Brits loved the P-39!

[Colin1]

A ground attack plane needs a cannon. Hurricane had some rifle calibre machineguns

I'm pretty certain Kaberov mentioned the Soviet disdain for the machine guns, they retro-fitted their own cannons on arrival. I'll need to check, been a while since I read him.

[michaelmaltby]

Try Libia, Tunisia, Sicilly etc .... that mid-war. No Russians there but lots of Hurricanes. The evaluation of the Hurricane relies on other data besides the Russian.

MM

[stasoid]

Try Libia, Tunisia, Sicilly etc .... that mid-war. No Russians there but lots of Hurricanes. The evaluation of the Hurricane relies on other data besides the Russian.

MM

Was it a good fighter then?
Or we're talking about its ground attack capabilities? A liquid cooling engine, no armour... still sounds like a suicide mission.

[stasoid]

I'm pretty certain Kaberov mentioned the Soviet disdain for the machine guns, they retro-fitted their own cannons on arrival. I'll need to check, been a while since I read him.

Yes, I read about this too. Russians installed two ShVAK cannons in each wing. Brits didnt like this idea of Russians altering the original design though.

[michaelmaltby]

Yes it was a good fighter for its time - but lets be clear - the Russians never faced an air superiority struggle similar to the B of B (other struggles, yes) Asking whether or not it was "suicidal" in the ground attack role is like asking if the Typhoon was, in a similar role -- sometimes, perhaps? but so were Sturmoviks.

MM

[claidemore]

Yes, I read about this too. Russians installed two ShVAK cannons in each wing. Brits didnt like this idea of Russians altering the original design though.

The British altered the original design several times themselves, propellers, armor, engines, armament (3 x .303, 12 x .303, 4 x 20mm, 2 x 40mm). I doubt they would care if the Soviets changed up the weapons on any of the Hurricanes they had.
It would only make sense to change the guns to indigenous designs as nescessary. There would be more armorers trained for the ShKAS and ShVak and better availability of ammo, and simplified logistics of fewer types of ammo and parts.
As a fighter the Hurricane was considerably more modern than the I-16, and fond remembrances of the Rata from Soviet pilots should be taken with a grain of salt. The Hurricane had better overall performance, much better radios, and the MkII and MkIIb had greater firpower then the most numerous I-16-10 and 18 and the IIC had more firepower than the I-16-17 and 24.
The Soviets received and used approximately 2000 Hurricanes and the plane was even issued to a 'Guards' regiment defending Moscow in 1942.

[claidemore]

double post, stupid interweb. lol

[Timppa]

As a fighter the Hurricane was considerably more modern than the I-16, and fond remembrances of the Rata from Soviet pilots should be taken with a grain of salt. The Hurricane had better overall performance, much better radios, and the MkII and MkIIb had greater firpower then the most numerous I-16-10 and 18 and the IIC had more firepower than the I-16-17 and 24.

Then you must also take a grain of salt of the opinions of the Finnish pilots also:

"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. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames. "
virtualpilots.fi: WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

[Colin1]

Brits didnt like this idea of Russians altering the original design though

Tend to agree with the sentiment expressed in post #51
These were obsolete, lend-lease consumables, I don't think the Brits were expecting to see any of them again.

[claidemore]

Then you must also take a grain of salt of the opinions of the Finnish pilots also:

"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. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames. "
virtualpilots.fi: WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

He also explains how to fight the even slower I-16 and I-153, and how to fight the faster types, Migs, Yaks, LaGGs etc.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with regards to the Hurricane though?? Obviously the I-16 was more manueverable and may have been able to absorb more battle damage, but it was still a slower, older design that was trickier to fly and Hurricanes did in fact replace them in several Soviet units.

As far as 'grains of salt', fond memories of the Hurricane from RAF pilots fall into the category as well, since pretty much any RAF pilot who transitioned to Spitfires, P40's or Mustangs was more than happy to do so.

[Markus]

Was it a good fighter then?
Or we're talking about its ground attack capabilities? A liquid cooling engine, no armour... still sounds like a suicide mission.

The Il-2/10 had liquid cooled inline engines, just like the P-40, P-39, Hawker Typhoon and yes the Hurricane too. As far as I can tell all were fine fighter-bombers.

[RCAFson]

Then you must also take a grain of salt of the opinions of the Finnish pilots also:

"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. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames. "
virtualpilots.fi: WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

Some other quotes:

Our fighters must battle against either slower and more agile, or faster and less nimble fighter units. The first category nowadays includes the I-16, I-153, and at lower altitude, the Hurricane.

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.

I'm afraid this evaluation is contradictory where the Hurricane is concerned.

[stasoid]

The Il-2/10 had liquid cooled inline engines, just like the P-40, P-39, Hawker Typhoon and yes the Hurricane too. As far as I can tell all were fine fighter-bombers.

Il-2's engine had armour protection underneath it. A Hurricane flying at the same altitude as Il-2 could be knocked out by a single bullet from a hand gun. Il-2 could withstand up to 200 hits

I-16 could afford loosing up to two of its cylinders (top ones) and still be able to return home.

[Markus]

Il-2's engine had armour protection underneath it. A Hurricane flying at the same altitude as Il-2 could be knocked out by a single bullet from a hand gun. Il-2 could withstand up to 200 hits

I-16 could afford loosing up to two of its cylinders (top ones) and still be able to return home.

So what? She and others like her were still effective fighter-bombers. I guess that means the vulnerability of in-line engines was not as big in real life as it looked on paper. By the way, you can instantly killl a radial engine by hitting the oil cooler. That too seems to have happened not very often.

[Shortround6]

Il-2's engine had armour protection underneath it. A Hurricane flying at the same altitude as Il-2 could be knocked out by a single bullet from a hand gun. Il-2 could withstand up to 200 hits

The single bullet from a hand gun would have to hit in exactly the right place and given the speeds of a hand gun bullet and a fighter plane aiming the hand gun is such a problem that even hitting the airplane ANYWHERE is the same as winning the lottery.

Il-2 could withstand 200 hand guns hits?
Who figured that one out?

I-16 could afford loosing up to two of its cylinders (top ones) and still be able to return home.

How many times did this happen?
Once.
Twice.
Three times?