Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIB vs. Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Joe
1. Thats right I got Magwe and Mingaladon mixed up. The raid stemmed from Magwe. The RAF Hurricane claims were for fighters in the air , not straffed on the ground.

2. Argueing about stats is pointless I suppose and reconciling claims is a very difficult task.
In any case the sampling in Burma early 1942 is very small.

3.could you give me the titles and publishers of your references as I am interested in this little known theatre of the war.

4. Vs the wildcat I'd say the Hurri I and the Wildcat are about equal
1. No problem on base names, but see references below, Bloody Shambles doesn't mention those aerial claims, but in any case the Japanese didn't record any aerial losses (except to the Blenheims), and the opponents were not Type 1's (which as you see from the OOB were rare in Burma in that period, the main opponent was the Type 97).

2. I don't think it's pointless if looking at the right stats. The stats I gave are for the Pacific War through the period covered by Bloody Shambles v 1 and 2, so including Malaya and Dutch East Indies for Hurricane v JAAF, and Ceylon for v JNAF. The scale of combat in the theater was small enough that correlating losses in each combat from both sides *is* generally possible; again I summarize only results where the losses in specific combats, I don't include Allied losses from combats where the Japanese losses aren't known, but that's only a few actually. The results were consistent, the Hurricanes shot down more than they lost in IIRC *one* combat, out of a few dozen combats with Japanese fighters in that period. There isn't enough variance in the result combat to combat to say that pure statistical noise caused it. It's one theater in one period of the plane's career that's true, but it's not actually a statistically insignificant sample mathematically speaking, for that opponent and period.

3. The most on point is "Bloody Shambles" by Shores et al, vols 1 and 2 (Grub Street is the publisher). For comparison to AVG P-40's "Flying Tigers" by Ford (some but not most also covered in Shambles), for comparison to USAAF P-40's in Philippines "Doomed at the Start" by Bartsch (covered in less detail in Shambles); for USN F4F's in 1942 "The First Team" and "The First Team in the Guadalcanal Campaign" by Lundstrom, for USMC F4F's "Guadalcanal" by Frank. All those examine individual combats using both sides' records.

4. On paper or in one on one dogfight practice maybe, but the record of the two types in combat v Japanese fighters in 1942 was quite different. F4F's fought Japanese Navy Zeroes at just about 1:1 real exchange ratio, in actually a fair variety circumstances, in 1942, they downed a handful of obsolescent Navy Type 96's without loss, they didn't meet the JAAF in 1942. The Hurricanes fought JNAF Zeroes and JAAF Type 1's at a ratio of ~1:5. The Zero result was in a few big combats, but the Type 1 result was a over a bunch of small ones and actually worse; ~1:1 v the obsolescent Type 97. The Hurricane and F4F samples are of same order of magnitude size counting by Allied losses (around 63 Hurricane losses to J fighters in the bottom up Hurricane sample I gave, ~100 F4F's lost to Zeroes in '42) samples are only much different size counting by Japanese fighter losses (16 to Hurricanes in the sample, also ~100 to F4F's).

Joe
 
It should also be noted that .303 Brownings were not as powerful as .30 cal M2 Brownings. (although certainly better than Vickers K guns)

A slightly heavy round but much lower velocity (poorer trajectory and range and muzzel energy) and slightly lower ROF.

See: The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables


That said I'd take 12x .303 Brownings over 4x or even 6x .50 cal M2 guns when fighting the japanese. (with the exception of the N1K and maybe the Ki-84 or Ki-100)


The Hurricane IIB could out-turn, out-climb, and out run an F4F-4, but the Wildcat could dive and zoom climb better with greater weight realitive to drag. The Hurricane's wing acted as an airbrake in dives while the F4F (Marlet) was known to out dive (and zoom) early war Bf-109's. (the P-47 could do the same with late war 109's)
 
FWIW,

Modern loading of the .303 British round is 180gr. bullet @ MV of 2400fps.
Modern loading of the .30-06 (.30M1) is 150 gr. bullet @ MV of 2700fps.
(Remington ammo - 1974 catalogue)

Quick calculation shows ME of .303 British to be 2302.7716 lbs.-ft.
.30M1 shows ME of 2428.7046 lbs.-ft.

------------------------------------------

Aviation-History.com shows Hurri IIB with a top speed of 320 mph @ 19,700 ft. (340 mph @ 21,000 ft.)
F4F-4 318 mph @ 19,400 (only altitude listed)

Hurri IIB operational weight of 8470 w/ 2x 500 lb. bombs.
F4F-4 max. T/O wt. is 7952 w/2x 100 lb. bombs.
Subtract the bombs and the F4F has a slightly higher t/o weight. This may be due to additional armour protection.

Range for Hurri IIB is 460 miles on internal fuel only (920 mi. w/ 2x 44 gal. aux. tanks)
F4F-4's range is 770 miles. No mention if internal only or if that includes external fuel stores, as well.

Hawker Hurricane - Great Britain
Grumman F4F Wildcat - USA



Elvis
 
I thought the Merlin XX had only a single-stage 2-speed supercharger giving a critical altitude of only ~18,500 ft similar to the Packard Merlins used on the P-40F/L. Or was it just the Merlins used on the P-40 were lower altitude models?

Plus higher muzzle velocity of the .30-06 (note aircraft versions had a higher muzzle velocity: ~870 m/s compared to ~840-850 m/s for ground units) gave the round flatter trajectory resulting in better accuracy and longer effective range.
 
Kool Kitty, I believe that if you study the ballistics on the 50 BMG round versus the 303 British you will change your mind. The throw weight of the 6- 50s in the Wildcat was 9.54 pounds per second.The throw weight of four 30 cal US guns is 2.5 pounds per second. So 8 of those would be 5 pounds per second. Besides throw weight you have to take into account that the 50 BMG had a much longer effective range than the 30 cal plus the sectional density of the 50 BMG gave it substantially more penetration. One reason that the Thach Weave was so effective was that the Wildcat could start scoring hits on a Zeke before the Zeke had a good chance of replying with it's 30 cals or 20 mms. Even though the early Zeros had no armor or SS tanks the shelter supplied by the big radial engine was just as substantial on the Japanese AC as for the Americans. A 30 cal bullet hit on a radial engine would not have nearly as good a chance of damaging the engine as a 50 BMG slug would have. The lesser effectiveness of the 30 cal compared to the 50 BMG is the reason the US quit using the 30 cal early in the war on it's fighters. Even the SBD had cowl mounted 50s.
 
kool kitty89,

NUTS, I forgot to include bullet drop in those figures.
When I get home, I'll fish that catalogue out again and post the drops.
How far out would you like them?
I think most factory listings go out to 400 yds.




Elvis
 
renrich,

The Hurricane Mk.IIB carried 12x .303 guns, so the weight of fire would be roughly 7.5 lbs/s by those figures. (.303 figures vary slightly and those values seem high on both accounts) Except for the radial rngine, .303 rounds would shread a Zero, Oscar, Nate, or most other Japanese a/c. (except a few late-war a/c) With incendiary rounds it could easily set those fuel tanks alight, wich would subsequently drain and explode. (usualy) Aganst a N1K, or maybe a J2M, Ki-84, and maybe a Ki-61 or Ki-100 I'd want somthing heavier.

12x .303's have a better chance of hitting a target. As said the .30 M2 (M1919) and .50 M2 browning have better ballistics with higher muzzle velocity and muzzel power. The .50 has much more firepower than either RCMG and the higher sectional density results in better energy retention, in addition to penetration.
 
MV for .30M1 and .50M2 are roughly the same, at around 2700-2800 fps.
Its the weight and size of the projectile that makes the difference here.
Approximately .200" and 600 grains.



Elvis
 
KK, I believe it is debatable that it is easier to hit with 12 303s than with 6 50s especially taking into consideration the AC. Was not the Hurricane with 12 303s optimized for ground attack mission. I can't imagine the Hurricane with those 4 extra guns and ammo being as agile as the 8 gun model. The other factor is that range estimation is so much easier with the 50 cals than with 30 cals because the trajectory is so much flatter. And one doesn't need as many hits with a 50 as one needs with a 30 for lethality. I know that all countries went to the 50 cals in place of 30 cals as the war went along.
 
I just ordeed all three books in that series. Yes the third and concluding volume of the Bloody Shambles series ,"Air War for Burma" has been released. I cant wait to get my hands on these.

Francis K Mason describes the while RAF effort in S.E. Asia early 42 as "to little to late"
Hurricanes were wasted in piecemeal deployment against much larger Japanese forces.


Thanx Joe for the heads up on "Bloody Shambles" I owe ya one.

Slaterat
 
The effective range of the 303s would be much shorter than the .50s. However using a box convergence, in stead of a point, at 150 yards, would be deadly against unarmoured Japanese aircraft. I would think that the dixon/dewild ammo would be devasting to the fuel tanks. 12 303s puts out more lead than a minigun.

The IIb was considered the best air to air fighter of all the Hurricane mks. The IIc with 4 x20mm lost some handling and speed because of the extra weight and drag of the cannons. Howevere in the North Afrika desert and in Burma , many IIc units deleted 2 of the 20 mm cannons in the interest of better performance. These would certainly be very close or equal to IIb s with the advantage of cannons.

Slaterat
 
In any other situation I'd opt for .50's or maybe cannon, but aganst most Japanese a/c a high volume of (nominaly inferior) .303 (or other RCMG round) could be more effective.

Plus the Brits didn't seem to shift to .50 cal guns (except in lend-lease and other US built a/c), they either soldiered on with .303's or were given 20 mm Hispano cannons often along with some .303's. Though some late model Spitfires did use 2x .50's in place of 4x .303's, there aren't alot of other examples.
 
KK89 makes a good point that the English seemed to simply skip the "50 cal step" and went straight from .303 to 20mm. However, the change seemed to take most of the war.
Effective range of the .50, vs. the .30 is another consideration.
Anyone who's ever seen the Discovery channel show "Firepower" has probably seen the episode where he tests the semi-auto version of the BMG.
He was splitting concrete blocks with a single shot at 600 yds.
You'd have to point your gun at Mars and use an unusually high powered load to hope to even make it out to 600 yds. with a .30 (either "M1" or ".303")...and then there's the consideration of accuracy and effectiveness at that range, as well.

Wasn't the POA on most of the .50 cal equipped Mustangs (used as an example here) around 300-400 yds.?




Elvis
 
Kool Kitty89 said:
Plus higher muzzle velocity of the .30-06 (note aircraft versions had a higher muzzle velocity: ~870 m/s compared to ~840-850 m/s for ground units) gave the round flatter trajectory resulting in better accuracy and longer effective range
kool kitty89,

NUTS, I forgot to include bullet drop in those figures.
When I get home, I'll fish that catalogue out again and post the drops.
How far out would you like them?
I think most factory listings go out to 400 yds.




Elvis

Kool Kitty89,

Forgive me for taking so long to get back to you on this...apparently I'm now old and quite forgetful.

I'm not at home, but I found the trajectory and velocity stats on-line.
This is from the Remington website.

Remington.com - Products - Ammunition - Ballistics

You'll notice that the MV for the .30-06 (aka .30M1) is little higher than what I quoted.
'06 rounds are loaded a little hotter these days.
The round is SAAMI rated at around 63K CUP (IIRC) and most are just loaded closer to that rating today.
I believe the WWII vintage rounds were loaded closer to 50-55K CUP, thus the slightly lower MV.
The MV for the .303 British is the only one I've ever seen listed for it.



Elvis
 
The Spitfire IX with the E wing used two 50s instead of the 303s. The A6M went to cowl mounted 50s in place of the 7.7s. The late model A6Ms also had armor and ss tanks. The Germans went to cowl mounted 50s in both the FW and BF 109s. The US went to all 50s on the P40s. The rationale for the 8-303s in the BOB British fighters was that it would take 266 hits from the 303 to be lethal against a bomber. With a closing speed of 180 mph and a thousand rounds per minute rate of fire per gun and only two seconds of firing time one needed eight 303s to theoretically get the job done. That formula was out the window in a head on pass. I am sure that if 50s had been available and the RAF had used them the LW would have been sorry. I have had a lot of experience with the 3006, 308 and various calibers like that hunting and some experience on the range with the M60(308) and the M2 50 cal BMG. I will go with 6- 50s all day against any WW2 AC.
 
But inless you have cowl/nose mounted guns convergence zone is a major factor too though .50's could be practically set farther out than .303's.

And RCMG's aside I'd thke the F4F-3's (and FM-1/2) armament over the F4F-4's in almost any situation. (particularly aganst the japanese) Fewer guns but slightly more total ammo and much longer firing time, plus the 2 added guns in the F4F-4 were placed farther out so were less acurate. They also offered less weight.

There was a reason the FM-2 went back to 4x .50's...
 
KK, agree wholeheartedly. The F4F4 was not big enough or with enough power to carry all the additional weight of the 2 extra guns. 4- 50s with 400 rounds was a better weapons load than 6-50s with 240 rounds. The only reason the 6 gun model was adopted was because of British insistence. Maybe the Brits had a fetish for lots of guns? Some sort of a phallic thing?
 
One other odd thing I remember is that when the Brits were evaluating there Buffalo I's in 1941 one of there coments was there were "too few guns" but 4x .50's are at least as effective as 12x .303 and better in most other characteristics, with better range, trajectory, penetration, and higher % of chemical load for incendary bullets. (albeit 2x synchronised and slower firing, though more acurate without convergence)

And in service Buffaloes often had 2x (and some times all 4!) .50 cal's replaced with .303 guns, to lighten the aircraft (along with liting fuel load), but the gain in performance (~100 ft/min climb and ~3 mph top speed) was not nearly worth the loss in firepower. (or range)
 
KK, I got the formula the RAF supposedly used to decide for the 8-303s from an article about the Spitfire in the "Air and Space, Smithsonian" magazine. The formula was that 266 hits by 303s was needed to bring down a bomber, therefore at a closure speed of 180 mph, the fighter would have two seconds to make the kill if the guns were firing at 1000 rounds per minute and you had eight guns. If you do the math, eight guns are going to be putting out 133.3 rounds per second so 2 seconds will give the 266 figure. That is about the most optimistic scenario I have ever heard of. In two seconds every bullet is going to hit the target? BS If their theory about 266 303s is needed to kill a bomber is correct, I wonder that they ever had a kill. A head on pass would give even less firing time. They needed 50 cals in those Spits and Hurris. This article stated that originally the Spitfire wing was to be pure ellipsoid. When the need for 8- guns was realised, it was not a problem for the Hurricane but the Spitfire wing had to be redesigned to the shape we know now to accomodate the eight guns. They would have had an easier time with 4 50 cals.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back