant looking plane has been raised up to be used as PG for defeating those National Socialists...if you only knew the real truth about this war and why is started and the deceiving the public at the end with The Hall of Cost you would be shocked

[@outinthesticks1035]

I read a account of a hurricane test plane , upgraded with latest improvement of Merlin engine that improved performance enough that it likely would have met German fighters on equal terms , but was judged to not have enough potential for future development. History proved that right , but it may have held the line till other planes came

[@sarumano884]

I read somewhere that the Battle of Britain statistics were slightly skewed towards Spitfires at the time, because of "one-upmanship" by Luftwaffe pilots who were shot down and survived. Kills were discounted by the RAF because although the German was identified by markings by the pilot shooting it, was flying in a Hurri only area, was witnessed by other Hurri pilots, &c; &c... kill is discounted because German pilot insists he was shot down by a Spitfire... How much truth there is in that, I do not know.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@outinthesticks1035 the Hurricane received the Merlin XX in Aug 1940 and it was still inferior. Had the Merlin XX been allocated to the Spitfire Mk.III, it would have been a 400 mph fighter putting the run on the 109s.

[@cgrscott]

The Hurricanes performed better in a turning fight, at certain altitudes, than a Spitfire - I was told by and older college colleague who's father was an American Pilot in the RAF, in WWII, and then he transferred to the US Air Force and flew P-47 Thunderbolts. He said the wings on the Hurricane had more lift and responsiveness, compared to the Republic P-47, which was very heavy and did not seem to have enough wing, for it's weight, for hard turning.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

that metric (turn radius) is only one of many in combat and is overshadowed by the Hurricane's poor performance in other areas. A Gladiator biplane also turned tightly, but it too was NOT a front line fighter against the LW.

[@cgrscott]

​@@bobsakamanos4469 Forgive me for referring to a theatrical movie for historical reference but, In the 1969 Movie, the Battle fo Britain, the top command would talk about "Lee Malory and his big wing." which was a large squadron of Hurricanes. Lee Malory would get called on the carpet because his fighter group was not getting to the German Heinkels soon enough. The Hurricane was slower than the Spitfire.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@cgrscott most people don't realize that Keith Park also used the "Big Wing", two sqns at a time in the BoB, and more famously three squadrons at a time in Malta. Everyone used it after the BoB. The Hurricane was at the end of its development potential, but the urgent need for numbers of fighters kept it in production unfortunately, much to the disappointment (and death) of many pilots in Africa, Malta, the Balkans and the far east as well as over the channel and Europe.