Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: OIO on March 10, 2005, 08:10:38 PM
-
Could we have this plane?
Shouldnt be that hard to model is it? :)
A dozen plinkers! ME WANT!
-
So you can tickle with 12 fingers now?
-
Don't knock those .303's.
If you get the convergence right, around 225 - 250, and train yourself to shoot at that distance they can be devestating. I have popped a many JU-88 with just a snap of the trigger on the old Spit & Hurri I's. :aok
"Gunnery" is the major problem with the .303's (Think that is bad just try tickling them with TWO FINGERS on the Me-109E when you're out of cannon ammo!), hard to get a good solid hit in on a manuvering target like a fighter.
-
I would love to see this plane. The toughness of the Hurricane, the improved engine performance of the Mk II, and an ammo load that rips through planes like a buzzsaw. Its an artist's plane, one for writing your name on the other guy's wing in .303 sized holes. :) And then watching that wing fall off lol.
-
Only if u stop complaining about autoretracting flaps.
:D
-
12 x .303's = Zeke nightmare :D
Would just absolutely tear them to shreds.
-
Heh, love the Mk1, 12 x .303's would be absolutely devastating
How much ammo per gun BTW?
-
That would be very nice!
Now imagine that with the capacity of the CA 12 Boomerang, at 1000 rpg! I don't think there would be much room left in the sky.
-
Yes please.
-
A "flying shotgun". Nice. Count me in!!
Oh wait a minute, I don't fly anymore.
NM.
-
I think its 300 rpg for the 12 .303 hurri.
-
I'd rather have 8 .50's in my P-47 :)
-
300 rpg of .303's isn't much at all...
-
two short burst's, how much would you need!?
ffs 12 guns!
12 .303 could CUT the wing from a plane.
-
12x .303s may not be as 'powerful' as we might expect. At least, according to Tony Williams. (Tony's site seems to be down, however... and I can't pull any direct quotes from him)
Having 12 wing-mounted guns is a convergence nightmare, not to mention the added weight of guns and ammunition would be effecting the plane performance pretty badly.
After 1940, more and more planes were receiving protective armour in vital spots, and rifle-calibre machine guns just weren't enough. IMO 12x .303s would be about as good as 4x .50s.. except it would need all of the 12 streams of bullets to converged at a single point, instead of four streams to converge as required in 4x .50s.
My guess is, if we get this plane, it'd definately be easier to 'ping' the enemy plane with it, but to actually do damage and shoot the enemy down it won't be much better than the Hurri1. At least, not as much as we'd hope.
..
But that's just specs and performance. Personally, I'd like to see that plane too. More planes is always is a good thing.
-
Most Hurri IIb pilots removed the out pair of guns from each wing due to the very nagative impact they had on performance. The 8 gun Hurri II was at a noticable advantage over the 12 gun Hurri II.
The Typhoon Mk Ia was also armed with 12 .303s.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
12x .303s may not be as 'powerful' as we might expect. At least, according to Tony Williams. (Tony's site seems to be down, however... and I can't pull any direct quotes from him)
It hasn't been down as far as I'm aware...
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
I read that the Pilots of Hurry IIB's received in Burma peeled them off to an 8 gun fighter, or even down to 4, to improve performance.
An 8 gun Hurry II is lighter than our IIC BTW, so this could be a nice addition, - say there is the Hurry IIB, and you can pick 4, 8 or 12 guns.
But wasn't there then a Hurry IIa?
-
Hmm I was going to trow in some pictures but I just couldn't find anything with 12 guns!
-
I'd like to have this plane plus the Sea Hurris. We need a few more CV planes, and the Sea Hurri was used until around 1943.
-
Mainly I'd just like to see it so we have a Hurri II model with the MGs instead of the cannons. I love the Mk I but hate having to deal with the engine cut out.
-
Though that one wasn't able to land again was it. I've heard the pilots had to bail or ditch near a vessel.
-
Give the Hurricane a deck and it will land.
First time was aboard the Glorious, in the retreat from Norway.
Land based Hurricanes with the mere modification of a sandbag in the rear landed aboard the carrier..
But there were also the castapult launched Hurricanes (Hurricat). They had nothing to land on if a land base was too far off, so...splash.
-
The later Sea Hurris had arrestor hooks. Shouldn't be too hard to modify our current Hurri to Sea Hurri.
From the Fleet Air Arm Archive website:
History
The Hawker Sea Hurricane was a variant of the Hawker Hurricane. During World War II the Fleet Air Arm took on charge some 440 Sea Hurricanes, 60 of which were built new as Sea Hurricanes and the rest were conversions from former RAF Hurricanes some of which dated from 1938. The Sea Hurricane was initially deployed not for aircraft carrier operations but to protect merchant shipping. To combat German maritime-reconnaissance bombers, some ships were converted into CAMs (catapult aircraft merchantmen) which meant that a Hurricane fighter could be launched from the ship when danger approached. The biggest problem was that the fighter could not re-land on board, and so the pilot had to ditch it in the sea. The main areas of operation for the 'Hurricat' or 'Catafighters' were in the Mediterranean and Baltic. Later versions of the Sea Hurricane operated from aircraft carriers, being fitted usually with catapult spools and arrester hook, but by 1943 the Sea Hurricane had all but disappeared from service.
The Sea Hurricane Mk I were followed by about 300 Mk Is converted to Sea Hurricane Mk IB configuration, these having catapult spools plus a V-frame arrester hook: in addition 25 Mk IIA were modified as Sea Hurricane IB or Hooked Hurricane II fighters. Their initial role was a considerable improvement on CAM-ship deployment, for from October 1941 they began to go to sea aboard MAC-ships, these being large Merchant ships fitted with a small flight deck.
Sea Hurricane Mk IC fighters, introduced in February 1942 were conventional Mk I conversions with catapult spools and arrester hook; they had, however, the four-cannon wing of the land-based Hurricane Mk IIC. The Sea Hurricane Mk IIC, was intended for Fleet carrier operations and, consequently, was without catapult spools. This version was also used as hurri-cats. They introduced also to navy service the Merlin XX engine, and carried FAA radio equipment. Mk.IIC's with 4-cannon wings built by Hawker and delivered between December 1942 and May 1943. The Sea Hurricane Mk X - Canadian built Hurricane X converted to Sea Hurricane standards were all classified either Mk.IA or Mk.IB by the RN, even though all used the two-stage Packard Merlin 28. Thet were all built with eight .303 machine guns. The Sea Hurricane Mk XII - Conversion of Canadian Hurricane XII for Royal Canadian Navy with full naval equipment. Packard Merlin 29 with twelve .303 machine guns. The last of the Sea Hurricane variants was the Sea Hurricane Mk XIIA, of which a small number were converted from Canadian-built Mk XIIs, and these were used operationally in the North Atlantic. Although the Sea Hurricane last saw service in 1945, Sea Hurricane NF670 was still extant on the East Kirby dump in 1956/57.
Versions
Mk I One Hurricane Mk I conversion; Catapult spools and arrester hooks
Mk IA 50 Hurricane conversion; catapult spools only; specially produced for
CAM fighter scheme - launched from CAM ships
Mk IB 300 Mk I (merlin III) and 25 Mk IIA series 2 conversions; Catapult
spools and arrester hook (MAC-ship service)
Mk IC Hurricane Mk I conversion with four-cannon wings; catapult spools
and arrester hook
Mk IIC Arrester hook and naval radio equipment
Mk XIIA Canadian built navalised Mk XII, with Packard Merlin XXIX engine
Fleet Air Arm history
Hawker Sea Hurricane
Total FAA 1939-1945 443
Total Sea Hurricane Ia 50
Total Sea Hurricane Ib 290
Total Sea Hurricane II 42
Total Sea Hurricane IIc 60
First delivered to RN: Feb 1941
First squadron 1939-1945: 760 sqdn 1941, 880 sqdn 1941
Operational squadron: 880 sqdn 1941
Last served with RN 1945 - East Kirby dump 1956/57 (NF670).
-
The Sea Hurricane's most famous action was fought during August 1942, when aircraft serving with 801, 802 and 885 squadrons aboard the carriers HMS Indomitable, HMS Eagle and HMS Victorious, joined with Fairey Fulmars and Grumman Martlets to protect a vital convoy to Malta, in Operation Pedestal. During three days of almost continuous attack by an Axis force of bombers, torpedo-bombers and escorting fighters, 39 enemy aircraft were destroyed for the loss of eight naval fighters.
Bring the Sea Hurri I and II to Aces High!
-
Better yet, give me a HurriII with 64 Daisy automatic BB rifles mounted in the wings and a propeller hub mounted 12 guage shotgun loaded with rock salt! I want to torture the bastard, not shoot him down!
Oh yea, and a Boulton-Paul turret mounted behind the pilot with a harpoon cannon for the wife ack...
Magoo
JK, I'm all for a 12 gun hurri...
-
The Soviets also removed the extra outboard guns from their IIb Hurricanes
-
Originally posted by Magoo
Better yet, give me a HurriII with 64 Daisy automatic BB rifles mounted in the wings and a propeller hub mounted 12 guage shotgun loaded with rock salt! I want to torture the bastard, not shoot him down!
Oh yea, and a Boulton-Paul turret mounted behind the pilot with a harpoon cannon for the wife ack...
Magoo
JK, I'm all for a 12 gun hurri...
Ouch! rock salt is very evil. When I was 15 a friend and I decided to take a little shortcut through this old guys field and we both got pinged in buttocks. My friend (who was not the sharpest tool in the shed) decided to get revenge 2 days later in a haphazard attemt to pop his tractor tires. This did not go well, as his cub scout knife folded on his knuckles. He yelped, and the old man came out and shot him in the buttocks once again.
Never underestimate the power of rock salt!
-
Originally posted by GREENTENERAL
Ouch! rock salt is very evil. When I was 15 a friend and I decided to take a little shortcut through this old guys field and we both got pinged in buttocks. My friend (who was not the sharpest tool in the shed) decided to get revenge 2 days later in a haphazard attemt to pop his tractor tires. This did not go well, as his cub scout knife folded on his knuckles. He yelped, and the old man came out and shot him in the buttocks once again.
Never underestimate the power of rock salt!
Duuuude, my brothers and i use to ride dirt bikes in sandiego, some old bastage use to pelt us with rock salt, from long range, thing was we never saw him, in the MONTHS we would get hit by this SOB, we never saw him..not once...and we went huntin' for him alot, some 12 or so kids, all who have dirt bikes or some type of engine ran doohicky, long story short, altho he "annoyed" us, most of the time, all of us were too banged up from crashing to care about some minor skin sting. i say skin sting vs. the muffler burns, cracked ribs, and a few minor concusions. due to the "sudden minor sting" makeing most kids crash, or loose control.
you always knew when a kid got hit by the guy too, because they would ither make some tailtell sign of a "out of control dirtbike" or you would see a guy rideing in the distance then hear a "yelp" fallowed by a cloud of dust "crashing" fallowed by some kid/guy yelling at the top of his lungs every cuss word imaginable, runing off in some stupid "wrong" direction to chase that damn guy with his salt rock gun.
Too the old man "i assume it was" who shot us up all that time, i realy do hate you..
but all in all for not geting found and skined alive by 12 or more pissed of kids. :aok
-
Thank goodness for wimpy ammo and bad weapon choices!
As far as bb guns go, I've had my fill of those as well.
I wonder what the wimpiest ammo is in this game? The only ammo I really know something about is for handguns.
-
These may help to get an idea of how much it takes to achieve an immediate shootdown.
109F:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1111012844_109fvuln1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1111012892_109fvuln2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1111012927_109fvuln3.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1111012968_109fvuln4.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1111013009_109fvuln5.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1111013058_109fvuln6.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1111013104_109fvuln7.jpg)
FW190A:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1111013197_190vunerability1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1111013237_190vunerability2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1111013274_190vunerability.jpg)
Hope this helps!
Crumpp
-
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?
-
yes, bomber interception and believe it or not, ground attack.
-
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
-
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?
(http://www.portierramaryaire.com/imagenes/ju87g.jpg)
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.
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/hs129-1.jpg)
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
-
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
-
grasshopper, when you plink someone down with .303's you shall know true joy.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
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
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
....aside from the Tse-Tse fly Mosquito & the Hurricane IId (neither of which saw particularly wide use)
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
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
-
Crumpp:
"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"
I'll post it along with Dunkirk losses.
Actually I did...somewhere here on the board, but I'll be quicker retyping it anyway :)
Sources are LW quartermasters, LW direct, and LW quartermasters through Ultra.
The BoB survey is IMHO rather reliable.
Anyway, Seagoon:
A LW aircraft with enough altitude is within gliding distance of France if it hits the narrow strait.
Really, not a deep territory strike in the case of the BoB.
-
Sources are LW quartermasters, LW direct, and LW quartermasters through Ultra.
We went through this one before with Barbi, remember? Ultra intercepts are very unreliable as any aircraft with any damage is reported as a loss.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The one I have from Ultra is from the France and lowlands campaign. (I belive)
Will finally have some time at the console today and tomorrow.
Will be back in some 4 hours.
(Tractor clutch spares mission ;))
-
Ok, back.
Part 1. the BoB
John Alcorn's "Top guns of the BoB" article
Looks like very well compiled data, and he put a lot of work into it, starting in 1970.
Ok, some conclusions.
Period: July to and with October, so 4 months (AFAIK)
LW battle related losses:
1.609
To RAF fighters:
Between 1197 and 1231
Top scoring sqn is 603 with 57 kills, there off 47 109's.
(based on LW losses, not RAF claims)
Actually, the Hurricane equipped 501 has 40 kills, there off 30 109's!
Ok, BRB with more
-
Ok, Dunkirk.
RAF sorties total on the 9 days of fighting: 2793
RAF losses 177
LW losses 240
Post war survey. (Rather recent)
From Christopher Shores.
What I have on the French and lowland campaign is 1100 LW aircraft lost. I belive that was from the LW quartermasters. Will post when I find the bloody book ;)