Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

The VVS got nearly 3.000 Hurries starting in late 1941.

I roughly assume the arrivals like this:
1941 = 250
1942 = 1500
1943 = 1000
Does anyone have better data?

Especially in 1942, the VVS needed (and used!) every combat A/C they got, so I think also all Hurries were pout into action. A lot was used (& lost) near Murmansk.

Some data from Luftwaffe claims:
- 261 altogether
- nearly all from JG77/JG5, means Murmansk
- 43 claims in June-September 1942 some by JG3 & JG52, means during the german summeroffensive in the South.

Now to my questions:
- Where were all these Hurricanes used?
- Which units?
- from when up to which date, to which extent, etc. pp.

That's it already ;)

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Hurricane Deliveries

1941 - 484
1942 - 1115
1943 - 853
1944 - 382

Total - 2834 (figures do not include anything lost in transist)

I understand that they operated over the Northern Areas, with the main areas being the Kalinin, Leningrad and Karelian Fronts, then later were issued to PVO units. Russian Hurricanes were also seen over Stlingrad and Vienna amoungst many other places.

More than 30 units used the Hurricane

Hope this helps a little

Buz

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Gruesse Yogybaer!

Check this sites:
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...5252/index.htm
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...anes/index.htm

In this forum check the thread started by Jack Sanders called "VVS Statistical Digest "(sticky), for delivered planes (in russian) or find the information you need under:
http://ilpilot.narod.ru/vvs_tsifra/gl_4/4.139.html

By the way you have written in the above thread in may 2006! Already forgotten!:)

Buz, sorry if I repeat you - I guess you have used the same source?

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Hello,

the Hurricane was most hated plane(by soviet pilot) that was delivered to USSR from western partners. Therefore, by the chance, the Hurricane was banned from the front line to the Home Air defence, the units, that did not partipiate in the war so active as VVS KA (Soviet air force).
http://ilpilot.narod.ru/vvs_tsifra/gl_3/3.121.html
The only exception, is the air arm of northern fleet (VVS SF), where Hurricane was used until end of 43.

Best regards

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Hi all, salut Yves (tu est francais?).

Thanks for ths infos. I didn't find the L&L figures in the stat. digest myself... now I have them ;).

I am especially interested in the dteails about the use of Hurricanes on the "main front", meaning Leningrad & especially South 1942. Which units, losses etc.

BTW: The delivery of 400+ L&L-Hurris in 1944 really shows the disrespect of the British towards their "Allied" partner USSR...

Yves, what you mean about May 2006?

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Hi,

the losses of all plane of russian nothern fleet over 41-44 are here:
http://www.eismeerfront.com/eis_html/poteri.htm

Unfortenately, the allied could not be elected by vote. Otherwise the USSR found somebody, who open the second front in the Normandy in 42 or may be 43, what the Stalin demands and even Roosvelt accepted.

Reagrds

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Not disrepect at all. The number had been asked for, promised, and Stalin would have been sharply critical had deliveries fallen short. The Hurricane was still in use by the RAF at this time, and remained in use until the end of the war (and until 1946).

Had the Russians used their 100 octane fuel in the Hurricane the performances wouldn't have been so disappointing.

Opening the second front (you mean, apart from the fighting in Italy and Burma and the Pacific?) earlier than 1944 simply could not have been successfully done before 1944 - the transport wasn't there. Even after allowing for the merchant shipping lost supplying Russia.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Hi guys

I am not really au fait with the Anglo-Russian relationship during WWII and early post war, but did the Russians actually ever offer help to Britain in any form? That is apart from threatening the part of England in which I live? I understand (on good authority) that Russian nuclear weapons were directed at the RAF and USAF bases in Suffolk until the end of the Cold War - the period and location in which I grew up!

On that happy note

Brian

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

No, I'm Canadian and .... it was August, sorry!

Quote:
August 28th, 2006, 15:43
yogybär http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/images...er_offline.gif
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Erlangen.DE
Posts: 129


http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: VVS Statistical Digest
Thanks, that's a very good link!

Next stage would be to have the types "Bomb., Shturmo., Istreb." sub-divided into actual planetypes. At least for fighters, I'd love to see that...

Or does already it exist and I just missed it?
__________________
Liebe Grüsse, Jörg :wink:
http://www.yogysoft.de

Gruesse!

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

OK Yves, merci ;).

Please guys, what about discussing the Anglo-soviet relations in a different thread? This one here is MINE ;) and about VVS Hurricanes.

Graham, that info on 100octane fuel is interesting. Do you know how far performance deteriorated due to use of low-quality-gasoline?

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Apologies Yogi!

Cheers
Brian

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

I can't think of a source that directly quotes the performance change: it would show in terms of inability to achieve higher boost pressures. I have a feel it is of the order of 10% maximum power, but that's not to be taken as definitive. The other effect was of decreased reliability, roughness of running and loss of power due to damaged valve stems and the like. I have read something of this in RR publications, dealing with support and repair of Merlins in Russia - probably in one of the RR Historical Trust books, but I'd have to look it up.

The Russians found the Hurricane less agile than their own designs, and didn't like the Browning machine guns, though these were often replaced with their own superior weapons. However, such a Hurricane in decent condition would not be significantly slower than an average LaGG 3 or Yak 1 with half the firepower, even though being three years older in design and having an engine only 2/3rd the size. However, by 1942 the Hurricane was certainly outclassed by the fighters it had to face, and had no development potential left. The RAF was able to make use of it as a fighter-bomber and FR aircraft, but this didn't fit the Russian doctrine of slow armoured assault aircraft.

The Russians put particular effort in maintaining a supply of 100 octane fuel for their Airacobras. With only limited amounts of the additives, it is understandable that it was restricted to the later, more popular, type.

I'll just make one comment on the wider issue: soaking up 75% of the German Army must have been moderately helpful to the Western Allies.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Hi
There is some information, which could be helpful in your's deeper discution. One remakr, this is a thext, which I had done 6 years ago and now I would put some new, fresh data, when I would like to make it again.


During WWII the USSR received 3082 Hurricanes as part of aid from Britain. According to British sources 2,952 aircraft were delivered. The difference resulted from the fact that the Russians have assembled some aircraft from incomplete machines delivered for cannibalisation.

The first Hurricanes in the USSR were those of no. 151 Wing RAF. This comprised two squadrons, nos. 81 and 134. A total of 39 Hurricane IIB Trop fighters with British air and ground crew arrived to provide air defence of Murmansk.

As early as 22 September 1941 a committee of the NII VVS (Air Force R&D Centre) headed by Col. K.A. Gruzdev received the first aeroplane (22899). The reception report stated that the aeroplane was not new, and lacked some instruments. Several subsequent Russian reports pointed out that the aircraft were suffering from numerous faults, and were worn. In their reports the Russians assessed these aircraft as being between the I-16 and the Yak-1. The Hurricanes were allocated to 72 SAP of the Northern Fleet and the 78 IAP (formed in October 1941, based on the staff of 72 SAP). Throughout 1941 the USSR received a total of 484 Hurricanes.


Greater numbers of Hurricanes appeared over the Eastern Front in the spring and summer of 1942. At that time the aircraft entered service with the Northern Fleet, Baltic Fleet, VVS units at the Karelian, Kalinin, North-Western, Voronezh Fronts, and to PVO (air defence) units. Throughout 1942 the USSR received from the British 932 Hurricanes.

Hurricane Modifications in the USSR.

As early as December 1941, workshops of 72 SAP started to modify the armament, replacing Browning guns with two 12.7 mm (0.5 in) UBK guns with 100 rounds per gun, or with ShVAK cannon. Some aircraft were converted to carry a single FAB-50 bomb under each wing. The latter modification was first suggested by Capt. Boris Safonov, OC 78 IAP. Another variant of armament modification consisted in replacing 4 Browning guns with two UBK ones. Apart from changes in armament, Safonov also had the pilot's seat armour replaced in his aeroplane, using one from a crashed I-16.
Apart from conversions made on an individual basis in combat units, the VVS HQ decided to replace armament and cockpit armouring in all Mark IIA and IIB aircraft. In March 1942 a national level decision was made to re-arm all Hurricanes with more powerful domestic armament. Three variants of the new armament were considered: the first consisted of four 20 mm ShVAK cannon; the second of two ShVAK cannon and two 12.7 mm UBT guns; and the last of four UBT guns. The latter proved the best solution. As the Russians did not have enough of the UBT guns, the second variant was introduced. During this conversion, Hurricanes were also fitted with rails for RS-82 rocket missiles and with bomb racks.
Conversion started at the Moscow-based Factory no. 81. Pilots delivered the aircraft directly to the factory airfield. Apart from the Factory no. 81, conversions were also made at Podmoskove, Podlipki - 6 IAK PVO repair workshops. Apart from conversions made behind the lines, teams of workers from the Factory no. 81 were sent to the front line, where they would make the conversions in field, almost under combat conditions. The work was carried out at airfields of Kubinka, Khimki, Monino, Yegorevka. In all the Russians fitted their armament to some 1,000 Mk IIAs and IIBs.

Fighter-Bomber Version.

In the Soviet Union, not unlike in Britain, the Hurricane found wide use as a fighterbomber. During armament modification bomb racks and rocket rails were fitted. The Russians would use a single 50 or 100 kg FAB-50 or 100 bomb and/or RS-82 rocket missiles. Hurricanes were allocated to attack regiments during shortages of Il-2 Shturmovik aircraft, to perform the same duties. That was the case in 65 SNAP which fought north of the Polar Circle. On 9 April 1942 25 Hurricanes were delivered to the regiment. From 26 April the unit entered combat. Hurricanes continued to serve there until October 1942, in a number of roles.
Other modifications. The aeroplane was subject to numerous modifications, some rather far-going. In one of the modified batches the Hurricanes were equipped with additional post for a rear gunner with a ShKAS machine gun. These aircraft were used for long range artillery spotting (with a range of 25 km). The gunner was also a spotter to correct the artillery fire. In order to facilitate his task, a port was cut out in the bottom of the aeroplane. Some 20 aircraft were converted that way. They flew in Leningrad, Volkhov, Kalinin Fronts. Some aircraft were converted for photo reconnaissance. An AFAI camera was fitted in the fuselage behind the pilot. These machines went to special reconnaissance regiments.
In the Paratroop Academy at Saratov Hurricanes were used for towing of transport gliders (Antonov A-7 and G-11) to carry both equipment and men. Such aeroplane-plus-glider teams were used to provide supplies for partisan units. Hurricanes were used at Saratov until 1945. Some aircraft were converted to two-seater trainers (HL665, for example). One of such aeroplanes was used in 39 CAM of the Northern Fleet. Some went to flying schools. No less than 6 aircraft of the 14th Army were modified this way.
In the tactical and naval aviation. Soviet Hurricanes first entered combat in the northern parts of the Soviet Union, in Murmansk area. Between October and December 1941 72 SAP, 78 IAP of the Northern Fleet Air Force, and 152, 760 IAP of the Leningrad Front (later Kalinin Front) entered fighting. These units started combats over Karelia and Kola Peninsula. In late 1941 the Northern Fleet alone had 70 Hurricanes.

A Division of Hurricanes in the Battle of Stalingrad.

In early June 1942 a whole fighter division equipped entirely with Hurricanes, 235 IAD became part of 8 VA (8th Air Army). The unit was commanded by Lt. Col. I. D. Podgomiy. It comprised 46, 191, and 436 IAP. On 25 June it was joined by 180 IAP equipped with 20 Hurricanes. All those regiments, apart from 191 IAP, have been trained at Ivanovo. In order to facilitate rapid conversion to the British equipment, 3 British pilots and 16 fitters were present at Ivanovo. When moving to the front line, the division was largely equipped with aircraft fitted with the Soviet armament, or Mk IIC aircraft. In heavy fighting, with constantly changing unprepared landing grounds, the Hurricanes started to wear out rapidly. For example 436 IAP changed airfields no less than 12 times within 2 months. On 22 July 1942 two surviving Hurricanes of 191 IAP were handed over to a neighbouring unit. Two days later also 46 and 180 IAP were sent back for replenishment at Ivanovo. All the surviving and serviceable aircraft were assembled in 436 IAP. On 1 August 1942 8 VA had a total of 11 Hurricanes, of which only 3 combat-ready. During the rapid retreat of the Russians, all remaining Hurricanes were destroyed by own ground personnel at Kalch-on-Don airfield.

In the Baltic Fleet Air Force.

In the naval aviation, apart from the Northern Fleet, Hurricanes were used by the Baltic Fleet. The only unit to fly Hurricanes in the Baltic Fleet VVS was 3 GIAP. In July 1942 it was withdrawn from the front at Leningrad, to Novinki airfield. Previously its pilots flew I-16s, LaGG-3s and Yak-1s. At Novinki they were awaited by new Hurricanes. After short conversion training, in late July 1942 the unit flew to Factory no. 81 in Moscow in order to convert to Soviet armament and cockpit armouring (that from the LaGG-3 was used

Tank Buster - the Mk IID in the USSR.

The aid to the USSR also included the Mk IID. The story behind these deliveries had it roots in correspondence between Churchill and Stalin in mid-1943. Churchill mentioned the excellent results of using Hurricane IIDs against German armour in North Africa. Stalin liked that idea and asked Churchill to send Mk IIDs to the USSR. These came from RAF units in North Africa. Disassembled aircraft were shipped by sea from Bizerte to Basra, where the crates were unloaded. The aircraft were reassembled and checked. Then they were handed over to pilots of 6 PIAP. From Basra they were ferried by air via Tehran to Kirovabad. There the aircraft were handed over to 11 ZBAP.
First Hurricane IIDs arrived on 4 September 1943. Of the promised 60 aircraft the Russians received only 46. In addition the Soviets received several dozen (most probably 30) Mark IVs.
Some Mk IIDs and Mk IVs were allocated to 441 IAP in 106 IAD PVO, based near Bolovoye. The aircraft were used operationally there in 1943/44.


This part of English text is taken from my book:
"Hurricane w obcej służbie" (Hurricane in Foreign Service; Belgian, Finnish , Yugoslavian: VVKJ, NOVJ, German, Italy, Romanian and Soviet Union users), Mirosław Wawrzyński, published by AJaKS - Warszawa 2001.
Polish text with English summary. Soviet part is much reduced , when you compare it with Polish version.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Yuriy Rybin is finalizing the book about Hurricanes used in northern part of Russo-German front. The book is very detailed, contains combat actions and combats service (maintenance, technical kaspects) questions as well. The individual stories of most Hurries are traced including information about English codes and combat history. Yury paid main attention to VVS SF, PVO and army regiments near Murmansk and Northern Karelia.

I offered him and wrote for this book a chapter about Hurricanes of 3 giap KBF (apart 26 iap PVO that was the only regiment which used Hurries near Leningrad). Chapter contains 20 A4 puretext pages with a full and detailed combat history, based on archive information: all claims and losses with comparison with German and Finnish sources etc.etc.

I haven't seen the whole Yury's book, but I know it was roughly ready last spring, when I sent him my chapter. I don't know, when it will be publised in Russia.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Brian, no prob ;).

Graham, let me check Hurri_II vs. Yak1... my guess would be that the Yak is more agile and the LaGG has a higher v_max.

Thank you, Mirek! The part about 235 IAD is very interesting!

Alltogether, all your inputs help (me) to get quite a better picture about the Hurries life in the USSR. Thanks!

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

BTW

First
I have forgotten to add, that there is also quite good book made a few years ago by C-F Geust, Red Star 4, (the Leand-Lease planes in VVS RKKA service). There are some interesting details about Soviet Hurricanes (small part but there is). Rather general, not so focused on combat's use, anyway useful + plenty photos of Allied planes including Hurricanes one.

Second
In the end of 2005, I had made such "comparnision" about air combats fought between FAF's Brewster and Soviet's Hurricanes on the "Northern Front" in 1942-1943 - including Karelian Front and over Baltic against 3. GIAP VVS KBF too.

This story is only in Polish, photos have English captions. The title is:
Brewster Model 239 (F2A-1) kontra/versus Hawker Hurricane Mark II, p. 7 (14 b&w, 4 colour sides: 2 Berwster Model 239 BW-371, BW-364 and 2 Hurricane Mk II), [in:] Militaria XX wieku 6(9)/2005.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

I believe that both the Yak 1 and the LaGG outperform the Hurricane on paper - as indeed they should, being 3 years later in concept. However, the LaGGs as delivered in 1941/42 suffered badly from poor building standards, and fell well below the design intentions.

Plus, of course, it does rather depend upon the altitude at which the speed is measured: I would expect the Hurricane to be the faster performer above 20 000ft: which is not where the Russians wanted to fight.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Interesting,
What the archive sources from Russian side you used for the article?

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Andrey Dikov- nice info, how could be possible to get a sample of the book you have mentioned?

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Graham
I believe you will find detailed 87/100 Octane performances comparisons in the reports that must have been filed before the conversion done by the RAF.
Concerning the technological advantage, I would say there was none and even Soviet fighers were a step backwards due to their heavy wooden construction. On the other hand, Hurricane aerodynamics was far from perfect, and I am surprised it was never improved. It must be not forgotten that several critical comments about Western aircraft were of pure Soviet propaganda nature.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

It wasn't published yet.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Salut!

I think Graham has nailed it when he mentioned above that Hurricane was good performer at 20 000 ft (~ 6000 m).

I refer to FinnAF ace Hans Wind's war time lecture about fighter tactics:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2...csLecture.html

(it's translation from Finnish to English)

I quote:
"The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable...
...
The Hurricane and Spitfire are slow and clumsy fighters at low altitudes. They seek dogfights at high altitudes (over 5,000 m) where their characteristics are extremely good... "
(Emphasis shown is mine)

So Hurricane was sort of two planes in one package. This was the result of two gear compressor? What was the altitude when Hurricane Merlin's compressor second gear kicked in?

It looks like Hurricane was in it's best at high altitudes, preferably with radar leading. Like in Battle of Britain. In essence Hurricane had performance of an interceptor. In Soviet Union MiG-3 was designed for the same purpose. And both were used mainly as front line fighter. Soviets surely knew how to use the Hurricane properly as many were assigned to PVO (Murmansk) units where it was in it's own role.


Just my two cents worth,

Kari

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Kari, Hans Wind and his lectures are the last useful in this discussion, imho.

None of Wind's claims against Hurries can be confirmed by real Soviet losses, and out of 20 Finnish claims against 3 giap KBF Hurries, only 3 have corresponding Soviet losses. Out of these three Hurries, two were shot down by classic sudden attacks without dogfighting. So I don't think Wnd can be regarded as an expert about Hurricane and its combat characteristics.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Privet Andrej!

We are not talking about Wind's claims. You did read what Väinö Pokela told in the intro? "... Someone suggested that one of the squadron pilots go to Kauhava to lecture on tactics". The lecture was AFAIK collected wisdom, not only Wind's personal experience. It is a good description of tactics seen from FinnAF Brewster pilot's percpective.

I tend to think similarly about many of Wind's claims as you seem to do. But the fact that the three Hurricane claims by Wind do not correspond to losses doesn't change not one thing in Hurricane's power (speed)/altitude curve, does it?

Tshukovski's (spelling) book "Baltic Sky" seems to confirm the habit of Hurricane (quoting Wind): "It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames."

I am eagerly looking forward to be able to read your text about 3 GIAP Hurricane experiences.

All the best,
Kari

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Reading some post about Hurricanes, I think you should read (only in Russian) a major Zimin's memories - I istriebiteil - about his personal and commander expirience with this particular plane. It is on the net in Russian.
He was a commander of 485. IAP and quile long his unit fought versus Me 109 F in 1942 of JG 51 and JG 54. This regiment had been not smashed in 2-3 weeks of combat tour, as were fate of severals others regiment with the same Hurricanes, like 439., 488. IAP. More it fought for several months of hard fighting with betetr Me 109 F. It was possible in 1942 in such plane as Hurricanes too.

One thing is the handling quality of the plane
Second quality of Soviet benzine, oil ect - low.
Third, as it loved and many Russian said about Hurricane as a very not good, clamsy plane, horrible and terrible ect..

This thing is last but not least the general expirience and level of knowledge about air combat tactics and skill of use the tactic in many Soviet regiments in the period 1941-42 and even 1943.
Zimin made many "revolutionary" changes in the tactic of his units and quite much improved the training of the own pilots. So his unit could surrvived several months on the front - period IV-IX 1942.

To much time I have read many ungly claimes of Soviet pilots for terrible Allied Hurricane and much worse British and American weapons but very seldom, particular before 1990 I have met in official memories, stories any critics about own knowledge about tactics, own flying expirince, wrong commanders. All what was wrong was from "capitalism" - all "good" were from Soviet side. So ŁaGG-3 (1941-1942) or I-16 typ 24, or typ 29 were much better then clumsy Hurricanes. OK why teh they do not produced them instead of Hurricanes? If were so "good" or MiG-3 ect..

The true is more difficoult, than many would like to see and undrestand. In many cases for horrible rate of losses were responsile not ugly Hurircanes but very low Soviet pilots training and tactical skills on all leverl from the buttom to the top llevel (it means for example the lack of flying in pairs, in fours ect., lack of radio sets) presented in fronatl air regiments - not only there - in the period 1941-1943.


Regards,
MirekW

It is very easy to say it was very bad "plane" and all other was OK, Is it true? I do not think so.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

I had quite a long posting which seems to have been lost, so I'll try to regenerate it.

Franek: The Hurricane was deliberately a conservative design, in order to get it through development and into production quickly. It suffered from bad advice from RAE, that the thick wing section would not prove performance limiting, but other than that it had little that was aerodynamically poor, in the standards of the time. It is very rare that any design, once placed in production, will undergo major aerodynamic changes. The costs, in development, new jigs and lost production, is excessive - the designers are better off producing a totally new design incorporating other improvements. In the case of Hawkers, this was the Typhoon. As a measure of the lack of effort, look how long it took to do the obvious and fit a Merlin 45.

The Russian fighters of the next generation all had smaller wings and a smaller fuselage cross-section. Given equal power, this would (and did) result in faster speeds. Although the wooden construction was heavier than an equivalent metal, I'm not sure that they ended up heavier than the Hurricane (though less well armed). The wooden skin did allow a high quality of surface finish with little drag from excrescences, steps, gaps and fasteners. The shorter wings and higher ratio of aileron to wing areas, plus the lack of wing armament, would explain their superior agility. Yes, the Hurricane did "suffer" from propaganda-inspired (or at least patriotically-inspired!) criticism, and has continued to suffer from excessive criticism to this day, but this doesn't mean that every criticism is unjustified.

Kari: yes, the Mk.II was designed as a bomber destroyer at higher altitudes, in the anticipation of a Battle of Britain II. The Mk.II was longer and heavier, not just for the engine but also as part of the growth of weight due to added capability, that aircraft of all generations suffer from. The Merlin Mk.XX did not produce a lot (if any) more power at lower altitude than the Mk.III, and the result was an aircraft clumsier and less effective AS A PURE FIGHTER, at low-level, than the Mk.1. From memory, the second gear came into its own above some 18000ft, and provided a considerably better performance higher up. Performance curves can be found in Mason's original Hurricane book, from Macdonalds. Sadly for its pilots, wherever it went the Mk.II found itself fighting at lower altitudes than its optimum, and suffered accordingly. Even with 100 octane.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Graham
I am fully awared of reasoning behind the Hurricane. The wing seems pretty standard for the period and I suppose Tornado had the same or similar airfoil. Nonetheless there was a room for substantial improvements in the fuselage area, which should add precious mph or improve the qualities. Starting from this bloody greenhouse for rhubarb called canopy, going through cramped cockipt with limited backwards visibility and ending on the fabric covered fuselage and controls. With the technology, it was more less easily possible, having in mind similar Yak-1 to Yak-1b conversion. Perhaps Hawker wanted to stop the production at the very first possible occasion and to conver to Tornado but still I find it weird.
Soviet fighters were indeed different in their aerodynamic concept, but not without penalties. Wooden construction suffered from quality, was prone to weathering, could not withstant with combat loads and was too heavy and left too few space for installations. But the wood was available and alluminium not, so there is the logic. Overall, preformances of Soviet fighters were not as great as some want us to believe. If Yak-3 could be considered more-less equal to Spitfire VC, then the older fighters should not be substantially better than old poor Hurri, if at all.

Kari
Hurricane as well as other L-L aircraft had several advantages that make them favourable for air defense. Those were blind flying equipment, good radios, superior range and altitude peformance. Hence domination of Western aircraft in PVO units.
Concerning Wind's lecture, I would be rather carefull, unless it will be finally confirmed Finns fought with Soviet Spitfires.
And one final note - it was a standard tactics for Hurricane Is to draw Me 109Es into low level dog fight during the Battle of Britain.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Gumorron!

What I wanted to point out with my quote of Wind's lecture was that even enemy (FinnAF) had noticed that Hurricane performed less well at low altitudes and came to it's own above 5000 meters (~16 000 ft). Nothing more and nothing less. Cannot help if that is too hard to comprehend.

Enough said,
Kari

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Interesting discussion, Gents.

Once more, it is not the easy B/W-thing but more complex. So, the Hurri didn't fit well into the circumstances on the Eastern Front (low fights, low-octance fuel).

Maybe we should not forget one thing: Even the RAF used Hurricanes as fighterbombers in 1944 (against V1-bases i.e.). They suffered horrible losses.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Franek: The Hurricane wing was considerably thicker than that used on other fighters of the same design period - the Spitfire is the outstanding case in the other direction, but isn't the Hurricane's wing thicker than that of the I-16, 109, P-36 or Claude? Yes, it was the same problem with the Tornado/Typhoon. The main problem with the fuselage was the excessive depth, and thus large cross-section, in order to give a good view forward and downwards. To alter this would have meant major changes to the basic design. Yes, the canopy could be improved, as indeed it was on the Spitfire, and the Hurricane's structure lends itself to such a mod. It probably is a missed chance, but the comparison you make with the Yak.1 is much later than the Hurricane's main period of use, and later designs than the Hurricane were being built with rear view as bad - Tornado/Typhoon, Mustang, Yak and the entire production run of Bf 109s. The fabric covering of the rear fuselage is irrelevant, and the Corsair had fabric covered wing panels much later. The use of fabric covering for the control surfaces lay in handling requirements, and remained in use on e.g. the Mustang. A separate case can perhaps be made for metal-covered ailerons at high speeds, but are there specific reports of heavy ailerons on the Hurricane? Maybe it never went fast enough for it to matter?

The Yak 3 could comfortably outperform the Spitfire Vc at other than high altitudes: the Vc was the heavyweight dragmaster of the Spitfire V family. A better comparison would be the LF Mk.Vb, with its stellar performance at (very) low altitudes.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Jörg, that Hurri was used in attack roles, didn't show nothing. It was the under this circumstances forced measure. The VVS used as night bomber the Po-2 during the whole war. And I can not say, it was adequate plane for the WW2. Each plane you can use somehow. But in his primary role as fighter, the Hurri was dead in Europe in late 41. The fights against Bf109F show that in Africa even better as in the east front.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Terve, Kari!

>We are not talking about Wind's claims. You did read what Väinö Pokela told in the intro? "... Someone suggested that one of the
squadron pilots go to Kauhava to lecture on tactics". The lecture was AFAIK collected wisdom, not only Wind's personal experience. It is
a good description of tactics seen from FinnAF Brewster pilot's percpective.

OK, but...


>I tend to think similarly about many of Wind's claims as you seem to do. But the fact that the three Hurricane claims by Wind do not
correspond to losses doesn't change not one thing in Hurricane's power (speed)/altitude curve, does it?

Hmm, honestly I always say that I'm not a 'technical' expert, i.e. I'm not much interested and have not enough exact knowledge about
aviation hardware. Contrary I'm more oriented on real history of combats and tend to look at aircraft performance from this point of
view - real results, pilots and tactics, not from curves etc.

It is banal, but I do think that aircraft performance is complex of different characteristics and features, so no speed curves or
anything similar are enough to make a conclusion about particular model.

Now we just can't estimate for certain the real effect of good
radio, comfortability, technical maintenance and all such small and numerous details. So I think the way to make a conclusion basing on
real combat results and real combats is more accurate.

Back to 3 giap experience - this experience was good. Despite losses and own claims, which can't be confirmed for example by Finnish
losses as well.

Of course curves were not excellent, the main things why they liked Hurry - TR-9D RT and ShVAK cannons. :)

>Tshukovski's (spelling) book "Baltic Sky" seems to confirm the habit of Hurricane

Chukovskiy was a wartime correspondent, he wrote his nice novel about Leningrad siege and Leningrad pilots, but that's just a novel,
'literature kunststu:ck'.

> (quoting Wind): "It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames."
...but Hurries didn't "burst into flames immediately" in real.

Neither Soviet pilots (nor me) thoughе that Hurricane was any kind of superb or extremely good or just good, but it wasn't ugly. It was
more or less 'normal'.

>I am eagerly looking forward to be able to read your text about 3 GIAP Hurricane experiences.

I can send it to you in Russian.

To Mirek:

>To much time I have read many ungly claimes of Soviet pilots for terrible Allied Hurricane and much worse British and American weapons
but very seldom, particular before 1990

How about Airacobra, which was praised regularly? I think in 70-80s average American aviation enthusiast knew much less about
Cobra than average Soviet (and Polish) enthusiast. Or at least he knew much less good things about Airacobra.

The main reason why Hurricanes and Tomahawks were criticised hard (and exagerratedly) was the fact that they weren't brilliant really. And that Allies supplied VVS by second-rate planes in period when VVS eagerly needed good ones.

By the way, Mirek, you have ignored my question about archive sources you used for your article about 3 giap Hurries. Could you answer,
please?

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Kalendar: By late 1941 the Hurricane was outclassed by the Bf 109F, that is clearly true. But not every opposing fighter was a 109F, not every combat was fighter vs fighter, and not every mission involved aerial combat. "Dead" is too much an overstatement. By the same standard so was the Brewster Buffalo, if not more so, yet the Finns gained much success, even later than 1941. This is because of what Andrei says above, that combat involves much more than just the comparative performance of the most capable types on each side.

It is worth adding that the RAF underwent immense expansion during 1941, so the average experience of its pilots in the Middle East was well below the average of the Germans facing them. Pilot experience is one of the prime ingredients of success. The Russian air force in 1942-43 found itself in a similar position, and paid the same penalty. In both campaigns the Germans failed to convert the ability to gain local air superiority into overall success - but that would open a much wider discussion!

Franek; More thought about the Hurricane canopy. It was one of the first successful enclosed canopies, but one reason for its success was its flexibility - as it slid back it widened. The Spitfire improved its visibility by moving to a blown canopy with improving technologies: I'm sure that this required thicker material which would be less flexible and thus a more significant redesign for the Hurricane. Plus removing the "hump" would have required an enlarged fin to compensate for the reduced side area (as on the P-51D and P-47D after similar redesigns. Teardrop canopies are also draggier than their faired equivalents - the Hurricane didn't need extra drag.

I did model a late-war Hurricane with a Typhoon canopy some years ago - "Oscar killer" I called it. So I am sympathetic to your idea, but can see reasons why it didn't happen. I'm sure the core reason is that Hawkers did not expect to be producing Hurricanes well into 1944, so would not "waste" rare design resources on an outdated design, thought to be out of service soon.

Malcom did produce a blown design for the Hurricane: it was tested but not adopted for production. It would be interesting to read the reasons why.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

First, the success of Fins is not so high, if you compare it with e.g. succeses of JG54, that claims at least 5 time more soviet planes as Finns and work in the similar area under similar condition. We can only speculate, what reach the Finns fighter, if they have not the Brewster but Bf109 in 1941.

Second, the case with Finns is very nice. They have also Hurri in there inventory and ??? Did you heard that they preffer it ?? I'm not. Any succeses of Finns Hurri ? I have never heard. And please, didn't say, that they have too few Hurri: the ARR(Rumanian) has also only one squadron but it use it widely in 1941, because they have nothing else. And Finns didn't because they have better Brewster.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

The ARR squadron equipped with Hurricanes was indeed very successful in 1941.
However, the Rumanians did have other fighters types, too, equal or superior to the Hurricane, e.g., the Bf 109E or the He 112B.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

But the Finns were the only nation, apart from one NZ pilot, to actually prefer the Brewster. To anything, almost. The aircraft was a near-complete failure in every other theatre. It was rejected by the RAF in Western Europe, including American pilots in the RAF Eagle squadrons, in favour of the Hurricane. It was rejected by the FAA in the Middle East in favour of the Martlet and the Hurricane. It was disliked by RAF/RNZAF/RAAF pilots in the Far East who preferred the Hurricane, with, as I said, one pilot's comment as an exception. It was rejected by the USN and USMC in favour of the Wildcat. I don't recall ever seeing any comment from any of the few Dutch pilots how actually flew both types, if briefly.

Clearly the matter was more complex than simple Brewster good: Hurricane bad. Part of it was a matter of the different variants of the Brewster fighter, the Finns having lighter aircraft and the Dutch more powerful ones, the RAF having heavier aircraft than the Finns but less power than the Dutch. It is also arguable that the Finns faced weaker opposition, with generally better trained pilots. Their Hurricanes didn't have 100 octane fuel either.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

Graham
I agree that both Spitfire and Hurricane were extremities. I assume Camm believed the thicker airfoil will allow to hide armament, thus reduce drag, otherwise the goal was climbing and not horizontal speed. Whatever, it did not turn to be good idea.
My point is that any modifications to the fuselage area were much simplier than in any other semi-monocoque aircraft and no structure modifications were needed. Despite that, nothing has been done in that direction up to the end of production in 1944. Malcolm Hood, Fw 190-like canopy, there were many possibilities that could substantially improve visibility. Note, that teardop canopy was proposed by Quill already in 1940 and only because of fear of production stoppages it was introduced in 1944. The same with Mustang, new canopy was introduced when need of other major modifications arose. In contrast, Hurricanes could have been converted in a Maintenance Unit.
Tornado or Mustang were indeed later designs, but please note the design started before the experience was gained. Despite that, there were several aircraft of the period, like Airacobra, Fw 190 or Zero, that had pseudo-teardrop canopies with much improved vision.
The idea was around but I do not see even attempts to implement it. While I can understand your arguments, I am still surprised, that is all.
Concerning fabric cover of the rear fuelage, my understanding is that turbulent airflow caused quality of the finish less important, but it does not mean it is not important at all. Thus perhaps no major gain in speed, but still some improvement, also in maintenance.
Finally about Spitfire vs Yak. Yugoslavs did a direct comparison of a Yak-3 against Spitfire VC Trop., and found them just equal oponnents, Yak being better in vertical and Spitfire in horizontal manouvers. Similar conclusions were drawn after a combat between Lightnings and Yak-9s over Yugoslavia in 1944, the outcome being unfavourable for Yaks in ratio 3:1 I think. Also Mustangs fared extremelly well against Yak-9s in March 1945, downing several of them with no losses. I know Polish top scorer, Skalski, who flew most of the fighter Merlin Spitfire variants, as well as Mustangs, had a veeery reasonable opinion about Yaks. Unfortunatelly, as yet I was unable to find any detailed description which would point out weak points.

Kari
Take it easy! My point is that we should have some marigin for possible error in identification. It may turn out that some of the sluggish Hurricanes were Yaks actually.

Igor
Remember about logistics. Both Finns and Rumanians had quite limited number of aircraft available and limited spares' supplies. This seriously limits possibility of extended opartions with such aircraft, with rather sophisticated water cooled engines.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

to Graham:

>But the Finns were the only nation, apart from one NZ pilot, to actually prefer the Brewster.
>It is also arguable that the Finns faced weaker opposition, with generally better trained pilots.

This question has two main sides.

Firstly, the success of Finnish Brewsters is extremely overestimated. It's true myth, although I really respect Finnish pilots and even sympathize, despite they opposed Russian pilots. Starting from 1942 (at least) FAF had a very high rate of overclaims - very similar to Soviet rate. And 42-43 was the most successful period of Finnish Brewsters. In fact I like to research combats between Finnish and Russian pilots, because these combats were bloodless generally.

To illustrate it by some figures, I would remind August, 1942 which is regarded as triumphal for LeLv 24 - they claimed more than 50 kills (I have no exact figure by hand, correct me if I'm wrong) for one loss in combats with VVS KBF navy pilots. For ex.:

Combat of Aug 14 (Finnish/Soviet): claims 6/1, losses - 0/1.
Combat of Aug 16: claims - 11/3, losses - 0/1.
Combat of Aug 18: claims 16/3, losses - 1/1.

Second, yes, it seems Finns really prefer Brewster, but they had not much options.


to Juha:

>do you know if Rybin has any plans to try to find a British publisher to his book?

I don't know, I never asked, he never said.

>the history of Hurricanes of 3 giap KBF, as an article to some British aviation magazines?

Good idea, but I have no contacts with any western magazine.



to Franek:

>Similar conclusions were drawn after a combat between Lightnings and Yak-9s over Yugoslavia in 1944, the outcome being unfavourable for Yaks in ratio 3:1 I think. Also Mustangs fared extremelly well against Yak-9s in March 1945, downing several of them with no losses.

Don't you think that these clashes can't illustrate anything as far Americans really and suddenly attacked what they suspected to be an enemy, and Soviets defended of their allies?


>It may turn out that some of the sluggish Hurricanes were Yaks actually.

Nice shot, Franek! In 1942 the Finns claimed Spitfires and they actually were... Yak-1s. And again - 9 'spitfires' were claimed for no actual loss on Soviet side.

Re: Soviet Hurricanes - where, when, ...?
 

That should not have been that much problem.
In both cases both sides claim they were suddenly attacked. The reports of both sides are a very interesting reading and it is extremelly hard if not impossible to find out what really had happenned, but the fact is - the Yaks were decimated.
BTW
Frankly, it is interesting, that while there are many accounts of Allied aircraft bounced by Soviets, there are indeed very few on the opposite.
Perhaps those were Finnish Spitfires. So, what about Hurricanes?