:The poor rearward view that most fighters possessed at the beginning of World War II was caused by an attempt at better streamlining on the designers part and due to a misconception, (in the RAF's case at least, but it also applied to most other air forces), that fighter aircraft were now so fast that dog fighting had become obsolete, and that aircraft would simply make high-speed attacking passes at each other, the pilots only needing to see straight-ahead and to the sides. This fallacy was disproved for the RAF during the [[Battle of Britain]] when it was discovered that a number of its pilots who had been shot down had been hit from behind and had not even been aware that they were being attacked until they were hit - presumably this also applied to [[Luftwaffe]] pilots, however, being over 'enemy' territory, fewer returned to complain about it.
:The poor rearward view that most fighters possessed at the beginning of World War II was caused by an attempt at better streamlining on the designers part and due to a misconception, (in the RAF's case at least, but it also applied to most other air forces), that fighter aircraft were now so fast that dog fighting had become obsolete, and that aircraft would simply make high-speed attacking passes at each other, the pilots only needing to see straight-ahead and to the sides. This fallacy was disproved for the RAF during the [[Battle of Britain]] when it was discovered that a number of its pilots who had been shot down had been hit from behind and had not even been aware that they were being attacked until they were hit - presumably this also applied to [[Luftwaffe]] pilots, however, being over 'enemy' territory, fewer returned to complain about it.
[[file:Miles M.20.jpg|thumb|The 1940 [[Miles M.20]] with one-piece moulded bubble canopy]]
:It was therefore concluded by the RAF that a good rearward view was still essential and the first aircraft with a proper all-round vision canopy (i.e. a moulded bubble one that slid backwards, sometimes also known as a '[[tears|teardrop]]' canopy) was actually the [[Miles M.20]], designed at around this time (1940) - the [[Focke-Wulf 190]] had a similar 'clear view' canopy design but it wasn't a true 'bubble' canopy as-such, having flat side panels, at least initially.
:It was therefore concluded by the RAF that a good rearward view was still essential and the first aircraft with a proper all-round vision canopy (i.e. a moulded bubble one that slid backwards, sometimes also known as a '[[tears|teardrop]]' canopy) was actually the [[Miles M.20]], designed at around this time (1940) - the [[Focke-Wulf 190]] had a similar 'clear view' canopy design but it wasn't a true 'bubble' canopy as-such, having flat side panels, at least initially.
Line 57:
Line 59:
:::There's an official USAAF 1943 test report for the [[Hawker Tempest]] here which contrasts its 'bubble' (or "bulb" 'canopy' with the [[P-39 Airacobra]]'s 'side door plus a hinged overhead section': (Section B - 'Factual Data', Para 3 'Flight Characteristics' - Sub-section a - 'Cockpit Layout'): [http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/material-command-tempest.pdf U.S report on Tempest V] [[User:Ian Dunster|Ian Dunster]] ([[User talk:Ian Dunster|talk]]) 21:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::There's an official USAAF 1943 test report for the [[Hawker Tempest]] here which contrasts its 'bubble' (or "bulb" 'canopy' with the [[P-39 Airacobra]]'s 'side door plus a hinged overhead section': (Section B - 'Factual Data', Para 3 'Flight Characteristics' - Sub-section a - 'Cockpit Layout'): [http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/material-command-tempest.pdf U.S report on Tempest V] [[User:Ian Dunster|Ian Dunster]] ([[User talk:Ian Dunster|talk]]) 21:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[[file:Miles M.20.jpg|thumb|The 1940 [[Miles M.20]] with one-piece moulded bubble canopy]] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2.30.162.162|2.30.162.162]] ([[User talk:2.30.162.162|talk]]) 15:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
The information here is unclear there is mention of the elevator mass balance but that seems at odds with the fish-plate remedy. Why would you strengthen this area for a mass balance failure? There is some speculation that tail failures were caused by stress cracks generated from the tail wheel retraction aperture. If this is true it would square with fish-plates because they would arrest this kind of cracks. Does anyone have know where the information to resolve this question might lie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.69.221 (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the mass balance failure allowed elevator flutter, the vibration of-which caused the failure of the tail (empennage) attachment bolts. Hence the reinforcing fishtail plates. The elevator mass balance was of a remote kind, the weight itself was housed in the fore part of the tail section, and operated by a cable-and-pulley system from the elevator. The tail failures only occurred when pulling up from high speed dives. The failures are covered in Reed & Beamont's Typhoon & Tempest at War. Ian Dunster (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I see your point - a minor rewrite should (hopefully) clear this one up. From what I have read (Thomas and Shores, Tyhpoon and Tempest Story) tail assembly failures were still occurring right up to the end of the Typhoon's operational life, although not as frequently as had happened before the fishplates and new elevator mass balance weights were fitted.Minorhistorian (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bubble canopy?
I came to the Hawker Typhoon page by following a link from the P-51 Mustang page. I was interested there to learn that the Mustang had corrected a major problem by taking its "teardrop-shaped bubble canopies derived from the British Hawker Typhoon". However, the Typhoon page has a picture which does not at all show the canopy, and the article barely mentions the canopy, so I was left wondering about its origins, whether it was innovative or crucial, etc. Since the Mustang had such a storied career and because it outlived WWII, the Typhoon page could perhaps provide more of this story? if anybody knows it... ok, now I see more discussion of this in the P-47 Thunderbolt article, and it mentions that the Hawker Tempest also included this canopy. [[217.132.5.41]]
This type of canopy is better shown on the Hawker Tempest page as the picture here does not show the bubble canopy in any detail - the bubble canopies on the later Typhoon and on the Tempest were identical.
The poor rearward view that most fighters possessed at the beginning of World War II was caused by an attempt at better streamlining on the designers part and due to a misconception, (in the RAF's case at least, but it also applied to most other air forces), that fighter aircraft were now so fast that dog fighting had become obsolete, and that aircraft would simply make high-speed attacking passes at each other, the pilots only needing to see straight-ahead and to the sides. This fallacy was disproved for the RAF during the Battle of Britain when it was discovered that a number of its pilots who had been shot down had been hit from behind and had not even been aware that they were being attacked until they were hit - presumably this also applied to Luftwaffe pilots, however, being over 'enemy' territory, fewer returned to complain about it.
The 1940 Miles M.20 with one-piece moulded bubble canopy
It was therefore concluded by the RAF that a good rearward view was still essential and the first aircraft with a proper all-round vision canopy (i.e. a moulded bubble one that slid backwards, sometimes also known as a 'teardrop' canopy) was actually the Miles M.20, designed at around this time (1940) - the Focke-Wulf 190 had a similar 'clear view' canopy design but it wasn't a true 'bubble' canopy as-such, having flat side panels, at least initially.
This bubble design of canopy came after the Typhoon and Tornado - which were basically the same aircraft but using different engines - were designed and so the early examples of these aircraft had canopies designed to the earlier, 'straight ahead', philosophy (these are sometimes referred-to as 'car-door' type canopies - the P-39 Airacobra and later P-63 Kingcobra had similar ones, in which entry is through a door hinged at the front in a similar manner to those on a car). This lack of rearward vision also applied to the P-47 Thunderbolt and the P-51 Mustang which were both designed at around the same time as the Miles M.20, i.e., 1940, but without the benefit of experience gained during the Battle of Britain, so they were designed to the earlier 'straight ahead' concept.
As a result of these conclusions as soon as it was practicable the Typhoon was given a new bubble canopy based on the one introduced in the M.20 (which possibly would not have been widely known in the US as it did not enter production) and it was the Typhoon's new canopy that attracted the attention of the US designers and which was adopted for their designs.
A canopy of this type was also designed for the Spitfire, however due to pressures on production (i.e., the down-time for re-tooling for the new, cut-down, rear fuselage being unacceptable) the introduction for the Spitfire was severely delayed. The Tempest was designed from the start with the new canopy, (however the prototype was a modified Typhoon and had the earlier car-door type!), as was the subsequent Fury and Sea Fury. Ian Dunster10:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A web site called "The Fine Arts Collectors Club" has a web site with text very similar to that on the Wikipedia Hawker Typhoon article Hawker Typhoon print the page does not credit Wikipedia but checking the
history of this article shows that the Wikipedia article has a history previous to the text which appears on the FSCC website, so they ought to provide copyleft ("a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement"), it is not a Wikipedia copyright violation. --Philip Baird Shearer11:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, and i'm a great fan of the Typhoon, but there's a lot of Typhoon images on Wikipedia Commons. Eisenhower21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article says the Typhoon was sometimes confused with the FW 190, leading to friendly fire incidents. It seems to me that two single-engined fighters could hardly look LESS like each other than these two. The Typhoon is thick and beefy, the FW slim and elegant. Wings and tail are different shapes, and the FW lacks the distinctive under-nose radiator. Are there any pictures from angles that illustrate a similarity? Manormadman (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In air to air combat pilots don't have the opportunity to compare the differences using photographs; often all that is seen is a silhouette, often from a long range, at an unusual angle and at high speeds. An aircraft travelling at high speed can look longer and slimmer than it is in real life. As a consequence an aircraft which, in theory, should be easily recognisable could often be confused for something else in the air. This is the reason why portfolios of black recognition silhouettes were used to train pilots and aircrew to recognise the different aircraft types, enemy and "friendly", they might encounter in flight. The bulky nose of the Typhoon, relative to the rear fuselage, could look very much like the radial engine of a 190 and the wings and tail unit could also look very similar. The only pictures which would show this properly would probably be found in combat footage and/or a selection of these silhouettes. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RAF day fighters had a yellow strip painted along the outer wing leading edge (in addition to a sky-coloured band around the rear fuselage) to show that they were 'friendly' and prevent any allied aircraft opening fire on them. Despite this, on introduction the then-unfamiliar Typhoon and Tempest were frequently mistaken for German aircraft in the heat of the moment, as the square profile of the radiator fairing could resemble a radial engine from some angles, and this led to the black-and-white stripes being painted on early aircraft to prevent 'friendly fire' incidents. These stripes were later made mandatory for all allied aircraft in the opening days of Operation Overlord, where they became known as 'Invasion stripes'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.86.52 (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The yellow strip along the wing leading edge and 'sky' band around rear fuselage shown in photo of Spitfire V here at right. Note: British and German aircraft were camouflaged, which made the outline of the aircraft indistinct when viewed against the ground, especially in poor light. In these conditions, the square nose profile of the Typhoon/Tempest when viewed from above/below could have been mistaken for a radial engine. At the time, the only camouflaged fighter likely to be met over Britain or Europe with a radial engine, on either side, was the Fw 190. A Spitfire VB of 222 Squadron in 1942.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about the leading edge yellow stripe, as the location roughly corresponds to where the leading edge wing de-icing boots are. I have always assumed the rubber boots were painted yellow to allow easier visual inspection for damage.Loates Jr (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 13:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No RAF fighter of the period had leading-edge de-icing boots. De-icing when needed was provided by applying 'Kilfrost' paste to the leading edge.
You are almost certainly correct. 'Presentation' aircraft paid for by civilian donations were usually marked with the name of the donor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listing of serial numbers
This is an exhaustive list but goes against the norm for aircraft/aviation articles. Wikipedia is not intended to be a listing source and if you check any other article, there is no attempt to identify every aircraft built. I would recommend that this section and the Tempest article's similar section be placed in a sub-article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Ditto my comments on the Tempest page. I do note that there's no mention against listing serial numbers, although I'm still looking. I can understand the objections to listing, for example Spitfire serial numbers, which would take up an entire page. Do others find this information in a Wikipedia article useful/interesting? Minorhistorian (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the information is not useful or of value, it's that Wikipedia is not intended to be a listing of all information related to a topic. As you can appreciate, it would be difficult to provide a comprehensive serial number record for many aircraft types due to their large production totals. If you check any of the more "popular" Wiki aircraft articles such as the Hawker Hurricane, F-4 Phantom II, Boeing 747 and Mitsubishi Zero, you will note that there is an encyclopedic style that is followed but no attempt to completely document every aspect of the aircraft's history. For now, there is no reason to exclude or change the information presented, but bear in mind, another editor may have a different interpretation and remove the data or establish a sub-article. FWIW, read your talk page, I have left you a note there. Bzuk (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Withdrawal date?
Unless I'm missing something, there's no information here as to when the various operators finally withdrew their last Typhoons. Please add this. 86.135.7.189 (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; there was no specific date that I can find, but the Typhoon was taken out of front-line service by mid-1946 at the latest. Information to that effect has been added to the article.Minorhistorian (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd researched this many years ago. THey were considered to be unairworthy by MoD. None of them were sold off and all were destroyed. The main vices were the engine fires and dangerous tail flutter. (The Tempest with the Bristol engine was far superior.) The only complete machine was allegedly found as a kit in a USAF warehouse in 1967.14.202.248.58 (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 'engine fires' were due to over-priming the engine when starting. This was solved when pilots and ground crew became more familiar with the aircraft - they were actually fires in the induction system and carburettor and no fault of the engine itself. The 'tail flutter' only affected the early un-modified Typhoons - the Tempest was unaffected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heh heh... I like the filtered noises that are supposed to signify rockets taking off from under the Typhoon's wings. No points awarded the sound effects guy at the studio! Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If such a source exists, would it be worth adding to this article, as a means of noting that aspect of this Typhoon's legacy? --Nerroth (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Typhoon" was chosen IIRC, because as with the earlier "Tornado", 'Typhoon' and 'Taifun' sound the same in both English and in German.
I don't know whether the earlier Hawker Tornado influenced the choice of name for the MRCA, but if not then it is a curious confidence.
Operational service
I arrived on this page having seen a TV program that mentioned the Typhoon as a tank-destroyer in Normandy in 1944 and looking for information on the plane, but found the page confusing and difficult to read. I think the problem is that the Design and Development section extends chronologically long past the Introduction date and the Introduction section itself is lacking in detail - it takes up just a few paragraphs for a period of nearly two years. I have added an approximate date (Summer 1941) for the first introduction of the Typhoon to operational service, but have no access to sources to flesh out the aircraft's service in 1941 and 1942. Maybe someone could add dates of adoption by RAF squadrons, numbers of aircraft involved and combat results. I found the section entitled "The Plane" on http://www.197typhoon.org.uk/index.htm informative, but unfortunately that site deals only with the period post-November 1942.
Scartboy (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The chief credit in smashing the enemy's spearhead, however, must go to the rocket-firing Typhoon aircraft of the Second Tactical Air Force. The result of the strafing was that the enemy attack was effectively brought to a halt, and a threat was turned into a great victory" - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Although you probably won't find this mentioned in the article itself.
This has long been in the article..."A German counter-attack, starting on 7 August, at Mortain, in the Falaise pocket, threatened Patton's break-out from the beachhead. This was repulsed by 2nd TAF Typhoons, which destroyed or damaged some 81 vehicles. In the Vire area, where the British Army was under attack, Typhoons flew 294 sorties on one day, firing 2,088 rockets and dropping 80 tons (73 tonnes) of bombs. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, said of the Typhoons; "The chief credit in smashing the enemy's spearhead, however, must go to the rocket-firing Typhoon aircraft of the Second Tactical Air Force. The result of the strafing was that the enemy attack was effectively brought to a halt, and a threat was turned into a great victory."[28]" Falaise Gap: right next to photo of 198 Sqn Typhoons. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk03:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! - OK - thanks - that'll teach me to read the article first!
Switch to Ground Attack
I hadn't noticed before that cites have been removed from this section - now restored. Statistics are usefulo, but too many are not needed in an encylopaedic article. As it is the effectiveness of the rockets is discussed in the relevant article on the RP3. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk01:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important that for every number of kills claimed that is in the article a verifiable source be used. And this is what I did for Goodwood and Mortain. I also added the overall numbers, as best as I could find, for the Normandy Campaign to put all the claimed kills in perspective.Part of the problem with air attacks is that they simply weren't that effective in ww2 using fighter bombers and unguided munitions against armoured or dug in targets! Much propaganda has been made regarding air attacks by all sides during and post war, likely to validate the cost of fighter bombers....but as I tried to show more recent research and even ground based analysis post battle during the war suggests that direct fighter bomber attacks accounted for between 3-7% of tanks; regardless of the nation. This is why I think the section on effectiveness should have something in more detail about: 1) the difficulty of hitting a pin point target with a plane and unguided munitions 2) the fact that many tanks had armoured tops which a 20-37mm cannon at a glancing angle (30-60 deg) strike angle would have difficulty penetrating 3) Aircraft munitions are limited, so as a weapons platform aircraft cannot 'last in the fight' as they quickly run out of bombs, rockets or cannon shells..heck the Ju87G only had what 12 37mm shells in its underwing pods! This means that aircraft cannot really sustain fire on an area like a ground based AT gun can! 4) Attacking a dug-in, fortified or AA defended spearhead is even more difficult as the AA fire restricts the lines of approach and reduces the time aircraft have over the target! A referenced discussion of the above is warranted for combat effectiveness.Tempsperdue (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beware of making statements like: "The reason for the inflated regard of Typhoons and other fighter bombers as effective tank destroyers is a result of the myth perpetrated by exaggerated pilot kill claims." that are not backed up by authoritative and verifiable references. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
This is an article about the Hawker Typhoon, not a specialised opinion piece on the effectiveness of aerial GA during WW 2 - as Thomas notes there were two sides to the story; sure, the the Typhoon pilots overclaimed on the numbers of AFVs actually destroyed, but the effects of the GA sorties against "soft skins", open topped AP carriers and horse drawn vehicles used by the German armed forces was devastating, and was enough to halt the attack at Mortain with tanks and other AFVs being abandoned because of the attacks or because they ran out of fuel and ammunition. Fact is the Typhoon attacks were effective, as witnessed by all those who saw the battlefields afterwards. "A referenced discussion of the above is warranted for combat effectiveness." Not in an article such as this, because all that will happen is that it will become a long, tedious debate which will never end as other editors add their referenced opinions. One or two examples of AFV casualty figures v Typhoon claims is enough to make a point. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk10:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concentrating on Typhoon attacks against tanks alone could also be a case of undue focus. The Typhoon could, and was used to, attack most anything of benefit to the German war machine on the ground - ships, railway movements, airfield hangars... Losses of Typhoons would also have to take that into account before the aircraft/tank calculations were started. An interesting numerical experiment for a historian perhaps but not for this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I added: "The Typhoon has been credited with destroying dozens of the feared Tiger Is the Normandy campaign. However, only 13 Tiger tanks were destroyed by direct air attack during the entire campaign. Of the 13 Tigers lost by aircraft, it is estimated that seven were lost on 18 July 1944 due to high altitude bombing preceding Operation Goodwood - at most only six Tigers were destroyed by Typhoons or other fighter bombers in the entire Normandy campaign. [39] No more than 100 German tanks were verifiability lost due to hits by aircraft out of a total of approximately 1,500 German tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns lost during the Normandy campaign.[40] In contrast, the 2nd Tactical Air Force lost 829 aircraft and the 9th USAAF lost another 897 [41] out of an estimated total of 4,101 Allied aircraft of all types that were lost in support of the Normandy campaign and were involved in all mission types, not just anti-tank.[42]" -->Referenced Normandy campaign numbers that keep getting removed. It is specific to Typhoons, and puts the losses of the 2nd TA and 9th USAAF in perspective during Normandy; that is all. Nowhere have I suggested that the Typhoons were NOT used in interdiction or other mission types. All the later is clearly cited in the article, so why not add numbers on the losses of tanks vs. aircraft?Tempsperdue (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In using terms like "estimated", "verifiably", "at most only" aren't exactly the standard for authoritative, verifiable reference sources. Instead, this seems more like making a WP:Point campaign. FWiW, if there are these undisputed sources, where were they before? Bzuk (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping back a bit - no you did not say that Typhoons were only used against tanks - but you had put the "kills" of only one target next to the losses to all causes. The juxtaposition appears to be chosen to cause the reader to "compare and contrast" in a particular way. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the text by separating the two items by a blank line. But more importantly - I've tagged that what needs to be added to the aircraft losses during the Normandy campaign is the number of Typhoons (ie the focus of this article) lost. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...what was the make up of 2nd tactical during Normandy, they were made up from forces of Bomber command and fighter command...this shouldn't be too difficult to find, I don't have the references on hand.Tempsperdue (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are turning this article into a needlessly detailed critique of the Typhoon's effectiveness against tanks - the material about Tiger Is etc is not needed because the point, that the Typhoon did not destroy large numbers of tanks during two major battles, has been made already - by directly comparing numbers of tanks destroyed v numbers of Typhoons destroyed you are producing a skewed set of figures which bear no relationship to the Typhoon's overall effectiveness as a ground attack aircraft; think about it - how many tanks destroyed Typhoons? You have become fixated on the numbers of tanks destroyed at the expense of the overall impact of aerial operations against the German supply echelons, headquarters, troop concentrations etc; without embarking on long explanations and breakdowns of statistics such comparisons are meaningless and do not belong in this article - save it for more specialised websites or the article on the RP-3.
Also, you mention 456 tanks but what does this mean? Were they all German? Were they abandoned, destroyed, out of fuel? Were they all tanks or a mix of tanks AFVs and APCs? Thirdly what was the Office of Research and Analysis in this particular (WW2) context? I have googled it under Office of Research and Analysis 2 TAF WW2 and still have no idea. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it is important to have the overall numbers for tanks included especially vis-a-vis the Normandy Campaign because in the introductory paragraph and throughout the articles the suggestion is made that 'the typhoon was the best ground attack aircraft of the war'. We then give examples of all the things it destroyed, both claimed and verified: inclduing flak, aircraft, soft skinned vehicles, buildings, etc. But nowhere is there an example of its actual effectiveness vis-a-vis tanks. And it seems to me important to give lie to the fact that ww2 ground attack aircraft were 'good' against tanks,which IMO seems to be a common misnomer prevalent today. Perhaps because modern guided weapons ARE so effective! Anyhow I would include that little referenced paragraph summarising the typhoons effectiveness in Normandy vs. AFVS, but obviously I am arguing against the wind....you seem determined NOT to have anything in the article putting into question the Typhoons overall effectiveness against AFVs, other than particular references which counter exaggerated pilot claims.Tempsperdue (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement in the introduction is that the Typhoon was one of the most successful ground attack aircraft (my emphasis). No mention of tanks. It has already been stated above that tanks were not the only target of the Typhoon. As WP:UNDUE says "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". To focus on only the performance against tanks seems to me to be inappropiate to the significance of that performance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it gives undue weight unless you also have figures and stuff on railway engines, rolling stock, bridges, soft vehicles, buildings or anything else that was a target of opportunity, better just to leave out the tank stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article did not make any claims - verified or otherwise - about how effective the Typhoon was against tanks because it is well known that making such claims in Wikipedia only leads to contention and debate, coupled with large scale and futile statistical analysis.
"Anyhow I would include that little referenced paragraph summarising the typhoons effectiveness in Normandy vs. AFVS, but obviously I am arguing against the wind..." Your "little paragraph starts off stating that "The Typhoon has been credited with destroying dozens of the feared Tiger Is" Can you explain this further, apart from quoting from Zetterling? Exactly where or from whom has it been claimed that the Typhoon destroyed "dozens" of Tiger Is? Can you find any reputable source on the Typhoon which has made such claims? Such a sweeping statement, even one which is referenced, can be argued over ad-nauseum.
As Graeme and Milbourne have stated you are putting WP:UNDUE weight on just one aspect of the Typhoon's role because it was also a fighter and it was effective against other targets - the fact that .
Look we can sit here at discuss at nauseaum about whether or not I put the emphasis on tanks or that Zetterling is insufficient a reference. The reality I find and hear quite often, and that which this article indirectly supports is that fighter-bombers or ground attack aircraft in ww2 were particularly good or effective. IMO this stems from the effectiveness of modern guided munitions, which didn't really exist in ww2. The Typhoon was no doubt one of the more effective and feared or well-liked fighter bombers, but I think some perspective is needed in the article. Do we have an evidence of the total amount of soft targets killed/destroyed by typhoons? When I propose to add a comparison of typhoons or aircraft vs. total AFV losses in Normandy to add perspective I get shot down. Yet the paragraphs on soft-target effectiveness and as morale booster remain without any opposing viewpoints. I have no issue with discussing the typhoons effectiveness against ALL targets, but I do think some perspective is needed, especially about overall effectiveness of fighter bombers against AFVs.Which I tried to supply. So fine remove the 'against tigers' quote if you don't trust the reference, but keep the overall planes vs. AFV losses aka this:" No more than 100 German tanks were verifiability lost due to hits by aircraft out of a total of approximately 1,500 German tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns lost during the Normandy campaign.[40] In contrast, the 2nd Tactical Air Force lost 829 aircraft and the 9th USAAF lost another 897 [41] out of an estimated total of 4,101 Allied aircraft of all types that were lost in support of the Normandy campaign and were involved in all mission types, not just anti-tank."! Tempsperdue (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Morale
While following up some thoughts I had while editing the article I found this on google books. RPs are discussed from page 249 onwards though - as ever - some pages are tantalizingly not shown. Mentions morale boost for the British troops when a Typhoon strike goes in. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The physical destruction is irrelevant - just as the Civil Air Patrol crippled u-boat effectiveness by being there, the appearance of Typhoons pinned down German tanks. Hull down tanks are difficult to destroy (including by tanks and anti-tank guns), but if it stays put the heavies can pound on it, and if it moves, since its location is known, it won't survive long. That is if ammunition and fuel supplies are adequate but as they were largely destroyed by Typhoons, the tanks may as well have been destroyed as they just weren't going far.
Naval and ground forces always have an inflated belief in their ability to deal with aircraft and arguments suggesting a lack of effectiveness have put forward by them regularly (mostly by armchair generals and authors trying to make a repuation rewriting history) since the 1920s and haven't been valid for most of that time. This is nothing but more of the same and isn't even relevant to the Typhoon story.NiD.29 (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen by the discussion above, and in the article, the idea that it was easy for fighter bombers, with unguided munitions, in ww2 to destroy armoured ground targets, especially moving ones, has been clearly shown as false. It was incredibly difficult for Typhoons and others to hit and then penetrate and destroy AFVs, hence the 4% kill rate vs. the claims. As to the claims that anti air crews exaggerated their kill claims, please provide some evidence/links. My understanding is that AA was effective, even if it merely acted as a deterrent to an air attack. As to morale, there is no doubt that air attacks adversely affected morale, but in the same vein the Germany army did learn to cope to a degree, moving at night, coordinating movements, etcTempsperdue (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With a direct hit the 60lb RP would destroy any armoured fighting vehicle in the world at the time - a Typhoon or Tempest's eight RP load was reckoned to be equivalent to a cruiser's 6" gun broadside. One rocket hit on a Tiger or Panther would literally blow the vehicle to bits. This is why German tank crews were reported to have bailed out of their vehicles before being hit. This is more understandable when you realise that the Typhoons and Tempests were being used on the 'Cab Rank' system under a FAC, whereby the attack is maintained continuously with no break for the defender until he either surrenders, withdraws, or is destroyed. So we are talking of rocket attacks that might go on continuously all day with most, if not all, of the 2nd TAF's aircraft to draw on. Imagine being in a tank with rocket-firing Typhoon after rocket-firing Typhoon coming in at you all day, with only perhaps a quarter, or perhaps half a minute in between aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the 'Cab Rank' system worked like this. The ground force would have an attached RAF ground controller in wireless communication with RAF operations and also with the pilot's VHF radios. Should he need to call on support from Typhoons or similar, he would radio in, and two Typhoons (or as many as he thought were needed) would immediately take off and fly to the requested target area, and on arrival, call the RAF ground controller on VHF voice radio for instructions, then following up by attacking the target with guns, rockets, or bombs. While the first two Typhoons were attacking the target, two more would be taking off, and proceeding to the area as backup, should the first two aircraft not succeed in destroying the target. Upon arrival, if needed, they also would be guided on to the target by the ground RAF officer, and the initial two aircraft would be on their way home to refuel and rearm. At the same time, a third set of two Typhoons would be taking off, and flying to the target area, again, if needed should the second two aircraft fail to destroy the allocated target. Eventually it would be the turn of the refuelled and rearmed first two aircraft again, and again if needed they would take off and again fly to the target area. The point of this was that the attack would continue as long as it was required, and in theory, the ground controller could call on the entire 2nd TAF if needed, as the Typhoons came on a 'cab rank' system, of 'first come, first served', any available Typhoon could be called upon by the ground controller and directed to attack the target. The Typhoons were based on the Advanced Landing Grounds so the flight time to and from the target areas was only measured in minutes. As soon as one set of aircraft ran out of ammunition, another fresh set arrived to take over from them. And so on.
It's called a 'Cab Rank' system BTW, as it works like a taxi stand, where the cabs line up and the one at the head of the line gets the fare. The one with the fare leaves, and the others all move up one, and the new one at the front gets the next fare. Later the original cab returns, and goes to the back of the line, moving up until he is at the front of the line again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The chief credit in smashing the enemy's spearhead, however, must go to the rocket-firing Typhoon aircraft of the Second Tactical Air Force. The result of the strafing was that the enemy attack was effectively brought to a halt, and a threat was turned into a great victory." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
The supposed 20:1 overclaim by Typhoon pilots attacking tanks, compared to the usual 2:1 or 3:1 in air-to-air combat, is odd. It does not seem very likely that pilots overclaimed that much, especially considering the unanimous view of German tank crews that when Typhoons appeared, the panzers' day was done. It is worth recalling that the post-battle assessments were made by army officers, who would be keen to show that the air force did nothing and the army did everything. It is also worth recalling that at Mortain, soldiers of the US 30th Division, cut off on Hill 314 with a spectacular panoramic view of the battlefield, saw the artillery and ground anti-tank guns continually re-killing German tanks that had already been knocked out. As soon as the wreck wasn't giving off smoke any more, it was considered 'live' and artillery and anti-tank fire would be called down on it. And this went on for days. The same wreck could be re-killed half a dozen times. And in the post-battle assessment, only a wreck that was found to have been hit solely by Typhoon rockets and by no other Allied ordnance of any kind at any time would be credited to the Typhoon pilot who had in fact killed the thing. It was presumably the same on the Goodwood battlefield earlier that summer. And at Goodwood large numbers of knocked-out German tanks were towed away for possible repair or to be cannibalised for spares, and none of those kills would figure in the army's post-battle assessment. Hence, perhaps, the illusory '20:1 overclaim'. The article probably should not give so much weight to such a flimsy argument. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is curious fact that the people attempting to minimise the effects of the rocket attacks seem to miss the fairly important point that if the rockets had been that inaccurate the RAF would probably not have bothered to use them in the first place.
There is plenty of gun-camera footage on YouTube showing 60lb RP's successfully hitting their targets, although the success or failure in this does seem to depend to a great extent on the skill of the pilot, many of the less skilled ones firing their rockets when still way out of range — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
466 mph
I have read through many volumes on WW2 aircraft and Mason's Hawker Fighters since 1920. I have searched the web in vain for another reference to Camm expecting 466mph for the Typhoon. I can't find anything to support this contention. Since the referenced article is not available for inspection and since it is not a high quality source to begin with, the reference to 466mph should be deleted or removed from the article as a footnote only. Damwiki1 (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, this amounts to an extraordinary claim, as 466mph would be an incredible speed from the expected engine output of the Typhoon prototypes, especially given this aircraft's size and weight.Damwiki1 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading Thomas and Shores' The Typhoon & Tempest Story and no mention of Camm expecting 466 mph - if anyone is going to get the facts straight it would be Chris Thomas. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk10:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The figure of 466mph may be referring to the lone Tempest I prototype HM599. This would originally have been referred to as the Typhoon Mark II but the type was subsequently named 'Tempest', so that may be where the figure comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ORS2
Added citation about ORS2 findings and added Copp to the bibliography using harv, as I've forgotten how to do the other referencing systems. Feel free to change if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just been making a few edits, mostly stylistic. Will be wandering through the article over the next couple of days. I do like the Tiffy. It often featured in Commando (comics) of happy childhood memory :) Happy to discuss as always and reversions are no issue, if they are constructive. Cheers all! Irondome (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hawker Typhoon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Good solid article at the top end of the B class. Content is excellent and well balanced between different aspects. In my opinion the main area for improvement is the prose, which can be a bit prolix and indirect - a problem endemic in aircraft articles, including the ones I've written :-). Minor improvements include fixing some dead internal links, considering adding non-essential material covered in some other aircraft articles (popular culture, suriviors et C), and possibly adding another illustration or illustrations, (colour pics from the 1940s or of the survivor would be ideal. Winstonwolfe02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last edited at 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Substituted at 17:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Invasion stripes, and caption in photo
In the photo of the Typhoon where the caption dates it due to the invasion stripes, such a method of dating a photo is not that accurate. All we can say from the photo is that it would have been taken some time after June 6th 1944, not 'during' June 1944. Allied tactical aircraft carried their invasion stripes until they were either shot down, or returned to depot for full overhaul and possible repainting. Certainly I have never come across any reference to invasion stripes being painted out specifically because it was no longer D-Day or June 1944!Loates Jr (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RAF ordered the invasion stripes removed from all RAF, RCAF, etc., aircraft within a couple of weeks of D-Day commencing, i.e., they only carried them for a few weeks after D-Day.
Any photo showing invasion stripes on a front line RAF or Commonwealth air force aircraft in Europe was almost certainly taken between 5th June 1944 and the 1st July 1944.
The invasion stripes BTW were added for the benefit of the crews of the invasion fleets, for many of-whom the only aircraft they had previously encountered were German and Italian ones trying to sink them. Within a couple of weeks subsequent to D-Day it was assumed they would have become sufficiently familiar with the majority of the aircraft they encountered being 'friendly' that the invasion stripes could be removed.
That is why when the stripes were removed/over-painted in mid- to late-June 1944 a small section of stripes on the underside of the rear fuselage was sometimes allowed to remain, so that ships and ground forces could still see them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
