At time of Battle of Britain Spitfire had several problems like engines cutoffs and some others. Their lower number number doesn't make them more victors than Hurricane. Yes it was a bit better then Hurricane and much better latter but in BB if there is a plane that deserves the tittle is IMO Hurricane. Since the V there have been versions with 20mm Hispano Gun that had several problems due to wing being very thin and changes in amno supply it bring.
The Spits armament was a continual problem. There were two reasons for this. The first was that darned elliptical wing which was aerodynamically superb but tricky and the second was that the Air Ministry changed the spec from 4 Brownings to 8 half-way through the plane's initial development. The one superiority the Hurricane had (apart from it's ease of production and maintenance) was more closely grouped guns and therefore a better pattern of fire. The eventual fitting of cannon was an engineering epic.
At the cost of not sounding patriotic the best fighter of the war was definitely the Mustang. It's range was critical and unlike the utterly useless fighter sweeps "rhubarbs" of Northern France that the RAF undertook mid-war (it was far from unheard of for a pilot to do an entire tour and not see an enemy aircraft) the Luftwaffe could not ignore the fleets of B-17s and B-24s darkening their skies.
The Spit was a magnificent defensive fighter but when time came to go on the offensive it was of very limited utility.
Anyhoo, very interesting Brian.
PS. Colonial pilots. It's because of the importance of deflection shooting. Similarly the top US aces were usually farm-boys.
Fascinating, Brian, not the least thanks to your writing style. You should write actual books:-)
As you may know, Brian, the allies never really solved the problem of a truly long-range single-engine fighter until the P-51 Mustang, with its drop-tanks, came along. (The Mosquito was as good as a fighter but not quite as easy to use in that role). When Goering saw fighters escorting bombers all the way to Berlin and back, he realised the Reich was comprehensively fucked.
And the Mustang had a RRoyce engine, of course.
It's always the way when you post longer pieces like this that as soon as you do, further thoughts occur to you. And here are two more such:
1. It's obvious, when you think about it, why the Spitfire was so much more loved than your usual weapon, and Dowding loved less. it's a question of visibility. The Spitfire's shape made it a familiar sight all over the South of England. Can you say that kind of thing about any other "weapon"?
2. Perhaps a further reason why the Spitfire is still so loved is precisely that it did not participate effectively in the bombing of Germany towards the end of the war. McKinstry notes the Spitfire's defensive appeal to the public at the time. But its offensive uselessness, other than for attacking real armies and real supplies close to the rest of the fighting, also surely helped, especially in terms of continuing public esteem in later decades.
JP,
The P-51's engine was an Allison copy of the Merlin. Sorry to be picky. The key point in it's development (recall it was initially ordered as an alternative to the P-40 but Curtiss were full-up) was though when RR engineers went to the States and showed the Americans the subtle art of high-altitude supercharging. Before that it had been seen as a low-altitude fighter bomber. Indeed one of it's initial iterations was actually designated with an "A" for attack - the A-36 Apache.
I do though wonder what would have happened if the RAF had kept on with the Westland Whirlwind. Or if Gee had had higher priority than H2S or if we had cancelled the big bombers in favour of Mozzies or we hadn't decided to attack Berlin and kept up the attacks on the Ruhr or so many things.
Nick M. wrote:
'The Spits armament was a continual problem. There were two reasons for this. . . .'
The third reason was that the armament, as originally selected and as stuck-with even in the face of lots of real-world experience, just wasn't enough for the job.
By the time WW2 rolled around, the average all-metal airplane could absorb a very large number of 30-caliber ball projectiles and still hold together quite nicely. And the 30-caliber tube was simply too small to develop any sort of projectile with a really powerful delivery.
Even after having seen the Germans at work with some really effective air-to-air weapons, the Brits stuck to the scattergun approach for far too long. They simply didn't realize that air combat had developed to the point where the opportunity to deliver ordnance onto the enemy was measured in milliseconds and what counted in that tiny window was not just hitting him, but hitting him hard enough to put him down.
The Germans learned this lesson as early as the final phases of the Spanish Civil War in 1937, and sedulously upgraded the armament of their front-line fighters, mounting cannons as large as 30mm and ever-heavier machine guns. They had learned that it's better to put one 20mm fused cannon shell or 13mm AP/I bullet into an opponent's airplane than a hundred 30-caliber ball projectiles.
The Americans paid close attention, and of course came to the party with the best of everything - really effective air-to-air weapons with vast ammunition capacity. I think I'm right in saying that no first-line single-seat US fighter in ETO ever mounted anything smaller than a 50-caliber - and usually, lots of them - and that the later models of Mustangs carried more rounds for their 50-calibers than the Spitfire could carry for its 30s. All the way to Berlin and back. The Mustang was designed from the outset to mount weapons up to and including 20mm cannon, although I don't believe these were ever fielded in great numbers - the 50 caliber was enough, as it is enough for most things.
llater,
llamas
Thanks for this. As I sit here I tap my ciggie ash gently into the brass ashtray awarded my grandfather when he left the Spitfire (and Seafire) development programme to go back to operational service.
Nice to remember what he was doing.
It's already been pointed out, but the Mustang was a low-to-medium altitude ground-attack aircraft, until hot-rodded with a British engine. It manages to be attractive, but in a way which combines straight lines with compound curves. Did the Spitfire have a straight line anywhere on its' planform? Elegant forever, I say.
Facinating review Brian. Thanks for that. As a kid I grew up with tales of the Battle of Britain and, like most, I loved the Spitfire the best. Although to be fair, my main fascination was with the Meteors, Vampires and later the Hunters which I often saw flying around Farnborough.
I will take issue with a point you raised in your comment above, about the love of the Spit being partly because of it's heroic defensive nature. My Airfix model of the Lancaster was one of my proudest posessions as a lad, and talking to my peers, and their, (and my), parents who lived through and fought in the war, I can recall absolutely no reticence on anyone's part on the need to bomb Germany into rubble.
It is my sense that the major controversy at the time was over the strategic usefulness of mass bombing raids, and that the ethical considerations played almost no part in the argument until after the war.
Even today, when the Lancaster flies over Farnborough for the air show, it is as great an attraction as it's Hurricane and Spitfire escort. I was playing in a golf day when the flight flew over, and the Lanc was as greatly appreciated by all of us as the Spit. (Even though it is barely the size of the F15 which buzzed us later.)
One other point on the Spit's undoubted beauty. Of course it is beautiful and, reportedly, beautiful to fly, but I take a perverse pleasure in the really ugly fighting machines. I loved the F4 Phantom and the A10, and don't get me started on the BUFF!
Kevin B
I agree that the war generation had no worries about bombing Germany. I was referring to how people feel about the Spitfire now.
Indeed, I believe that WW2 was that rather unusual thing, a punitive war. Just accepting their surrender was tried in 1918, but that didn't work. So, this time, utterly crush the bastards, to the point where they can have no possible doubts about having lost. No secret was made about this. It's all in the speeches and the newsreels.
I too had an Airfix Lancaster. Very fine. Next, I'd like to read a book about that airplane, and once again, I will be particularly interested in the early chapters. I know what it did, approximately speaking. I want to know, in detail, what the thinking was when they decided to build it, and who exactly was doing that thinking. I don't even know who designed the Lancaster. (I know who designed the Wellington. Michael Redgrave. He says so in The Dam Busters.)
One of the arguments for building fighters rather than bombers, which McKinstry notes, was that it was cheaper when a fighter got shot down.
I loved the F4 Phantom and the A10, and don't get me started on the BUFF!
I don't think the F4 or B52 are by any means bad looking aircraft, but only a mother could love the A10. Still, looks aren't everything, Wayne Rooney is employed to score goals, but he'll never make much money from endorsements.
I don't even know who designed the Lancaster.
That's easy, it was Roy Chadwick, the great Avro designer. He is meant to have doodled the first drawings on his copy of the Manchester Evening News. Mind you, back in the day it was a broadsheet, so there was a bit more room.
The third reason was that the armament, as originally selected and as stuck-with even in the face of lots of real-world experience, just wasn't enough for the job.
I'd have to disagree there. When the first Hurricane and Spitfire flew in 1935 and 1936, their eight gun armament was world beating. Most nations were still building fighters with two or at most four guns. Of course things were moving fast, but even by 1941 the Hurricane could take four 20mm, and the Spitfire two 20mm and four machine guns, and later four 20mm.
The Americans paid close attention, and of course came to the party with the best of everything - really effective air-to-air weapons with vast ammunition capacity
One thing that has always struck me is the way the Americans stuck with their 50 calibre Brownings. This was looking a bit old fashioned by mid war, and by 1944 everybody else was using cannon, but not the Americans. This looked even sillier by the Korean War, when Sabres were still only packing six 50 cals, against MiG15s with 23mm and 37 mm Nudelman-Richters. One hit from one of those beasts would blow a fighter out of the sky.
You also have to read
"Sigh for a Merlin: Testing the Spitfire" by Alex Henshaw.
This gives a first hand perspective on much of the war years and is a ripping good read.
John K. wrote:
'When the first Hurricane and Spitfire flew in 1935 and 1936, their eight gun armament was world beating. Most nations were still building fighters with two or at most four guns. Of course things were moving fast, but even by 1941 the Hurricane could take four 20mm, and the Spitfire two 20mm and four machine guns, and later four 20mm.'
All true. But what was 'world-beating' in '35 and '36 was well-behind-the-curve in 1939 and 1940. The Germans learned these lessons in Spain. the British did not. Virtually all of the British fighters that enaged in the Battle of Britain mounted 8 .303 Browning machine guns firing ball, tracer and AP. Many of the German fighters were packing 13 mm machine guns and 20mm Oerlikon cannons. Only terrible strategy and other technical shortcomings kept it from being a turkey shoot - for the Germans.
By the time that good cannon and better MGs were available in British fighters in large numbers - as you say, in 1941 - the Battle of Britain was over and little- more aerial combat of this type took place anyway. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could not penetrate deep into German airspace, Germans fighters seldom came to British airspace, and the Germans were occupied elsehwere anyway.
As the excellent article linked by J.M. Heinrichs describes, the Americans brought their 50 calibers to the party because they were good enough for the war they were fighting in ETO - long-range bomber defence over enemy territory, with the prime targets being enemy fighters. 6x 50 calibers and a bottomless well of shells for them were usually more-than-adequate for this application.
I quite agree that the US stuck to the 50 caliber for far-longer than they should have after WW2 - but that wasn't what we were talking about. In a sense, their adherence to the 50 caliber in the late 40s as the world passed it by is not really that different from the British adherence to many small-caliber machine guns in the late 30s as the world passed them by.
llater,
llamas
Llamas:
I still think you're being rather hard on the British here. We managed to get enough modern eight gun fighters into service by 1940 to win the Battle of Britain. Experience did show that rifle calibre machine guns were too underpowered for modern air warfare, but within a year cannon armed Hurricanes and Spitfires were flying. Not at all bad given that after years in Iraq and Afghanistan our troops are only now getting the armoured vehicles they need, and still don't have enough helicopters.
One area where Britain was perhaps lacking in the war was in bomber armament, where until the end Lancasters and Halifaxes were still only armed with .303 machine guns. I expect this hard more to do with difficulties in fitting anything bigger into the gun turrets rather than any belief that the .303 was still up to the job by 1944/5.
The P-51's engine was an Allison copy of the Merlin. Sorry to be picky
Most of the US built Merlins were made by Packard I believe. Quite a few RAF kites ended up using British designed but US built engines in the late war period.
"The P-51's engine was an Allison copy of the Merlin. Sorry to be picky"
- and wrong. As our host notes, US-built Merlins were built by the Packard Motor Car company. (Packard) Merlins were used as a replacement for the fine, but unsuitable, Allison engine.
It was also not a 'copy', but a fully-licensed parallel production of the Merlin, made with the full & complete cooperation and integration of Rolls Royce. And this cooperation began long before the US entered WW2 - Rolls Royce simply could not keep up with demand, since every RR Merlin was more-or-less hand-fitted.
Packard vastly-improved the engine, turning it from a tool-room special to a mass-production piece, with tighter tolerances, far-better production control, longer life, higher reliability and orders-of-magnitude increases in production.
llater,
llamas
I don't think I'm being too hard on the Brits. The hideboundness in these matters is self-evident, and all-the-more illustrated when something truly ground-breaking like the Spitfire manages to beat the system.
A related story will illustrate.
In 1932, a certain British aircraft designer was working on the design of a rather-advanced small passenger airplane, intended for feeder-airline and air-taxi work. He wanted very much to install a retractable undercarriage. He had seen and heard of the Lockheed Orion, so he knew that this un-dreamed-of wonder could actually be done.
Because his Board of Directors were of a cautious and conservative bent, it was arranged for him to consult with one of the leading British designers of the day - one of the two men, in fact, who would later design the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Wild horses, as our young hero would later note, would not drag from him which of the two it was.
The Great Man told him to put the idea out of his mind. The thing was useless and would never work. He (the Great Man) could not imagine what Lockheed thought it was playing at - but, of course, you never knew what those Americans would do. But He was certainly not going to waste any of his time on it, and he counselled our young hero not to do so either.
This may explain why US fighter aircraft, at the outbreak of the war (for all their other shortcomings) almost-universally employed really good, stout and hydraulically-powered retractable undercarriages. By contrast, bith the Spitfire and the Hurricane were belaboured (in their early marks, at least) with a truly crappy retractable undercarriage - too flimsy, unreliable and too narrow. The Spitfire, in addition, was provided with the special added joy that the undercarriage had to be pumped up by the pilot - by hand. This particular design triumph thus ensured that a pilot, in a combat area, was forced to take one hand off the controls and pump a large lever located below the seat, right after take-off, when he was at his most vulnerable to enemy attack. The difficulties of controlling a fully-loaded, high-performance aircraft, one-handed, during the highly-unstable take-off phase, while vigourously pumping a handle located under the seat, were more-than-a match for many Spitfire pilots even without the added risks of combat, and they stalled their aircraft into the ground while performing this gymnastic routine.
That's the kind of hide-bound I mean. That's what left Spitfire and Hurricane pilots with rifle-caliber machine guns to face German fighters armed with heavy machine guns and cannon.
llater,
llamas
By contrast, bith the Spitfire and the Hurricane were belaboured (in their early marks, at least) with a truly crappy retractable undercarriage - too flimsy, unreliable and too narrow
True for Spitfire, whose gear opened towards the centre line (and why the Seafire was a nightmare), not true for Hurricane which always had robust wide track landing gear that opened outwards.
The Spits armament was a continual problem
Not really continually, just initially. The early .303 choice was a mistake but fortunately the Battle of Britain era Bf109-E was poorly armoured, unlike the later versions of Messerschmitt's master work.
The early cannon armed Spit IIb was a failure (and quickly seen as such by the RAF) because the weapons were not mounted well and became inaccurate and prone to jam under high-G. By the time the Spit V came along the 20mm cannon worked just fine and they had excellent ballistics (the Spit V was the next major mark post Battle of Britain and RAF mainstay until the Spit IX came into service in 1942 to counter the clearly superior Fw-190A).
llamas said more or less what I believe about the .50 MG situation.
In WW2 the US did not attempt to have the best weapon or equipment in every single situation or battle. They ran their war planning to produce immense amounts of "good enough".
After the war the US cut defense budgets to extremely low levels. I suspect there was simply no money to switch from the .50 MG to a suitable cannon.
When the Korean War started the US paid a heavy price on the ground and in the air for those low defense budgets. The F-86 was not ready and the MIG-15 was.
Llamas:
I still think you are being harsh on the British here. Whatever the views on retractable undercarriages may have been in 1932, by 1940 we had two of the best fighters in the world, with an armament which was siufficient to do the job in hand. If you want a fighter with a weak undercarriage you should look at the Bf109, which was notorious in that regard.
Britain made many procurement mistakes before and during the war, but should take credit for having the Spitfire and Hurricane available in numbers in 1940. Certainly, if we had had to rely on the fighters the US Army Air Corps was using in 1940, we would have lost. USAAF fighters as a whole were pretty disappointing until the RAF suggested putting a Merlin in the P51, which made for a very special relationship indeed.
There is a seemingly endless wealth of stuff to learn about those times.
A couple of interesting snippets about the Spitfire:
As the Merlin in original configuration was naturally aspirated, flying inverted was a major hazard. Interestingly, the problem was solved by a woman (whose name I am afraid I cannot remember) working on the aircraft.
The Rolls Royce built Merlins were works of art; at the expense of easy maintenance. The best built of them would always outperform a standard Packard built engine: they were essentially "blue-printed" racing engines. However, with the Packard engine, assembly and maintenance was almost "shake and bake"; in keeping with US industrial processes.
On that note, I remember reading about Ford taking on the production of the Liberator bomber in WW2. First they built an entire town to house; firstly the workers building the factory, then the factory hands themselves. They took one look at the procedures at Consolidated, declared them mediaeval and built dozens of machines that would simultaneously, cut, mould and punch the countersunk rivet holes in skin panels.
Talking of dispersed production, I understand that the Lancaster was designed from the beginning to be assembled from modules that could be transported by rail and that would fit the smallest loading gauge found in the various rail companies then extant; any clarification?