Battle of Britain Research Paper Help

[AHancock51]

Hello fellow Wixers!

I am in a "WWII in Europe" course this semester for college and I am working on my final paper already. I have elected to write a paper comparing and contrasting the Spitfire and the Hurricane's effectiveness in the Battle of Britain. I have always heard the quote "The Spitfire got all the glory, but the Hurricane did all the work," and I want to question this theory and research more into it. I am basically looking for any good book and scholarly journal suggestions from you all that may be able to provide me with some more insight into the Spit vs. the Hurri at the BoB. Thank you all very much for reading this and I hope there are some good resources out there!

[The Inspector]

I know the HURIs were pretty much tasked with getting the bombers and the SPITs were sent after the fighters due to manuuverability and armament loads, HURIs more guns, SPITs more maneuverable

[fritzthefox]

Len Deighton's book, "The Battle of Britain," is an excellent overview of the battle and the machines that fought it. The numbers tend to speak for themselves, though, regardless of the source. Hurricanes vastly outnumbered Spitfires in squadron service, since they were easier to produce and repair, and were responsible for more air to air kills overall. I doubt their kill-loss ratio was as good as the Spit, though, and that is a telling point: the RAF were never short of planes, but they had real problems filling them with pilots. If the Spit had not served, they would likely have suffered much higher losses among fliers, which they could ill afford. I doubt it would have altered the outcome of the battle, which was almost preordained...but it might have been much bloodier.

[Dave Hadfield]

It might be interesting to get an evaluation by pilots who are flying them now.

At Vintage Wings of Canada, pilot Rob Erdos, flies both, plus has flown Ed Russell's Me 109E. He is also more erudite than most, being the Chief Test Pilot of the National Research Council. (His callsign is "Spock", and I can attest from his P-40 checkout that it's accurate.)

I'm sure he'd be glad to talk to you about their qualities, from direct experience, and from the perspective of a pilot who has flown a very wide variety of aircraft, in an evaluation role.

Dave

[JDK]

Be very careful, there's a lot of rubbish and generalisations out there on the matter.

Tactical decisions, such as the Inspector's: Hurricanes - bombers, Spitfires - fighters, rarely actually happened in practice - the Battle was a lot more desperate than that tactical decision implies was possible.

One fact worth hanging onto - Hurricanes shot down more enemy aircraft than all the other British defences combined.

The quote from Francis Mason is "The Royal Air Force was glad to get the Spitfire ... it HAD to have the Hurricane." [Francis K Mason, The Hawker Hurricane, Ashton.]

Scholarly works - Deighton's book debunks many of the myths, although is quite old. Avoid the 'Biography of' books out that the moment - too partisan to the aircraft. Avoid the Hurricane book by Gallico, or and Squadron Signal titles.

The debate - much online - of the Royal Navy being decisive resulted in a good deal of discussion a couple of years ago.

A couple of books I mention here are worth getting hold of:

The Battle of Britain on Screen. 'The Few' in British Film and Television Drama. S P Mackenzie. Edinburgh University Press. 2007. 9780748623907. Seven 'essays' one on the film.

The Burning Blue. A New History of the Battle of Britain. Ed Paul Addison & Jeremy A Craig. Pimlico. 0712664750. 2000. Five parts, one on film & media, one essay in that on the film.

http://vintageaeroplanewriter.blogspot. ... books.html

As to the technical aspects of the Hurricane vs Spitfire, we (MMP) published a Hurricane book (PM me re-this - http://mmpbooks.biz/mmp/books.php?book_id=78 ) and if you can get it, Melvyn Hiscock's book on the Hurricane from Crowood is very detailed and covers how it was made and worked better than any other. Have a look (online) at the USAF and RAF's strategic papers from their institutes. Anything they have to say will be well worthwhile. Be very cautious on any other US publications on the matter; the Not Invented Here syndrome often sadly results in odd conclusions and fundamental facts missed out. Use UK or Commonwealth direct sources. (Before any Americans bristle about that statement, the same applies in reverse. Interesting reading people's views on other's battles, but often simplistic and error ridden as well as the occasional external insight.)

The Stephen Bungay works on the Battle are, next to the older and thus lacking more recent knowledge book by Deighton, the best on the topic I'm aware of.

There are Spitfire books out there, I'm told.

Dave's point is a good one, but the VWoC Hurricane and Spitfire are both later marks than the Battle's Mk.I and II Spitfire and Mk.I Hurricane. I'm sure Rob's views would be good, but don't miss the contemporary point. You would probably get good insight from those flying the Mk.I Spitfires and Hurricane (and Sea Hurricane) at the BBMF, ARC, Vachers and Old Warden, but in all cases,no one is operating either type at the altitude, speed or self-preservation vs kill manoeuvring of a Battle of Britain type.

The first contrails people had seen were over London; a factor of the 'new' battlefield - warbirds don't contrail anymore.

The biggest trap I'd suggest is that much is made by enthusiasts of the performance differences between the Spitfire, Hurricane and 109. The reality is that the advantage fell to the more experienced pilot and the tactical situation than any of the effectively marginal advantages or shortcomings of the three types.

Be careful that your data relates to post-May 1940 Spitfires and Hurricanes. Both types were significantly upgraded from no armour glass, with fixed course pitch wooden props, and so forth, such as high octane fuel cocktail. Earlier performance figures are very misleading therefore.

Fritz' point is a good one, but as I've put in this ( http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showth ... ?p=1813979 ) discussion over on Key, the fact that Hawker's got ragwing Hurricanes into RAF service when they did, meant that the RAF were able to learn the modern fighter; lose aircraft in France and yet have enough for the Battle. Had the RAF had to rely on Spitfire production, it would have been too little too late.

HTH

[AHancock51]

It might be interesting to get an evaluation by pilots who are flying them now.

At Vintage Wings of Canada, pilot Rob Erdos, flies both, plus has flown Ed Russell's Me 109E. He is also more erudite than most, being the Chief Test Pilot of the National Research Council. (His callsign is "Spock", and I can attest from his P-40 checkout that it's accurate.)

I'm sure he'd be glad to talk to you about their qualities, from direct experience, and from the perspective of a pilot who has flown a very wide variety of aircraft, in an evaluation role.

Dave

Hi Dave! I had thought about doing this as well, and now you've got me convinced! I'll send you a PM, perhaps you can put me in touch with Rob somehow? Thank you very much!

[AHancock51]

Thanks for all the great info guys, very helpful! I've always thought it may be tricky to get the real scoop on which aircraft was more vital, as each had it's own role. As JDK mentioned, this seems like a "grey" area as there may have been little time for RAF tactical planning. Well, I guess that's why it's a research paper! Thanks again all, keep it coming!

[Dave Hadfield]

Austin,

I sent you a PM.

Dave

[JDK]

Hi Austin,
The story of the Battle is a complex and interesting one, and part of the victory lay with a complex and effective 'data acquisition' process coupled with 'command and control'. As long as the RAF had enough modern fighters and brave pilots to execute that plan, they were in control.

The RAF managed their resources and their plan very well; the arguments over the 'Big Wing' actually highlight how effective the plans were overall, and note that the RAF were able to rotate units in and out of the combat area and give pilots leave while the Luftwaffe were effectively 'all in' for the duration.

So the planning was good - but as the great axiom has it, 'no plan survives contact with the enemy' - once battle was joined, the Hurricanes attacking the bombers would themselves be tackled by the Messerschmitts who were being challenged by the Spitfires, all ending up in a giant battle...

I know the HURIs were pretty much tasked with getting the bombers and the SPITs were sent after the fighters due to manuuverability and armament loads, HURIs more guns, SPITs more maneuverable

Not to dismiss the Inspector's input, this is a classic example of how misunderstanding can creep in. Manoeuvrability and performance, the Spitfire had an edge over the Hurricane in most flight regimes; so far, so good. However the Spitfire Mk.I and Mk.II and the Hurricane Mk.I had exactly the same armament - eight .303 Colt Brownings. The difference was that the Hurricane's were in two gun bays, one in each wing, in a thicker, more rigid wing, and the Hurricane is generally given as the better 'gun platform'. The Spitfire's guns were more widely spaced in the wing, so the outer pair of guns were way outboard, and I suspect of often little use in a turning fight or helping the 'cone of fire'.

Associated with that was that to rearm a Spitfire each gun had access above the wing and access to the ammunition boxes below the wing. The Hurricane's two bays were both accessed from above and much easier to use.

Regarding pilots, towards the end of the Battle army co-op pilots being held in reserve (Lysander crews for the 'ground battle to come') were reallocated, along with RN FAA pilots, as well as the rightly famous allies' units.

Resource refs, drop me a PM, August.

Regards,