P-40 vs. Hurricane

[Nonskimmer]

Another outstanding post. Very informative.
It goes to show you how recorded history can become twisted at times. Perceptions overshadow facts.

[FLYBOYJ]

Great Stuff!!!!!

[GregP]

Nothing sadder than weddings and funerals.

Remember, marriage is a three ring circus:

1) Engagement ring
2) Wedding ring
3) Suffering

[Soren]

[quote="Hop"]

Originally Posted by Hop

Spitfire numbers did drop to about 50 on the 4th September. But that's the number in the reserve, which went from about 70 in late August to 40 something on the 7th September.

The front line squadrons had well over 200 Spitfires, with the returns for 4th September showing 218 Spitfires serviceable, along with 407 Hurricanes, 50 Blenheims, 21 Defiants and 8 Gladiators.

At no point were the RAF reserves in storage exhausted, and front line strength remained at 100%, with losses being made good from the reserve.

Another of those graphs, from the same source:


That's one of the things that worried the RAF, reserves were decling, which meant, in time, front line strength would begin to decline as well.

What the RAF didn't realise was the Germans had very few reserves, had exhausted them long before, and had suffered a major drop in front line strength.

Bungay references Milch's report on his tour of Luftwaffe airfields in France in late August/early September. He reports that the gruppen were seriously under strength, with gruppes supposed to have 35 - 40 aircraft, the bomber gruppes averaged 20, the 109 gruppes only 18.

So whilst the RAF reserves were declining, they were never completely exhausted, and front line strength never declined, whereas the Luftwaffe had no reserves, had very low aircraft production, and were well below strength.

The RAF BoB website has the serviceable figures in their daily reports:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/calendar.html

They don't give them for the first few days, but:

17 July
* Blenheim - 67
* Spitfire - 237
* Hurricane - 331
* Defiant - 20
* Total - 659

24 July
* Blenheim - 56
* Spitfire - 238
* Hurricane - 294
* Defiant - 15
* Total - 603

31 July
* Blenheim - 63
* Spitfire - 239
* Hurricane - 348
* Defiant - 25
* Total - 675

7 August
* Blenheim - 66
* Spitfire - 256
* Hurricane - 368
* Defiant - 24
* Total - 714

14 August
* Blenheim - 59
* Spitfire - 219
* Hurricane - 342
* Defiant - 25
* Gladiator - 2
* Total - 647

21 August
* Blenheim - 58
* Spitire - 239
* Hurricane - 400
* Defiant - 25
* Gladiator - 7
* Total - 729

28 August
* Blenheim - 55
* Spitfire - 225
* Hurricane - 413
* Defiant - 23
* Gladiator - 7
* Total - 723

4 September
* Blenheim - 50
* Spitfire - 218
* Hurricane - 407
* Defiant - 21
* Gladiator - 8
* Total - 704

11 September
* Blenheim - 61
* Spitfire - 214
* Hurricane - 387
* Defiant - 21
* Gladiator - 8
* Total - 691

The figures bounce around a lot, because they are serviceable aircraft, not aircraft on hand, and after a heavy period of fighting the serviceable numbers go down temporarily. But the RAF actually gained front line strength during the battle, the number of Spitfire and Hurricanes squadrons gradually increased, from 44 on the 14th July to 51 on the 1st September.

Richard Overy, The Battle, sums up in one sentence why the BoB is often represented as a very close run thing, with the RAF only narrowly staving off defeat in September. He goes into a description of how the British (and Americans) greatly overestimated the size of the Luftwaffe, and German production capability, and how the Germans underestimated the size of the RAF, and British production capability. Then:

From a British perspective, they were losing the BoB. Their losses were unsustainable, and in a matter of months they would be reduced to a state where they couldn't defend British airspace.

The Germans felt they were winning. Their losses were high, but they thought the RAF's losses were much higher. Their strength was declining, but they thought the RAF's strength was declining faster. They knew they couldn't keep the same level of attack up for weeks, but they felt the RAF was only days from collapsing.

What the sides believed then still colours accounts, because it comes through in all the official records of the time. It's also a good story, and Churchill made some memorable speeches about it.

But from an impartial perspective, with full access to both sides losses and replacements, it's clear the RAF were winning from the start. They actually increased strength for the first months, where the Germans declined. They declined in strength slightly in late August and early September, but the Luftwaffe declined sharply at the same time, and expended all their effort in attacks that the RAF weathered fairly comfortably.

Here's another graph, showing the production balance for both sides:


For the RAF there's only a brief period when losses outstrip replacements. For the Luftwaffe losses outstrip replacements for almost the entire battle.

Great info Hop. I concur, you are right.

Just goes to show you shouldn't rely to much on your memory. (Especially at my age )

Originally Posted by Hop

I don't think Sea Lion would have been, because the Luftwaffe cannot stop the RN sinking the invasion fleet, but if the RAF had been defeated, then unhindered German bombing might well have been sufficient to force Britain out of the war.

Which was exactly my point.

[evangilder]

Well documented posts, Hop. Good show!

[Gnomey]

Nice post hop, good info.

I'd agree Operation Sealion would not have been a success as the Germans did not have enough landing craft and would not have had complete control over the seas with the RN surely sinking a lot of the invasion fleet. Bombing alone may have had an impact on the moral but I think that it would have taken some time before bombing unhindered would of forced Britain out of the war. I also think that if the RAF did not engage for a period of time they could marginally improve their strength and re-equip and maybe have started another assault on the LW Bombers?

[Lightning Guy]

So . . . I give a slight edge to the P-40 over the Hurricane. But maybe that's just me.

[d_bader]

Being a Brit I'd better support the hurricane.

The huricane was designed earlier than the P-40 but compares about the smae so I would go for the hurricane because it was more advanced at the time compared to the P-40 when it was designed. The hurricane certainly played a major role in the BoB against advanced, modern planes.

Hurricanes were replaced only the once in RAF squadrons by P-40s. This just shows that although a later design, the P-40 was not better.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

It was the decision to stop bombing the RAF's airfields and start bombing the major cities instead, that ultimatly led to the LW's loss of the BoB.
Had the LW continued their strikes against the RAF's airfields, then fighter-command would have eventually given up the fight.

In actual fact, fighter-command was only 'one' week away from giving up the fight, when the decision to start bombing London was given by Goering. The funny thing is, that this change in tactics was as a retaliation to a British miss-drop over Germany, and it would lead to the Germans actually losing the BoB.

The Irony of war.

A little late commenting on this but here we go. Sorry I completely disagree with you. The British may have been close to being beaten but they would not give up. The British have never given up and they would not have int he BoB. They would have fought to the end and if worse were to happen they already had plan in place to move the government to Canada and evacuate as much of the military as possible. The British would not have given up.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and annother point about that post (late i know but i aint been on for a few days) it was actually a missdrop by the LW in which they actually bombed london that caused bomber command to very intentionally bomb Berlin the next night, however the germans didn't know that london had been bombed the night before and they saw this as unprovoked and so started an all out campain on british cities.......

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is what I have always read about it.

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

That is what I have always read about it.

Same here. It was an accidental bombing of London which led the British to bomb Berlin which the Germans to lauch the blitz as they didn't know that they had bombed London first.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I wonder if Hitler had known if it actually would have changed anything. Probably not.

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I wonder if Hitler had known if it actually would have changed anything. Probably not.

Would not have thought so. He would have ordered it all the same in my opinion.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yeah i mean what's he gonna say to his people? "it's ok that they bombed our capital city, we accidentily bombed theirs first"........