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/

[@TennesseeHomesteadUSA]

Hurricanes didn't fight the Battle of Britain alone. Duh. Do something factual rather than this speculative waste of time ! I don't have time to waste...

[@CalibanRising]

@@TennesseeHomesteadUSA 😀

[@TennesseeHomesteadUSA]

@@CalibanRising What else ya got ?

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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)

[@bobsakamanos4469]

the sad story is that Hawker could have, in the 4 years prior to the BoB, improved the heavy Hurricane with a better, thinner wing and Meredith radiator scheme. Hawker was happy to take profits instead and then Camm produced the Typhoon "interceptor" again with an excessively thick wing. Every other country (France, Italy, Russia, USA, etc) knew to avoid the thick wing and to bury the radiator for less drag, but Hawker was happy to convert the old biplane into a monoplane with lots of flaws.

[@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

[@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.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@screwdriver222 The Peregrine at the time was at the same state of development as the Merlin. It was the props on the production aircraft that caused problems vs the prototypes. It also had a few other design snags. It couldn't take the Merlins. That would require an entire redesign.

[@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

[@AlanBarker]

@@paulbarnes6124 Radar was a large contributor, but the whole "Dowding System", the world's first integrated air defense system, was the real winner.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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”

[@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.

[@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.

[@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. You're correct about doctrine though. The 1920's doctrine from Trenchard was pure folly and the bloody Vic formation caused many deaths in Britain, Malta and elsewhere right up into 1942.

[@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.

[@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?

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Hawker / Camm realized in 1936 that the Hurricane design was flawed with a very thick wing (Camm had no air racing experience) and lack of Meredith radiator scheme. In the next 4 years Hawker could have made the Hurricane a competetive fighter, but they opted to make profits instead.

[@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.

[@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.

[@shaneintheuk2026]

Ginger Lacey said repeatedly that the Hurricane was a great aircraft to fight 109’s so long as you played to it’s strengths. It could turn tighter than the faster German plane but was slower and slower in a climb. It was able to take a lot more strain and could take much higher g forces without ripping the wings off. One other point was it was incredibly easy to repair, whereas the Spitfire had to be returned to the factory, a Hurricane could be repaired on site. One of the reasons the Spitfire is remembered as an icon is that each upgrade kept the same name. Had the Typhoon and Tempest been called Hurricane mark 10 and 11 I think it would be just as famous.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Ginger Lacey with 1000+ hrs before 1940 was shot down 9 times. Imagine if he'd had been in Spitfires.

[@sabrecatsmiladon7380]

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

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Keep in mind that by the time the Poles were allowed into the fight, Goering had ordered his fighters to stay with the bombers, thus robbing them of their tactical advantages. Even so, the Me110 had the best kill ratio of the battle, the Hurricane had the worst. Quite telling due to the fact that Me110's were knocking down fighters while Hurricanes were generally after slower bombers.

[@jimf671]

I did a RAF Staff Ride on the Battle of Britain. On the question of what was the deciding factor that enabled the RAF to prevail, my answer, after referencing a number of books written by commanders of the time, was that the RAF Suppliers won the Battle of Britain. The spares and replacement aircraft were nearly always there at the right place and the right time. [Your point about the undercarriage is a valid one, often overlooked. Both the Spitfire and the ME109 were dogged by accidents on the ground because of their inferior layout whereas the Hurricane, and later the FW190, had a far more stable wide layout.]

[@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.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The kudos go to the brave young lads who had to go to war in the more obsolete Hurricanes.

[@australianmade2659]

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

[@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.

[@dcwhitworth]

I think it's perfectly possible for the Hurricane to have won alone. In reality, whatever the myths might say, Fighter Command was never seriously under pressure, they had a lot of slack. They never needed to move squadrons down from the north, they never needed to pull pilots from Bomber or Coastal Command to retrain as fighter pilots, the radar and observer chain was never more than slightly disrupted, the number of available fighter pilots actually went up as the battle went on, etc. Only having the Hurricane would certainly have made life harder but I don't think hard enough to make a major dent in the slack Fighter Command had. The odds were always with the British in the battle. A tactical / operational air force was repurposed in a role they were never intended for - a strategic bomber force but equipped with no heavy bombers, bombers that could not defend themselves unescorted and fighters with inadequate range. Against them was a force that had been built and trained for this exact battle for the best part of a decade. Changing the Spitfires into Hurricanes wouldn't change the balance of power nearly enough. Oh and invasion was never going to occur either, but I won't get into that myth here.

[@dcwhitworth]

Please note - I am not saying the battle was unimportant or that the valour of those involved is in any way diminished by the fact it was less of a close run thing than myth makes it. It was a crucial battle in many ways.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

It's true that the invasion wasn't going to happen at that point in the war. The german goal was always to push back the Soviets and take those resources. However, without the Spitfire, even more young lads would have died flying Hurricanes. That's the real issue here.

[@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

[@garethdavies2538]

@@jonsouth1545 During the peak months when invasion seemed a distinct possibility the Navy kept 36 destroyers, in four flotillas of nine, in readiness. As for the Luftwaffe, the Germans needed to land at dawn to disembark in daylight. That meant a night-time crossing, so the Luftwaffe would be severely handicapped.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@stuartparkin2914]

The Spitfire's cone of fire was far more dispersed than the Hurricane's, which wasnt an issue with a small Bf109E, when shooting at large bombers delivery of as much lead as possible was paramount. without the Spitfire, developement of the Westland Whirlwind would have been top priority, The Pergrine Engine with its troublesome de Havilland propellor assembly would have been ditched, in favour of a pair of Merlins and Rotol Prop assembly. travelling at close to 400mph and 4 20mm cannon it would have blown the Bf109E out of the skies.

[@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!

[@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.

[@sturdevantphotography5726]

Very thought-provoking video. When you consider how labor-intensive the Spitfire was to manufacture, those resources producing @30% more Hurricanes, PLUS the ease of repairing them compared to the all-metal skin Spits, it's compelling in what was basically a war of attrition. The wider undercarriage and forgiving nature of it's flight characteristics made it easier to land, disperse to alternate strips and train pilots to fly. What also would have helped would have been to ditch the ridiculous rifle-caliber ammo, they ultimately put 4x20mm cannons in Hurricanes, which would have been devastating on bomber formations, and if they had allowed the more-experienced and revenge-bent Polish pilots into the fight without dicking around so much

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@Frserthegreenengine]

@@bobsakamanos4469 "Being quickly refuelled and rearmed only works if the fighter makes it home" which many of them did

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@Frserthegreenengine LOL, jingoism is no substitute for facts. Even Ginger Lacey with 1000hrs stick time before the battle was shot down 9 times. Young replacement pilots didn't stand much of a chance in the Hurricane, which was a fire trap and obsolete.

[@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

[@SGusky]

I think you hit the nail on the head primarily at the end when you mentioned foreign aircraft support You would have seen more of the P 40Bs put in the service I know there were some over there that the British did not like plus maybe you would have seen more work on the Wesland whirlwind and planes like that in service sooner Great topic thank you for posting

[@CalibanRising]

I think the Whirlwind deserves its own video as an alternative timeline.

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

The problem with the P40Bs was that it's crap supercharge made it crap at anything other than low altitude. This wasn't a huge problem in the Pacific, but in the ETO a big chunk of the action was at medium to high altitude.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

P40s were not going to compete with the LW over 15000'. The Allison engine performance deteriorated quickly above that.

[@harryjarvis3143]

we needed both of them Spitfire and the hurricane. they did the role magnificently together.

[@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.

[@everTriumph]

The Spitfire had the latest upgrades to the Merlin pushed into service. The less sexy Hurricane had to make do with less potent versions of the Merlin. This impacted speed, climb rate and operating ceiling.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

No, it was the other way around. 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.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Why make up fanciful post truth era ‘alternative facts’? You could have spent a few minutes to check if your hunch had any foundation in fact. The two speed superchargers gave the obsolescent Hurricanes a significant performance boost and denying the Spitfire a relatively minor engine bay alteration for the very slightly longer engine contributed to the perseverance with the altitude band compromised Spitfire Mk V. The especially high altitude tuned single supercharger speed Mk V turned out to be the most produced Spitfire version and its second class at lower altitudes over boosted engine was exposed by the introduction of the FW190A with a more versatile two speed supercharger.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@user-fr4bz2qf4p]

I remember reading a book years ago [unfortunately can't recall name] which said that one issue was the use of 303 machine guns rather than .50 heavier calibre. The lighter ammo could hit German aircraft and not inflict much damage so the planes would fly on. Apparently it was because they were American machine guns so they used the British lower calibre 303. The book also talked about how there were squadrons based in the north of England and Scotland twiddling their thumbs at the height of the battle. I always preferred my Airfix Hurricane!!

[@bobthebomb1596]

Also interesting to speculate what might have happened to the Whirlwind had the Spitfire never been designed. A Merlin engined version would have been interesting to say the least.

[@EdMcF1]

The Whirlwind Project say (I think) that the Merlin was too big for the Whirlwind. If the Peregrine engines had been properly developed, it might have been another story.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Merlins were too big for the Whirlwind. Nothing wrong with the Peregrines, it was the propeller (different than the prototype) and other issues that sidelined it in the BoB.

[@bobthebomb1596]

@@bobsakamanos4469 Yeah, my comment has not dated well.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?

[@UmaticSota]

Reginald Mitchell died in June 1937, not 1933.

[@CalibanRising]

This is obviously a counterfactual video

[@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.

[@martinhambleton5076]

The Spitfire in name is beautiful in itself, and she was the glamour girl that every young, hotblooded male wants hanging on his arm. The Hurricane is the loving mother that's absolutely dependable and a real silent hero who everyone in the household utterly depends on in every crisis. I just love them both.

[@bessiebraveheart]

The hurricanes would have done the job.

[@screwdriver222]

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

[@robsmithracing]

The Hurricane was easier to repair quickly due to the airframe being made of wood and body with Irish linen. Whereas the Spitfire was metal which meant if it was damaged it took longer to get back in the air. I think they were both as good in their own right.

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

Not really. The Hurricane used a form of construction many RAF riggers were familiar with, going back to WW1. Metal monocoque was a much newer method of construction and the RAF had less riggers familiar with it. To alleviate this problem a civilian repair organisation was created with the RAF bringing in skilled tradesmen to repair battle damaged aircraft of all construction types and they worked alongside RAF riggers and airframe techs who picked up the latest skills. Once familiar with the metal bashing, the Spitfire did not take appreciably longer to repair than a Hurricane.

[@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.

[@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.

[@johnfranks9271]

One of my collage lecturers was a hurricane pilot he loved his plane and would recount its strengths but it was the spitfires harried and that held off the BF 109’s so that the hurricanes could do their work of knocking down the bombers.

[@geordiedog1749]

Hurries would have done the job. The fact of having a single type to re supply, train in, would have significantly helped the logistics. Remember, amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics.

[@robertkalinic335]

This forever repeated thing about amateurs and logistics is based on american point of view in ww2 and you shouldnt use it as a blanket statement since there were always countries or groups that had to fight conflicts without endless pool of resources. Also i believe its supposed to be tactics, not strategy. Either way, it's dumb.

[@geordiedog1749]

@@robertkalinic335 Hence the one about the war winning vehicles being the Duck, the Deuce and a half and the Dakota is also dumb? The point of the statement is actually to emphasise the the importance of logistics as it’s often forgotten or neglected by the more sexy role of tactics or strategy and not to take it as 100% factual. No-one takes it as 100% of the case as doing so really would be dumb or though perhaps not as dumb as feeling the need to suggest that people do actually generally interpret it in that way.

[@robertkalinic335]

@@geordiedog1749 War winning vehicles...sure only if Germans had those they would surely win. Tactics arent romanticized so much anymore as they used to be, instead we have problem with people overemphasizing logistics as some holy grail for winning wars and constantly repeating quote of american general. Also, literally you in your comment: amateurs study strategy.

[@geordiedog1749]

@@robertkalinic335 I stared another reply but I was just repeating the first reply again so if you didn’t get it first time you’re not going to a second time I reckon. Also, maybe look up the ‘false dichotomy logical fallacy’.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Study results. Hurricanes were obsolete. Pilots couldn't be trained fast enough. Had the germans continued their attacks on the command and control centers, there would have been no radar to get the Hurricanes up in time. Not that it mattered - without top cover the Hurricanes were not capable. Look up the performance specs.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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 .

[@snipedude4953]

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

[@STONE-wh2en]

In the absence of the Spitfire, the Hurricane would have received much greater technological improvements and updates than they actually did, making it an even more capable fighter. Good job in this video.

[@jimdavis8391]

Answer, not a lot in practical terms, however.....the Spitfire was a fantastic psychological weapon. Sending He111s home with savaged aircrew missing body parts after being chewed by Hurricanes was also a fantastic present for the Nazis. Imagine being a 20 yr old German bomber crewmember being told, 'Gunther was shot down over England today', and thinking, 'mmm, bad but he's probably bailed out and a POW getting treated fine'. Then imagine Heinz returning from a bombing raid missing three fingers and a kneecap and his Dornier looking like its been flayed with a chain. It's your turn tomorrow morning, have a nice sleep.

[@marquee6]

I have a soft spot for the Hurricane. I also like the Wilcat and the P-40. They all did far more that was expected if them. Maybe not as sexy as a Spitfire, but they were there and did a fantastic job.

[@WillyEckaslike]

sadly all those men died for what?.take a look at your country now and then tell me well at least were not speaking German

[@gregorydodwell3895]

One of the *few* Battle of Britain accounts that actually challenges those old stereotypes and lazy second-hand assumptions. Daring to challenge the “Spitfire Myth” in a refreshing way - with facts, figures and context. So rare, so welcome 👍🏼

[@CalibanRising]

Thanks Gregory!

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The "Spitfire Myth"? The only myth perpetuated was that the Hurricane was useful after the BoB. H.S. continued to build the bloody Hurricanes until 1944. That's called war profiteering.

[@muzza881]

I think two things may have possibly happened if the Spitfire had never existed. Firstly, efforts would have been made to improve the Hurricane. The Mk II could have entered service earlier, with slightly improved performance and maybe 20 mm cannon. These would have been great for knocking down bombers. Secondly, a development of the Gloster F.5/34 could have entered service, and with the originally intended Perseus engine. The F.5/34 made 316 mph on the 840 hp of the Mercury, so we might have expected over 350 mph with the 1200 hp Perseus 100, which ran in 1939. From Wikipedia: "Compared to its contemporaries, test pilots found the F.5/34 prototypes had a shorter take off run, offered better initial climb and were more responsive and manoeuvrable due to ailerons that did not become excessively heavy at high speed. Handling was considered very good and the all-round cockpit visibility was far better than the other designs."

[@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'.

[@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?

[@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?

[@sigeberhtmercia767]

One advantage the Spitfire had over the Hurricane in terms of maneuverability was the Spitfire's forewarning of a stall. This means the Spitfire could more easily shake a bf109 off its tail in a dogfight. A test was conducted by the RAF between the bf109 and the Hurricane. The conclusion reached was that the Hurricane was more maneuverable than the bf109E and could maintain its turn when it was on the bf109's tail. However, when it was tested in reverse the Hurricane had difficulty shaking the bf109 because of the danger of a stall.

[@CalibanRising]

Great feedback. I spoke about that stall 'warning' in another recent video too.

[@KevTheImpaler]

Assuming you could have two Hurricanes for each Spitfire, because they were quicker to build and easier to repair, maybe the shortfall in performance could be negated by having more on patrol at a higher altitude. Then they could dive on those 109s out of the sun.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@theodorepotts5361]

Don’t forget that the Hurricane was more heavily armed than the Spitfire. The Hurricane entered the battle of France with the 2a variant with 8 machine-guns, but fought the Battle of Britain with the 2b model [ with 12 guns] and later the 2c model [ with 4 20mm cannon] whereas the Spitfire had only 8 guns or 4 guns plus 2 cannon. The Me109 had only 2 guns plus 2 cannon . So I think that the Hurricane only force would have done better than you think.

[@CalibanRising]

I'm fairly certain the majority of Spitfires and Hurricanes had the same armament for the entirety of the Battle. There were trials, both combat, and development, of other armaments such as cannon-armed Spits and the Hurricane Mk IIb, but these models weren't rolled out to all squadrons to my knowledge. As the war progressed, it's true the Hurricane got heavier and heavier armament.

[@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...

[@alexlupsor5484]

The threat of the spit not completed as Mitchell had conceived doesn’t mean that the company would have completed it as Mitch would have. The most important part was its wing and this was not kept from the desks team. There also was a two engined fighter called the Whirlwind which had four 20mm canons in the nose was in fact flying in numbers up North of London. There is never anything not important beyond your meaning in this video. Who knows, maybe the model typhoon’s might have had a burner place under hawker to be placed in service earlier than it came. They were flying an experimental model al ready.

[@martinhambleton5076]

A Hurricane can out turn both ME109 and Spitfire. The Chain Home was a massive advantage. Hugh Dowdings leadership and far sightedness was also a great advantage.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The Hurricane was inferior in speed, acceleration, climb, dive and roll rate. It couldn't even out dive or out run an Me110.

[@martinhambleton5076]

@@bobsakamanos4469 I never knew that the Hurricane couldn't out dive an ME 110. There again, the factor of weight and two motors will make it sink faster than the Hurricane. However as a fighting aircraft, if I had to choose one, I would take the Hurricane. 303 squadron used them to devastating effect, and were the highest scoring squadron throughout the Battle of Britain.

[@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

[@aliacoms6014]

It"s not just the machine it"s the man in it and the men behind it ,other air forces fielded aircraft far inferior to the Hurricane but still exacted a toll on the Luftwaffe, our superior system made up for any shortcomings in aircraft performance.

[@roycspary8923]

one of the great hurricane advantages was it was easier for an average pilot. the biggest problem was tactics. 303 Polish squadron showed what could be done and how. they never flew vic3 the standard RAF tactic, which often resulted in a lone fighter always fatal against multiple opponents as the pilot is unable to adequately scan both sides of his aircraft, not a problem working in pairs. the German finger 4 rarely resulted in a lone aircraft, usually 2 pairs. also the poles aimed at the pilot not the aircraft. it only takes 1 round in a pilot to make him combat ineffective, vs hundreds of rounds into the aircraft. 303 had double the kills and half the losses. also a high g turn could break a spit a damaged hurricane did an emergency dive and at max dive speed the wheels came down due to battle damage. it landed with twisted wings and was repaired

[@bradleydavies4781]

It was a team effort Hurricane and Spitfire were needed as radar , as the whole cammand and control system put in place by Dowding .

[@codebasher1]

The difference between Hurricanes and Spitfires when put against BF109's and FW-190's is extremely significant. You can't dismiss the marked inferiority of the Hurricane against these types. This is truly highlighted when the FW-190 was introduced. These "Butcher Birds" had Spitfire Mk 5's on the ropes and the British knew it, imagine their impact if there were only the poor hurricanes to take them on. It was only with the rushed introduction of the Spitfire Mk9 that the FW-190 had a counter. I believe neither plane could have won the Battle of Britain on their own, yet as a "tag team" they were perfect. Hurricanes could savage the bombers with Spits keeping the single engine escorts off their back.

[@CalibanRising]

I agree, the Hurricane would have struggled in 1941 and 1942 without a better fighter to support and supersede it.

[@CentralPALocos]

How many Curtiss Mohawks did the RAF have on hand during the BoB? Perhaps those could have assisted our solo Hurricane timeline

[@lutherdorn2206]

Spot on. Great video.

[@CalibanRising]

Appreciate that Luther. It's always one of those good pub debates to have!