WI: No Hawker Hurricane

Adolf Galland once described the Hurricane as "a beautiful plane to shoot down". In spite of this Hurricanes destroyed more Lw aircraft during the Batte of Britain than all the other defences put together.

Hawker_Hurricane_before_maiden_flight_1935.jpg


What would have been the effects on the first two years of World War Two if the Hawker Hurricane had never been designed? POD: H.G. Hawker Engineering is not founded in the aftermath of the collapse of Sopwith, and the various parties go their separate ways.

Where would this have left fighter command during the Battles of France and Britain?

Given the production difficulties with the Spitfire it would have been impossible to build more Spitfires earlier. Which fighters would have been sent to France to support the AASF? And (given that France collapses as OTL) what would Fighter Command have had to face the Luftwaffe in the BoB? Merlin engined Gladiators? A mixed bag of imported American fighters? Some development of the Bristol Type 146?
Bristol_Type_146.jpg


What effects could this have had on the performance of FC in 1940? What could the wider political ramifications have been?

So, over to the AH brains trust.
 
Last edited:
Problem, you've picked a point of departure that lets loose swarms of butterflies that do considerably more than just the effect you want to explore- no Hawkers also means no Hart, no Fury, no Hind- the interwar air force develops very differently, considering their wide usage and sales several other air forces are set back, other manufacturers and design talent get what opportunities there are going.

Hawkers were progressive and advanced, and without that the aircraft industry as a whole is probably a little less further on. (Hopefully, in this less energetic climate, the Spitfire is still accepted, and not seen as far too advanced.) Gloster may have gone bust- they were saved in the thirties by Hawkers buying them out; if they get the business Hawkers didn't they might be all right, but...

So that probably kills the last biplane, Gladiator, as well as the alternative F.5/34. As well as the late- war, if we get that far, Meteor, Tempest and Typhoon.

Should be possible to riff through the air ministry requirements possibility- spotting, but there's also a great big factory shaped hole there. Yes shadow factories, but how many of them delivered in 1940, and having the peacetime base also means having the experienced people to train the wartime workforce, which without Hawkers you have less of.

Probably end up with the Miles M.20; but enough of them, in time?
 
Problem, you've picked a point of departure that lets loose swarms of butterflies that do considerably more than just the effect you want to explore

You're absolutely right, and as far as I'm concerned you can feel free to be flexible with any PoD you want to propose. I'm trying to get a fairly broad discussion going and feel that an earlier PoD gives us a wider range of possible options. Also, any PoD in the early/mid 1930s will make it difficult to remove the Hurricane from TTL altogether since it was a logical progression of the Fury.
 
An interesting statistic I found at the Science Museum in London was that the Spitfire and Hurricane had he same kill rate, but the Hurricane had a higher loss rate. This made me think that if Spitfires had been ordered from Hawker, Gloster and CCF in Canada in place of the Hurricane then Fighter Command would have lost fewer pilots in the Battle of Britain (KIA, WIA and MIA). That would have allowed Dowding to increase the number of pilots per squadron or as fewer replacements were needed the length of the training course in the Operational Training Units could be increased so that the replacement pilots would have been better trained when they got on a squadron.

Malta would have been better off it had been defended by Spitfires to the middle of 1942 instead of Hurricanes. More Spitfires instead of Hurricanes in Greece and Crete would not have stopped the Germans, but the RAF might have inflicted heavier losses on the Luftwaffe. Again I don't see it speeding up the war in North Africa, but Spitfires instead of Hurricanes would reduce RAF losses and increase those of the enemy. Substituting the Buffaloes in the Far East with Spitfires would be nice, but I doubt that there would be enough of them to prevent the loss of Burma, Malaya and Singapore. However, the Japanese would loose more aircraft and aircrew when the bombed Singapore and that might help the Americans at Midway and Guadalcanal. No Sea Hurricanes and more Seafires would be nice, especially if the folding wings version was available earlier.

What the Air Ministry could have decided to do was order 600 Spifires from Hawker in 1936 instead of 600 Hurricanes. Then all other things being equal an extra 475 Spitfires would have been delivered by September 1939, 1,676 by 01.07.40 and 2,546 by 15.10.40. It would also have been better if Gloster had built more Spitfires instead of the Henley. Then an extra 122 would have been "on charge" at the outbreak of war (I don't know the number delivered) and all 200 would have been delivered by 01.07.40.

I also think Westland (which did build Spitfires and Seafires later in the war) should have been ordered to build Spitfires in place of the Lysanders and Whirlwinds it built IOTL. I also think Boulton Paul should have been ordered to build Spitfires instead of the Defiant.

Not building the Lysander was due to a change in army co-operation policy between the ordering of the prototypes and placing the first production contract. That is the RAF and Army decided on a mix of fighter-bombers for CAS and light aircraft in the AOP and LL roles in place of a specialised type like the Lysander.

Assuming that Boulton Paul and Westland were able to build Spitfires at the same rate as the Defiant, Lysander and Whirlwind a total of 568 Spitfires would have been delivered by the outbreak of war instead of 305 Spitfires and 263 Lysanders. They would have equipped 15 squadrons instead of 10 (and 5 Lysander squadrons) IOTL.

1,635 Spitfires would have been delivered to 01.07.40 instead of 909 Spitfires, 108 Defiants and 618 Lysanders. They would equip 31 squadrons at home and overseas, when IOTL there were 19 Spitfire, 2 Defiant and 10 Lysander squadrons.

On 15.10.40 total deliveries had increased to 2,449 (1,426 Spitfires, 267 Defiants and 756 Lysanders IOTL) and there were 35 Spitfire squadrons (19 IOTL plus 3 Defiant and 13 Lysander squadrons).

IIRC The Defence of the United Kingdom, the eponymous official history on that subject said that the Air Ministry considered ordering the Spitfire and Hurricane "off the drawing board" in 1935 instead of after the prototypes proved satisfactory, but instead the first orders for 300 Spitfires and 600 Hurricanes were placed in 1936. If they had been ordered "off the drawing board" in 1935 then the production problems might have been sorted out a year earlier than out timeline.

IOTL an order for 6 Supermarine Stranraer flying boats was cancelled and production of the Walrus flying boat transferred to Saro so that Supermarine could concentrate on building Spitfires. ITTL the initial Spitfire order is for 34 aircraft in August 1935 in place of the original contract for 17 Stranraers placed on the same date. I'm also going to order 8 Seafires with folding wings in place of the 2 Supermarine B.12/36 heavy bomber prototypes. 17 extra London flying boats are built by Saunders Roe instead of the 17 Stranraers and Walrus production is transferred to Saro at year earlier as well.

The Hawker Spitfires ordered in 1935 might be in place of the Fury II or some of the Hart based aircraft ordered from Hawker in that year. It might be possible for Gloster to build more Hurricanes instead of some or all of the 750-odd Gladiators that were built for the RAF, FAA and export. Although it was built to a specification issued 4 years before the ones that produced the Spitfire and Hurricane, it entered service less than a year before the Hurricane.
 
AIUI, didn't Fighter Command during the BoB consist of 80% Hurricanes and 20% Spitfires? Personally, I don't count the handful of Defiants and handful of Gladiators. Push up the numbers of Spitfires in the BoB and you might spike up the Luftwaffe's losses to the point where they have to cancel all daylight operations much sooner. The Spitfire was the Me-109 killer, while the Hurricane was employed against the bombers.

Opinions?
 

Redbeard

Banned
If the bottleneck is Merlin engines then 2185 Fairy Battles were built until production ceased in 1940.

It would just require someone realising the futility in single engine level bombers without armour and hardly with any defensive (or offensive) armament.

Imagine what kind of actually useful aircraft those engines could could have powered.

Let's say half of them in Spitfires and the other half in Hurricanes dedicated for CAS. Imagine some Hurricane IID types let loose over the panzer columns in France 1940 - covered by Spitfires :D
 
All this is seen with 20/20 hindsight, when the prototype Spitfire first flew at Eastleigh, no one Mitchel included unless he was clairvoyant, could have predicted the development potential of the basic Spitfire type. If The Hurricane had not been designed and built by Hawkers then I would expect the Air Ministry to have hedged their bets by ordering an analogue to the Hurricane from another constructor. The Spitfire was not an easy aircraft to build and used what was then fairly cutting edge technology. It is worth remembering that even as late as 1938/39 the AM was considering cancelling the Spitfire production orders due to production difficulties and delays. If there was no Hurricane then an alternative from another manufacturer st the time would likely to have had very similar performance.
 
All this is seen with 20/20 hindsight, when the prototype Spitfire first flew at Eastleigh, no one Mitchel included unless he was clairvoyant, could have predicted the development potential of the basic Spitfire type. If The Hurricane had not been designed and built by Hawkers then I would expect the Air Ministry to have hedged their bets by ordering an analogue to the Hurricane from another constructor. The Spitfire was not an easy aircraft to build and used what was then fairly cutting edge technology. It is worth remembering that even as late as 1938/39 the AM was considering cancelling the Spitfire production orders due to production difficulties and delays. If there was no Hurricane then an alternative from another manufacturer st the time would likely to have had very similar performance.

Very good analysis, rock solid insight and good research, I freely admit. Kudos.:cool::cool::cool:

OK then, instead of the Hawker Hurricane, how soon could the Meteor be available?:p:eek:;):rolleyes:
 
A further point in favour of a fighter like the Hurricane was the ease with wich damaged aircraft could be repaired and returned to combat. The Civillian Repair organisation set up by the AM was very succesful at doing this with the more traditional construction of the Hurricane as opposed to the monocoque construction of the Spitfire.
 
Personally, I don't count the handful of Defiants and handful of Gladiators.

Maybe not to the Battle of Britain, but the RAF and SAAF had the equivalent of 29 squadrons in the Mediterranean and Middle East when Italy declared war. Of those 5 had Gladiators and 2 had Lysanders plus the Sea Gladiators on Malta. Had there been 7 squadrons and one flight of Hurricanes or Spitfires in their place, that would have been an important qualitative improvement.
 
Although sp has already wrapped up my thoughts, I like to get into the period mood first. The Norwegian Royal Yacht, at 80.6m, was built for Sir Thomas Sopwith, prewar , and served as a convoy escort during the war. By comparison, my biggest yacht served as a beer cooler in the famous Margarita Party of '76. Mary Coningham, of tacair fame, married into the yachting game, rubbing elbows with the like of Freddy Handley Page and Richard Fairey. It was the Fairey Company's Fairey Fox that inspired the Hawker Company to build the Hawker Hart that spawned the Hawker Hector, the pitiful bi-plane that was sent to France in small numbers to make up for the lack of Battles. Mary Coningham didn't think much of the Hurricane in the desert war. By then, it was a has-been. Stan Turner didn't think much of Hurricanes in defense of Malta, and it was several hours past their finest hour when Hurricanes were sent to battle Zeros. The question of what fighter, if any, could stand in for the Hurri in the BoB is open to conjecture, but this begs a question on the depth of British aircraft manufacturing talent and industry. Early Spitfires in greater quantity doesn't fill the bill due to the bottleneck of complex wing construction. Dowding spent some time at the AM looking for the fighter he wanted and he picked two which didn't have to go through the bogus F5/34 selection process. Would he have only picked one high-speed fighter?

Kongeskipet_norge.JPG
 
A further point in favour of a fighter like the Hurricane was the ease with wich damaged aircraft could be repaired and returned to combat. The Civillian Repair organisation set up by the AM was very succesful at doing this with the more traditional construction of the Hurricane as opposed to the monocoque construction of the Spitfire.

Didn't it also have better firepower than the Spitfire, making it the better bomber killer?
 

Driftless

Donor
IF there's no Hawker, doesn't that create an opening for other companies to exploit? It's not just no Hawker company, but the void left by no Hawker that's in play in the OP.

Would Gloster (or others) have still been at risk of going under, with no Hawker? Where might engineers/designers who worked at the the OTL Hawker have been employed?
 
The Hurricane's 303s shot where pointed and the a/c remained rock-steady, and the Spitfire danced the sky on laughter-silvered wings, while the outer mgs could hit anywhere due to wing flexure. The boffins at the AM did determine that the Hurricane was some 2 1/2 times more likely to be shot down by defensive fire from bombers than the Spit, which had better armor.
 
Spitfires Replacing Hurricanes in the BOB would be a boon for the RAF as the lost aircraft to wounded/burned/killed pilot ratio was significantly lower than that for Hurricanes.

When Spitfire (+ a certain New Zealand Gentleman by the name of Kieth Park) arrived in Malta - taking over the Defence of the island from one of Mallory's boys - bombing raids were very quickly curtailed and Axis losses increased.

When Spitfires arrived in Egypt - it was a mere month before JG27 lost all of its 'superstars' and had to be withdrawn.

Fighting Spitfires it seemed was not nearly as much fun as fighting P40s
 
Another way to look at this is to see what other aircraft were on offer that could have replaced the Hurricane if they had been given the deign go ahead at the same time as Hawkers were given the contract to develop their high speed monoplane which led to the Hurricane OTL. None of the fighters actually submitted to the AM in response to the F5/34 specification is an improvement on the Hurricane. Most of the Radial engine fighter were performance limited by the available engines and the Bristol Aircraft company though designing a Hercules powered contender were very busy with other projects and the Hercules was not really viable as a massed produced engine in time for the BoB. If it had been specified for a frontline fighter then the Hercules might have been development priority but it is still debatable how much earlier it could have been made reliable and what other projects would have been slowed by the diversion of resources. If we wish to speculate a bit then if instead if Hawkers, Boulton and Paul are asked to develop a high speed monoplane and John Dudley North is given the task he might have come up with an aircraft similar to the Defiant but built from the ground up as an eight gun single engine fighter. That is the only viable option I can think of as an alternative which would be good enough to replace the Hurricane and could be built in the required numbers. Also maybe that would butterfly away the turreted Defiant but I hate to think what the AM would have had in its place.
The Hurricane had the same firepower as the Spitfire though some considered the Hurricane to be the better gun platform.
 
Adolf Galland once described the Hurricane as "a beautiful plane to shoot down". In spite of this Hurricanes destroyed more Luftwaffe aircraft during the Batte of Britain than all the other defences put together.
Apparently there was quite a class snobbery about this on the part of the Germans. I can remember reading about, possibly apocryphal, incidents of captured Luftwaffe pilots refusing to believe, in fact being quite insistent to the contrary, that the plane that had shot them down being a Hurricane rather than a Spitfire. :)


As well as the late war, if we get that far ... Typhoon.
And if that weren't bad enough you also kill of the Hunter which is practically sacrilege.
 
Apparently there was quite a class snobbery about this on the part of the Germans. I can remember reading about, possibly apocryphal, incidents of captured Luftwaffe pilots refusing to believe, in fact being quite insistent to the contrary, that the plane that had shot them down being a Hurricane rather than a Spitfire. :)



And if that weren't bad enough you also kill of the Hunter which is practically sacrilege.

Sniff....Harrier :eek:
 
Top