[url]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/hawker-hurricane-lands-calgary-museum-1.5347097[/url]

This popped up on my Facebook feed.

I am a nut about warbirds, but the kill totals is not something I've spent much time thinking about. Still, the claim the guy in this video is making seems dubious to me.

I know the Hurricane was the more numerous early-war fighter for the RAF, and I know the Hurricane saw action all across Europe, Russia, the Mediterranean, and Indonesia. That alone should result in higher kill numbers for this particular aircraft, as opposed to, say, a Dewoitine D.520, used only by French and Vichy French forces and in not large numbers.

I'm unable to locate any definitive listing of kills. Everything I've found seems to relate only to US fighter aircraft, or to specific pilots, or specific battles.

Off the top of my head, I know the P-51 Mustang and F6F Hellcat were killers. I find it difficult to believe the Hurricane shot down more than all others, given the numbers attributed to just these two fighters. The Hellcat had a 19-1 kill ratio and was credited with 5156 total aircraft shoot-downs. I can't seem to find any data on the shoot-down numbers for the Mustang, but I guess it will be similarly high. This is to say nothing of the Spitfire, P-38, P-40, and P-47.

Quote:

---

And I'm pretty sure that the Hurry won the Battle of Britain, not the Spitfire

---

Agreed.

The Hurricane existed in far larger numbers than did the Spitfire. The Hurricane was not as capable as the Spitfire as a dogfighter, so they tended to be used against the bomber formations, whereas the Spits were sent up against the 109s.

Two extra years of fighting and huge numbers differences during those years adds up to a lot of extra kills. I also believe that the US had the most stringent rules for recording kills. Requiring corroborating evidence on a pilots claim, that other military's did not. Yes, I know US claims still were way out of line with actual losses but not as nearly as much as other forces. I'm not sure what the RAF required for their claims.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

The B-24 was a better bomber than the B-17.

But history sometimes writes itself...incorrectly.

---

There is a lot of evidence that the B-17 was the better bomber. Certainly Gen Doolittle thought so as is referenced in this article. He would have rather had all B-17's in the 8th Air Force and sent the B-24's to the pacific. Which is where I think it probably was better suited, with longer flights and less intense anti-air capabilities over distributed targets.

B-17 vs B-24

In The Aviators, they explain a lot of the issues with the beginnings of the B-24 and it's stability troubles leading to crews not having confidence in it. It was a much harder plane to fly and when sustaining damage it's new hydraulic systems made it even harder to control on weakened hydraulic power to the control surfaces. So getting damaged air craft back home was an issue. Then they added more armor which added weight and reduced the ceiling and bomb loads to below B-17 numbers.

Why not the Soviets? Not that I know the answer, and there are arguments for and against, but I'll put this out: The War in the East was the "big" war. The Germans put up more planes there, so more chance to shoot them down. Now, as for number of kills by type, that's a little harder to say. The Russians never had one great fighter, and they probably split a lot of their kills by type. But it's worth considering in the discussion.

Certainly a good point regarding the VVS. They did have some good fighter aircraft - La-7, MiG-3, Yak-3 - but I don't honestly know much about their history, the skill of their pilots, etc. I do know that the Nazis committed a bunch of Luftwaffe resources along the Eastern Front, and consequently the war's leading aces, Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall, and Kittel, scored whopping numbers against the VVS. Hartmann and Barkhorn both claimed more than 300 kills each, most against Soviet fliers, with the other two chipping in a bit less than 300 a piece. Many targets of opportunity.

Over 14,000 hurricanes were built (over 2000 served with the Soviets), plus they started fighting in 1939, so the raw combat time and numbers are there to accumulate a lot of kills.

F6F Hellcat was the leader in the Pacific. It was built with one purpose in mind... to kill Zeros and anything else that flew.

The Soviets had planes, Lags, Migs and Yaks, that were every bit as good as the 109's, 190's and Spitfires, basically point defense fighters. They didn't need planes like the USAAF produced; long range escort types.

They also tended to lean heavily towards ground support, thus their love for the P-39's and Hurricanes.

Across all theaters of operation, the P-51 Mustang is tops, followed by the F6F Hellcat, the P-38 Lightning, and the P-47 Thunderbolt in that order. I also looked for numbers for the Hurricane and can't seem to find any. Same for the Spitfire. I've seen estimates that the Hurricane was responsible for between 60 to 80 percent of the 1700 German aircraft lost during the Battle of Britain. Even given that and it's use by several countries, I doubt if it was the top fighter of the Allied Forces.

The table in the link below includes the Spitfire but not the Hurricane, and it obviously excludes the Battle of Britain.

https://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/aircraftvictorieswwii.htm

Don't think that is accurate on having the most kills. The Hurricane was a fine fighter but even in 1940 it was given the role of attacking bombers and letting the Spitfires go for the fighters. In 1942 they were being replaced by P-40s when going up against 109's in North Africa. It was an older and slower fighter and production stopped in 1944. It was used mostly in ground support after 1942-3. The P-47 did have more kills than the P-51 and the F6F was tops in the pacific.

As for the B-24 vs B-17, CT has good info as the B-24 was better in range and payload but was not near as armed and rugged as the B-17. It was temperamental to fly as well. That's why it was used more in the Pacific and in long range raids out if North Africa - like to the Romanian oil fields.

As for Russian planes and kills, two things would make a comparison difficult: 1) Soviets used their AF mostly for ground support, and 2) can't imagine the Soviets being able to track and record kills with any accuracy.

Edit: just saw JR69's table and surprised it has the P-51 ahead of the P-47. The early versions of the P-51 versions were flown by the RAF before the US entered the war so is the P-47's claim based on USAAF only?

Old RV Ag said:

---

Edit: just saw JR69's table and surprised it has the P-51 ahead of the P-47. The early versions of the P-51 versions were flown by the RAF before the US entered the war so is the P-47's claim based on USAAF only?

---

I'm surprised you're surprised. The first combat mission for the P-47 occurred in March 1943, and I doubt the P-47 totals are just USAAF totals. They were used by other Allied air forces in limited numbers, notably the Pacific, CBI, and the Med. The P-51 B and C models entered combat in late 1943. By early 1944 Mustangs, including the D model were fitted with drop tanks and took over the bomber escort role almost entirely. P-47s were given ground support and fighter/bomber responsibilities, reducing their opportunity for aerial combat. The difference in victory totals between the two is nearly 1600. I seriously doubt the victories tallied in the F-6/A-36/P-51A amount to 1600. Pilots who flew both (my father was one and I have met several of his squadron mates) will all tell you that the Mustang was a superior air-to-air fighter, matched only by the Spitfire and the ****e-Wulf -190.

Edit to add: If you watch the video in the article, the comment that the Hurricane shot down more German aircraft than all other Allied aircraft combined, it's not really an outrageous claim. The comment refers to the Battle of Britain.

Quote:

---

Edit to add: If you watch the video in the article, the comment that the Hurricane shot down more German aircraft than all other Allied aircraft combined, it's not really an outrageous claim. The comment refers to the Battle of Britain.

---

I figured this is what they likely meant, but I never heard them actually state their assertion as being confined to the Battle of Britain. I'd agree that the Hurricane was the top aircraft in terms of enemy aircraft downed during the BoB.

It really isn't surprising. The Hurricane's job was to attack the German bombers, ideally leaving the ME-109s to the Spitfires. The Hurricane was more than a match for the Heinkel and Junkers bombers. Of course the 109s took their toll, but the Spitfires were effective too. On many occasions the German formations were completely surprised due to early warning of the incoming attack by the British radar. That was the Brit's advantage - radar. In my opinion, while the Hurricane and the pilots that flew them certainly deserve a ton of credit, it was radar that won the Battle of Britain.

I certainly believe it. The Hurricane was used in all theatres and started fighting in large numbers in 1939. The top killer of all time is the BF-109 and the number of German pilots with 20+ kills is more than all other combatants combined. Best kill-to-loss ratio had to be the F6F Hellcat.

I thought I read somewhere that the B-17 actually had more arial kills than any of the fighters.

EMY92 said:

---

I thought I read somewhere that the B-17 actually had more arial kills than any of the fighters.

---

I think I read somewhere that the # of kills claimed by bomber gunners was wildly inflated. Not throwing shade on the gunners, but the combat situation was chaotic (obviously) and there might be gunners from several bombers in the combat box claiming a kill over the same Bf-109 or Fw-190 (which might have been downed or might have only been damaged). Thus the inflated claims.

I have no doubt that the introduction of the long-range P-51 with the Merlin engine and drop tanks did more than anything else to doom the Luftwaffe fighters. This might not have been by design, but the bombers essentially became bait for the Luftwaffe fighters, which then got massacred by the P-51s.

And somewhere in the last 20 years I came across this bit of wisdom that Luftwaffe experten allegedly gave to their new pilots about the USAAF fighters (whether this was for real or was facetious, I haven't been able to confirm):

P-38: engage at any altitude
P-47: engage only below 10,000 feet
P-51: do not engage at any altitude

Quote:

---

P-38: engage at any altitude
P-47: engage only below 10,000 feet
P-51: do not engage at any altitude

---

Given that huge radial engine at the front of the P-47, I wonder how good this advice would have been? From what I understand, radial engines suffer in performance at the higher altitudes (although I stand to be corrected on this statement). Like most American fighters, the P-47 was a strong airframe that could withstand a hell of a lot of punishment. If my thought about the radials is correct, then I would think engaging the Thunderbolt might not be the best use of a younger, less experienced Luftwaffe pilot.

As for the P-51, that's pretty funny advice. Perhaps they should have added, just bail out of your plane, it's already doomed!

from quick internet search:

The turbosupercharger in the P-47 gave the powerplant its maximum power at 27,000 ft (8,230 m), and in the thin air above 30,000 ft (9,144 m), the Thunderbolt remained comparatively fast and nimble relative to other aircraft.