Had the Spitfire not been introduced, what would have been the impact?
No Spitfire
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 NoOneFamous |
No Spitfire |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 1193 ( 6-May-2008 15:08:25) |
|
||
|
stanger69 |
|||
|
Posts: 20 ( 6-May-2008 16:05:14) |
Would have shopped more American?
Warhawks, Lightnings, then Mustangs? |
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3732 ( 6-May-2008 16:29:37) |
My first question would be "what other aircraft were designed to the same RAF requirements?" Before foreign aircraft would be considered, especially
during the peacetime run-up to the war (the US could not be considered a reliable source in 1937 or '38), a domestic alternative would have been chosen.
|
||
|
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 385 ( 6-May-2008 18:32:07) |
There were plenty of other British high performance monoplane fighter projects at the time - perhaps the Martin Baker MB-2/3 or Miles M.20 might have born
fruit - and the Hurricane was certainly equal to the task in 1939-41.
If the Spitfire had not been chosen, then something Spitfire-ish from a different manufacturer would have been selected in it's place. |
||
|
Red Admiral |
|||
|
Posts: 1862 ( 6-May-2008 19:39:25) |
Miles M.20, Gloster F.5/34, Bristol 146+ would be in production instead. I'd go with the M.20 as it has superior speed, firepower, range and is simple to
construct.
|
||
|
BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 1766 ( 6-May-2008 20:55:11) |
The UK would have fallen.
|
||
|
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 387 ( 7-May-2008 12:36:00) |
What utter rubbish - however good the Spitfire was the RAF could still have won the Battle of Britain equipped only with the Hurricane. The majority of the
RAF's fighter squadrons operated Hurricanes at this time anyway, and the Hurricane accounted for well over half the total RAF claims during the BoB.
The true significance of the Spitfire was that the RAF had in 1939 a aircraft that would remain on the cutting edge piston engined fighter technology for the entire war. |
||
|
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 205 ( 7-May-2008 14:59:43) |
Two thirds of fighter command's sqns in the Battle of Britain were Hurricanes, and in the hands of an experienced pilot they were an even match for the
Bf109s. With no Spitfire, there would either have been one of the alternatives from the list above or simply more Hurricanes. The outcome would have been the
same. Far more important to the outcome of the battle was the replacement of Chamberlain by Churchill months earlier. Neville would have sued for peace at some
point, Winston never would have. Also the German invasion plans (Sealion) were not just based on defeating the RAF, they were painfully aware that the RN had
over 80 destroyers waiting to pounce on any invasion force, and considering the converted river barges the Germans were planning to use, their force would have
been massacred before they were halfway across the channel. The Germans failed to appreciate that British fighter production had already swung into top gear,
and could not understand how the RAF didn't just run out of fighters. The Hurricane was certainly good enough for the BoB on it's own, though the final
tally of enemy aircraft shot down verses RAF aircraft lost may have been slightly different, the final result would be the same. The Spitfire was a greta
fighter aircraft, but wasn't light years ahead of the competition by any means.
|
||
|
flyingdutchman1980 |
|||
|
Posts: 56 ( 7-May-2008 15:45:37) |
Getz wrote: Agree. Although the Spitfire was a generation ahead in construction compared to the Hurricane, the difference in performance wasn't stellar. But also thanks to the new construction (elleptic wings especially IIRC) the Spitfire was more expensive and (during the BoB more importantly) more difficult to repair. I've heard stories that the wings of Spitfires were hardly repairable and that groundcrews scoured crashsites to remove entire (good) wings to put on Spitfires with too damaged wings instead of repairing those as possible with a Hurricane. With regards to your last sentence I don't 100% agree; the RAF would have survived (although with more pilots lost which would be significant) with solely Hurricanes untill '41/42. It's not untill then that Hurricanes (was reminded of the losses in N-Africa in the ground attack version with bombs vs Bf-109E/F's) would desperately need a more modern successor as interceptor. You could even argue that newer Hurricanes with a better tropical filter, better tactics (and without heavy cannons/bombs) would do much better. |
||
|
DonnieBaseball23 |
|||
|
Posts: 33 ( 7-May-2008 16:52:47) |
My concern would be the following scenario:
--RAF standardizes on Hurricane as day interceptor. --by 41/42, Typhoon is THE 1 and only successor. So RAF has as it's main interceptor an aircraft with unreliable engines, poor maneuverability, and a tendancy for the tail to break off. These issues take months/years to remedy... |
||
|
CliffS |
|||
|
Posts: 508 ( 8-May-2008 08:52:48) |
DonnieBaseball23 wrote: If the Martin-Baker partnership hadn't been terminated by a fatal test-flight crash, I think the MB-2/MB-3 series would've been the way to go. The
design certainly had the performance to outclass the Bf-109E at the time of the BoB. It would also have meant extra supplies of Merlin engines (ergo, more
Hurricanes), and an increase in development effort on the Napier Sabre. Who knows - the Typhoon might not have seen the light of day, if the MB-3 & later
MB-5 had been adopted. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Hurricanes taking over the specialised ground-attack role much earlier, whilst the MB-3
was developed as a fighter. But whichever choice was made, I must agree that the Hurricane was the real key to winning the BoB. They could be strapped up
with sailcloth, given a coat of dope & be flying & fighting again within hours.
|
||
|
Red Admiral |
|||
|
Posts: 1864 ( 8-May-2008 10:22:10) |
Supermarine won't stay out of the fighter game, but without the Spitfire their options are limited to a couple of twin engined designs produced (324 - 327)
with Taurus and Merlin engines and 12x0.303". They were very quick, with the Taurus ones around 430mph and the Merlins at 450mph. This is in 1938/39. The
entire RAF wouldn't be pinned to one fighter type. Of the types listed I'd expect the Gloster design to be produced, probably with a Hercules engine,
as they have the most design capacity and experience.
The Martin-Baker MB.2 and MB.3 are not the way to go, especially the MB.2. Martin designed bad planes, mostly because he had no experience as an aeronautical engineer. It took an entire two years to fix the MB.5 into a good aeroplane. Here is a quote from the early trials of the Martin-Baker MB.5 in 1944; "Greensted[test pilot] however remembered very clearly his first flight in the MB5, and he recalled ; "Right from the very beginning I suppose you could say that it was a badly designed aircraft because it didn't work in the sense that it was directionally unstable. It was an absolute swine to fly because it wouldn't keep itself straight."..."I still don't understand why the thing wasn't right when I first flew it. After all, the theory of design of aircraft at that stage was pretty advanced and I don't understand how he could make a mistake about the directional stability..." |
||
|
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 388 ( 8-May-2008 14:50:55) |
I suspect the Supermarine would have tweaked the spitfire design and resubmitted an improved version in 1941-ish. What gets changed would rather depend on what
had caused the Spit to be rejected in the first place, but perhaps we might be talking about something akin to the Spiteful around 1943-ish?
In the interim, Hawker remain the go-to guys for fighters. There is the possibilty for incremental improvement of the Hurricane which wasn't pursued historically due to the existance of the Spitfire. Perhaps a more aerodynamic Hurricane with an improved wing might be on the cards instead of the Typhoon? It would be a smaller step forwards, but a safer one... |
||
|
DonnieBaseball23 |
|||
|
Posts: 34 ( 8-May-2008 15:24:41) |
Perhaps this scenario (no Spit) gives impetus to the proposed Whirlwind Mk.II (2 x Merlin XX, more fuel, more cannon ammo)... that could've been a winner.
The only reason I can see the Spit being rejected in the 1st place would be something along the lines of "too hard to build--all metal, eliptical wings, we can crank out 2 Hawkers for every Spit, so no thanks." |
||
|
PMN1 |
|||
|
Posts: 3509 ( 8-May-2008 17:53:29) |
How about the Supermarine Type 313
Type 313 Type |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
