Author Topic: Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)  (Read 1528 times)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2005, 07:38:45 PM »
These may help to get an idea of how much it takes to achieve an immediate shootdown.

109F:















FW190A:







Hope this helps!

Crumpp

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2005, 08:12:23 AM »
Never stops puzzling me that the LW lost 1700+ aircraft to .303's in 4 months of 1940.

Anyway, 12 of those 303's at short range should be 50% more effective than 8.

This was aimed at bomber interception primarily right?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline OIO

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2005, 09:59:59 AM »
yes, bomber interception and believe it or not,  ground attack.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2005, 11:11:08 AM »
Quote
Never stops puzzling me that the LW lost 1700+ aircraft to .303's in 4 months of 1940.


Are you sure all of those fell to .303's?

My records show around 1200 LW losses for all plane types that are combat related in total for a 6 month period covering May 1940 to Dec 1940.

All the best,

Crumpp

Offline gear

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2005, 11:16:40 AM »
The Hurricane Mk.II used the 1280 hp (take off) Rolls-Royce Merlin XX 12 cyl., supercharged engine, giving it a speed of 334-342 mph depending on the version (550km/h), a ceiling of 36,475 ft (11,125m), and a range of 480 mi (772 km). The Mk IIB packed a mighty punch with twelve 0.303 machine guns and could carry two 250 or 500 lb (227kg) bombs, or alternatively 45 or 90 gallon drop tanks. The Mk IIC carried four 20 mm British-made Hispano cannons, two in each wing. The real bruiser in this series was the Mk IID carrying two 40 mm Vickers cannons and two 0.303 in. machine guns and extra armour for low level attacks on armoured vehicles. All of the extra weight reduced the speed and range of the aircraft.

 So,why don't the axsis have a genuine tank buster like the
ju-87g or the Hs-129?

The Ju 87G was the final version of the Stuka. It abandoned the dive attack in favour of an armament of two 37mm Rheinmetall-Borsig BK3,7 anti-tank cannon. These weapons fired special armour-piercing ammunition, with tungsten cores, at a muzzle velocity of 850m/sec. They were installed in gun pods fitted outboard of the landing gear legs. The ammunition was in six-round clips. The first operational trials were made in March 1943. The normal 7.9mm or 20mm wing guns were deleted. Dive bombing was not possible with the additional weight of the guns, so the dive brakes were also deleted -- the Ju 87G could still drop bombs, but not in a dive.
Initially, the Ju 87G was seen as quite dangerous to its crews. The additional weight and drag of the wing guns adversely affected performance and handling, and low-level attacks in the face of the Russian AAA and fighters seemed suicidal. But true as that was, it remained that the Ju 87G was extremely effective. The 37mm gun was in 1943 considered obsolete as an anti-tank gun on the ground, but from the air it was still effective, because the Ju 87G could attack tanks from the rear or from above, were their armour was much thinner. Not that the Germans refrained from trying out bigger cannon on anti-tank aircraft, but the Ju 87 could not possibly carry these, and larger aircraft such as the Ju 88 were not agile enough to operate successfully against tanks.

There were two versions, the G-1 and the G-2, with short and long wing spans, respectively -- the G-2 was based on the long-wing D-5 model. Production of the Ju 87 was halted definitively in October 1944.

  Hs 129B-1/R1: No fuselage hardpoint.
Hs 129B-1/R2: Added a 30mm Mk 101 cannon with 30 rounds in a tray under the fuselage. No fuselage hardpoint.
Hs 129B-1/R3: Added four MG 17's with 250 rounds per gun in a tray under the fuselage. No fuselage hardpoint.
Hs 129B-1/R5: Added a Rb 50/30 camera for reconnaissence duties. No fuselage hardpoint.
Hs 129B-2/R1: Replaced the two nose MG 17's with two 13mm MG 131's. The first B-2's saw action in early 1943 against the Soviets.
Hs 129B-2/R2: As B-2/R1, but added 30mm Mk 103 cannon with 30 rounds in a tray under the fuselage.
Hs 129B-2/R3: As B-2/R2, but use a 37mm BK 3.7 gun instead.
Hs 129B-2/R4: As B-2/R2, but mounted a 75mm Pak 40L in an underfuselage pod with 12 rounds. Weight and stall speed increased to 6.9 tons and 91 mph, respectvely, and aMR dropped to 3.
Hs 129B-3/Wa: As B-2/R4, but with the 75mm BK 7.5 cannon and 26 rounds instead. The pod could be jettisoned in an emergency. Only 25 were made, due to the gun being too much for the airframe and disruption from Allied bombing.
Hs 129C: This planned upgrade would have used two 627-kW Italian engines and had a limited traverse ventral turret with two 30mm Mk 103 cannons. The design was dropped after Italy surrendered and the engines became unavailable.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs129.html

Offline SuperDud

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4589
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2005, 11:43:16 AM »
At first I was for the 12 gun Hurri. But when you think about it, why not just take a HurriC if you want a lot of hitting power? I'm sure there are minor performance differences between the B & C but is it really that critical? Just pretend when you're in a B model when your in the C:D  And to be honest, how often do you see Hurri's? I won't say rarely, but not to often and the ones we have cover a good range of roles IMO. If(and I know this might not be accurate) HTC decides to implement this, I'd just throw a 12 gun package option under the HurriC. Would save them time from making a whole new plane and would give those who want the gun package, what they want. I personally don't fly Hurri's to often so maybe I just don't "get it" heheheh:p
SuperDud
++Blue Knights++

Offline OIO

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2005, 12:05:18 PM »
grasshopper, when you plink someone down with .303's you shall know true joy.

Offline SuperDud

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4589
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #37 on: March 20, 2005, 12:18:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by OIO
grasshopper, when you plink someone down with .303's you shall know true joy.


I've plinked a guy down in a Spit5 with nothing but .303's. And what I knew wasn't joy, it was frustration lol. I'm not against the gun package, I just don't know if I'd build a whole new aircraft just for it. I'd just add the option to the already created HurriC. I think it would be fun tryin to tear someone up with a bunch of .303's. Even if it doesn't work like a buzzsaw, they are like pilot wound magnets and it's an agonizing death, slowly knocking off parts of the enemy aircraft. When I do fly the Hurri, normally its the Hurri1 just for that purpose.
SuperDud
++Blue Knights++

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #38 on: March 20, 2005, 02:18:46 PM »
Oh, from Crumpp:
"
Are you sure all of those fell to .303's?

My records show around 1200 LW losses for all plane types that are combat related in total for a 6 month period covering May 1940 to Dec 1940.

All the best,

Crumpp"

Point taken.
1700 to all causes in 4 months is what I have, thereoff 1200 to RAF, armed almost exclusively with .303's
6 months would include Dunkirk and the channel fights, which would bring the number close to 1700
I'll compile and either mail or post here.
Still, 1200 aircraft to .303's in a space of 4 months is amazing.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #39 on: March 20, 2005, 03:15:51 PM »
Quote
Still, 1200 aircraft to .303's in a space of 4 months is amazing.


Are your numbers coming from Luftwaffe or RAF sources?

The Luftwaffe records I have show 1200 losses to all combat causes.  This includes flak.

All the best,

Crumpp

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #40 on: March 20, 2005, 04:39:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Never stops puzzling me that the LW lost 1700+ aircraft to .303's in 4 months of 1940.


Whatever the number, it was due in large part to the fact that Luftwaffe planes before the BoB were not very well protected. Contemporary RAF descriptions following examination of shot-down planes during the BoB comment with surprise on the poor levels of armour - some didn't even have self-sealing tanks.

As a result of BoB experience, levels of protection rose on both sides. The .303 became much less effective as a result.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #41 on: March 20, 2005, 04:46:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by gear

 So,why don't the axsis have a genuine tank buster like the
ju-87g or the Hs-129?


I presume you mean the Allies...well, the Soviets did of course have the Il-2M3 and its pair of NS-37 cannon. The USAAF and RAF didn't because their main focus was on independent action rather than army co-operation. By the time they realised that army co-operation was an essential part of warfare, it was too late to develop specialised aircraft

Quote
The Ju 87G was the final version of the Stuka. It abandoned the dive attack in favour of an armament of two 37mm Rheinmetall-Borsig BK3,7 anti-tank cannon. These weapons fired special armour-piercing ammunition, with tungsten cores, at a muzzle velocity of 850m/sec. They were installed in gun pods fitted outboard of the landing gear legs. The ammunition was in six-round clips.


The MV quoted is for conventional steel AP - with the Hartkernmunition it was 1,140 m/s. And 8 and 12-round clips were also available.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Offline bunch

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
      • http://hitechcreations.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?&forumid=17
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #42 on: March 20, 2005, 06:44:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tony Williams
I presume you mean the Allies...well, the Soviets did of course have the Il-2M3 and its pair of NS-37 cannon. The USAAF and RAF didn't because their main focus was on independent action rather than army co-operation. By the time they realised that army co-operation was an essential part of warfare, it was too late to develop specialised aircraft.....
.....Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum



....aside from the Tse-Tse fly Mosquito & the Hurricane IId (neither of which saw particularly wide use)

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #43 on: March 21, 2005, 07:25:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by bunch
....aside from the Tse-Tse fly Mosquito & the Hurricane IId (neither of which saw particularly wide use)


These were adaptations of aircraft designed for other purposes than army cooperation (and the Tsetse wasn't even used for that: why, I'm not sure). The Western Allies didn't have anything to compare with the Il-2, Hs 129 or Ju 87.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Hurricane MkIIB please (12 X .303 version)
« Reply #44 on: March 22, 2005, 03:32:47 PM »
Keep in mind also, we have to shoot 'em all the way down. In the BoB a smoking engine, a petrol leak, or a dead and seriously wounded crew often meant you weren't going to make it back over the channel and unlike our "German Kamikazes" many an aircrew opted to bail over dry land and be captured than risk a miserable death in the channel.

I remember reading ages ago that many bailing Luftwaffe aircrew expected to be quickly released from captivity when England capitulated (as had been the case in France) anyway. I suspect that very few seriously thought they'd spend the next 5 years in Canada.

- SEAGOON
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams