Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Spitfire (and Hurricane) Snobbery
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Steve (U14622515) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
I have watched the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ's Battle of Britain series unfold, first with interest, followed by irritation and, finally, with dismay. As much as the programme producers are trying to interest people in the history of our country, they insist on serving up a distinctly preferential version of the truth.
According to the documentaries shown thus far, there were two RAF fighter types in the Battle: the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hawker Hurricane. This is patently wrong and exposes either a serious gap in the research or a wilful ignorance of the truth. There were *at least* two other RAF fighters that made a contribution to the Battle that have been entirely overlooked: the Bristol Blenheim 1F, a bomber converted to carry machine guns, and the Boulton Paul Defiant, which was a 'turret fighter' that carried no forward-firing armament and instead concentrated its firepower in a barbette mounted behind the pilot's cockpit.
Just because neither of these aircraft was successful in the Battle (although, during the Blitz, the Defiant was a potent nightfighter) is no reason to gloss over - or entirely ignore - the contributions and sacrifices of their aircrew.
Come on, Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, you can do better than this! -
Message 2
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
No mention of the Gloster Gladiator squadron in Devon either..
But did these aircraft all play an equally significant part in the battle? I don't think so.
It was Hurricanes & Spitfires that bore the brunt of the German attack and in the context of a general interest documentary it was fair enough for the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ to concentrate on these. -
Message 3
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
I don't think any disrespect is deliberate, but that the Spit and Hurri were THE main fighters during the bitterest and most feverish parts of the battle?
-
Message 4
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Thursday, 23rd September 2010
The call the Defiant 'a potent nightfighter' is a strong exaggeration. It served by default, having no other useful role, but it was not very effective, having no radar and too little firepower to profit from often very short firing opportunities.
The Blenheim was sightly better in that it was at least able to comfortably carry AI radar when it became available, but it was sadly deficient in performance and firepower.
Not that this should in any way detract from paying proper tribute to the courage of the aircrew. -
Message 5
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 24th September 2010
Even as a night fighter the Blenheim was already operating alongside its eventual successor, the Beaufighter, by the time of the BoB. FAA Skuas, Rocs, and the first of the Fulmars were also part of the air defence of these islands, albeit in peripheral, less threatened areas.
-
Message 6
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 26th September 2010
The Defiant was a strange concept. (I think it was an idea from the Great War, were one of the most successful fighters of all time was the Bristol Fighter.) At first it worked, becausefrom above it looked like the Hurricane. There was a suggestion of fitting later models with 8 guns in the wings, but it never happened. The night fighter version was a stopgap until the Bristol aircraft came on stream. Strangely the Hurricane was really just an upgrade of the Byeplanes in its design, but it worked. In a climb it wasn't much faster than the Gladiator, and where as the Spit went on to improve and develope into heaven knows how many marks and versions, the Hurri, only made it to the Mk 2 B C and D. The D being fitted with two 40 mil cannon and used for tank busting.
-
Message 7
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 26th September 2010
Hawkers were wrongly advised that the thick section wing chosen for the Hurricane (originally IIRC called the Fury Monoplane) was not going to slow the aircraft down. It did, and, rather than try to graft a new wing onto the Hurricane, Hawkers went on to produce replacement types - Typhoon, Tempest, Tornado, and Fury.
-
Message 8
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 27th September 2010
The Typhoon's wing was as thick as the Hurricane's. The Tornado, of course, suffered from the same problem, as it was a Vulture-engined equivalent of the Typhoon. The Tempest and Fury used a new wing with a reduced thickness/chord ratio.
The Hurricane was probably not fast enough in a dive to encounter the same compressibility issues and drag rise, related to the thick wing section, that the Typhoon encountered. -
Message 9
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Monday, 27th September 2010
Boulton-Paul did build a flying (in August '40) single-seat demonstrator 'Defiant' (would they rename it or call it Defiant SS?). It was refered to as the P.94 had a comparable speed to the Spitfire. Because it used the same jigs & tools as the two-seater, it would have been quick to build. But the Air Ministry - but they declined the variant. Whether the offer was too late, or it would have proved they were wrong with the turret concept who knows!
Yet with Dowding's opposition to the aircraft, maybe with unofficial contacts to Boulton-Paul the Demonstrator may have been flying earlier? -
Message 10
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Monday, 27th September 2010
Whether the offer was too late, or it would have proved they were wrong with the turret concept who knows!Β
Was this due to air minister Beaverbrook's decision to 'rationalise' production during the Battle of Britain so we only had 2 types of fighter & 3 types of bomber?
(referred to in the BoB 'untold story' programme shown last night) -
Message 11
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 27th September 2010
Not really. Boulton-Paul proposed the single-seat Defiant as a stop-gap fighter, to be produced if the RAF suffered a shortage of Spitfires and Hurricanes. But that did not happen, so there was no need. And in the summer of 1940 the RAF imagined that replacement aircraft for Defiant turret-fighter squadrons were just as useful.
Later Boulton-Paul suggested other single-engined developments of the Defiant, including one as a fighter with four 20-mm cannon, but the RAF wasn't interested. -
Message 12
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Monday, 27th September 2010
I'm pretty sure the first really potent RAF (or anywhere) nightfighter was the Beaufighter. The book "The Nightfighters" describes the whole scene very well indeed, including a portait of combat fatigue.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.