# Hawker Hurricane vs Me 323 Gigant



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 9, 2008)

Which would outlast the other in a fight? Which would survive? Could a Gigant defeat a single Hurricane's attack? Could the Gigant even shoot down the Hurricane fighter?


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

Unescorted and against a hurri with 4x 20 mm cannons, not a chance, as long as the Hurricane pilot was average or better.


----------



## pbfoot (May 9, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Unescorted and against a hurri with 4x 20 mm cannons, not a chance, as long as the Hurricane pilot was average or better.


Here is part of an interview with Stocky Edwards ref the 323 I'm not sure if he was flying the P40 or spit but it sure doesn't sound like it was hard to stop
"So I led the whole wing out there, which puts me in the front of the spear head, see. When we arrive in the bay and I see all these things burning on the water, and I thought it was all over and finally, just in front of me is a big transport, the 6-engine, and all I have to do is turn a little bit and fire. And it just broke up like a stack of cards and fell in the ocean. And that happened to be the last one that was in that group." 
you can watch and listen to the interview
Spit fire Project - Veterans Affairs Canada


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2008)

No offense Soundbreaker, but what was the point of this thread.

It is rather obvious.

Me 323: slow, large, not maneuverable. It is a large transport.

Hurricane: fast, nimble fighter.

Who do you think is going to win?


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2008)

It's got 18 machine guns though.

And I'd immagine with a Hurricane IIB with 12 .303's it would take a while, plus you'd have to be w/in 300 m to get a good hit. All the time those guns are on you.

The defensive guns may only be 7.92 mm but the MG 81's got a ~1,700 rpm RoF and there are 18 of them. And aparently some were armmed with MG 131's instead.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2008)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Could the Gigant even shoot down the Hurricane fighter?


Providing it gets off the ground.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 10, 2008)

Well, I know the Hurricane is completely better at attacking than a Gigant, but it's smaller and not as tough. If the Gigant puts up a good defense, it might shoot it down. 

Was the Gigant really that weak? I had heard that it was a tough beast to bring down.

I did this poll for fun, something more unusual than fighter vs. fighter.

Maybe it would have been more interesting if the contest had been between a Bf 109 and B-17= more fair competition.


----------



## slaterat (May 24, 2008)

Anytime a single fighter attacks a well armed bomber/transport there is the danger of being hit by return fire. Even in early 1940 the Hurricane had good armour protection, including front armour. The biggest vunerability would be a hit to the engine or cooling system. If its a IIc we're talking about the 323 doesn't have a hope. If its a Mk I or IIb the Hurricane pilot needs to go for a pilot kill[ie headon] or for the fuel tanks.


Slaterat


----------



## Njaco (May 24, 2008)

I understand that the Gigant was alittle rugged and could take some damage although the Holy Thursday Massacre of 22 April 1943 when a whole convoy of Gigants were shot down was due mostly to their cargo of volitile fuel for North Africa.

How about the Do 17 and the Hurricane? I understand that some Dorniers took out some Hurricanes early in the war - before July 1940.


----------



## buzzard (May 24, 2008)

How can anyone even ask such a question?

I mean, it ain't even a contest. That big ole Gigant would just open its big ole' mouth and slurp up that pathetic little Hurribird like a bullfrog with butterfly. And if it missed on the first pass, why it would just go into an Immelman and get it the next time around. Then there'd be a little belch, and a few tattered RAF roundels fluttering to the ground...

JL


----------



## pbfoot (May 24, 2008)

Has anyone ever thought about aiming the weapons from the 323 its bouncing ,turning up down etc your weapon isn't on firm ground and after the first shot your aim will be worse because of the recoil. I'll take a Gladator over the 323


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 25, 2008)

buzzard said:


> How can anyone even ask such a question?
> 
> I mean, it ain't even a contest. That big ole Gigant would just open its big ole' mouth and slurp up that pathetic little Hurribird like a bullfrog with butterfly. And if it missed on the first pass, why it would just go into an Immelman and get it the next time around. Then there'd be a little belch, and a few tattered RAF roundels fluttering to the ground...
> 
> JL








pbfoot said:


> Has anyone ever thought about aiming the weapons from the 323 its bouncing ,turning up down etc your weapon isn't on firm ground and after the first shot your aim will be worse because of the recoil. I'll take a Gladator over the 323



Who said anything about a Gladiator?


----------



## pbfoot (May 25, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Who said anything about a Gladiator?


alright then the thing would be dead meat it's slow lumbering and a target that hard to miss I would prefer my chances in just about any other flying machine


----------



## Soren (May 25, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Has anyone ever thought about aiming the weapons from the 323 its bouncing ,turning up down etc your weapon isn't on firm ground and after the first shot your aim will be worse because of the recoil. I'll take a Gladator over the 323



The weapons were fastened so no recoil would really be felt pbfoot.

A lone Hurricane against a lone Me-323 and the 323 is most likely going down (Depending on the armament of the Hurricane), but it's also likely that defensive fire brings down the Hurricane. Quite a few LW fighters were brought down by the defensive fire from IL2's, no kidding.

Remember also that the Me323 is armed with five 13mm MG131's, and the Hurricane can quickly become a flying ball of flames if it flies into a stream bullets from those. (Don't know where the 18x guns comes from ?)

Fact is though that the Me-323 was an extremely tough airplane capable of taking huge amounts of enemy fire. But against a swarm of fighters armed with 20mm cannons and itself loaded with fuel there's no chance. Even without the fuel load and couple of fighters could easily wreck havoc on a couple of Me-323's.


----------



## Soren (May 25, 2008)

They should've fitted the a/c with 6x BMW 801's or Jumo 213's, imagine the load it would've been capable of carrying then, it being enormous enough as it was!


----------



## pbfoot (May 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> They should've fitted the a/c with 6x BMW 801's or Jumo 213's, imagine the load it would've been capable of carrying then, it being enormous enough as it was!


I'll take the word of the man who shot one down amd he said " it collapsed like a stack of cards"


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

And so ofcourse it was useless right ?


----------



## pbfoot (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> And so ofcourse it was useless right ?


not at all I just would not want to fly the beast near a combat zone .


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Well would you want to fly ANY such large an aircraft near a combat zone ?

Your reliance on the comment "Collapsed like a stack of cards" seems to suggest that you're of the opinion that the Me-323 was somehow comparatively flimsy compared to other large a/c.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> The weapons were fastened so no recoil would really be felt pbfoot.



What do you mean by fastened? If I am understanding your correctly, you are talking about a fixed movable mount. Is this correct? If not please correct me.

The reason I am asking is because even with a fixed movable mount, you are going to feel recoil.

I have tons of experience shooting machine guns from fixed movable mounts from a flying aircraft. After a day of shooting from the aircraft, my wrists and hands were hurting from the recoil. Granted if the weapon has not been on a fixed mount, it would have been worse. The fixed mount does absorb a lot of the recoil.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2008)

I happened to be looking at some Me 323 photos last night. The guns carried by the 323 (MG151s 7.92x57) were mounted in a number of ball and socket provisions through out the aircraft. This set up was similar in both German and allied aircraft where part of the barrel stock was retained within the window with either a metal or heavy plexi-glass ball that facilitated rotation. For the most part there is no recoil absorbing provision in any of the photos I was looking at - you simply shoved the barrel in the hole and you had a gun position.







Here's some of the solid mounts - that looks like it will shake your fillings off!





Here's the turrets - not much different than any typical turret of the era


----------



## pbfoot (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well would you want to fly ANY such large an aircraft near a combat zone ?
> 
> Your reliance on the comment "Collapsed like a stack of cards" seems to suggest that you're of the opinion that the Me-323 was somehow comparatively flimsy compared to other large a/c.


Large is okay but at least able to move and turn with some authority . 170mph max means economical cruise of what 100 and it had no range ....its dead meat


----------



## Hot Space (May 26, 2008)

If its a .303 armed Hurri then not a chance (Look at the lack of success with the Fw-200 Condor), but Cannons..........yep.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What do you mean by fastened? If I am understanding your correctly, you are talking about a fixed movable mount. Is this correct? If not please correct me.



That's what I meant actually.



> The reason I am asking is because even with a fixed movable mount, you are going to feel recoil.
> 
> I have tons of experience shooting machine guns from fixed movable mounts from a flying aircraft. After a day of shooting from the aircraft, my wrists and hands were hurting from the recoil. Granted if the weapon has not been on a fixed mount, it would have been worse. The fixed mount does absorb a lot of the recoil.



Ofcourse you're going to feel the recoil, but it wont be effecting your aim much really. You'll certainly be able to keep guns on an aircraft sized target at 1000 yards. 

Also as you know all too well a helicopter is a more bumpy ride than an airplane.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Excellent pictures FLYBOYJ! You wouldn't happen to some of the entire interior of the Me-323 ?? If so could you PM them to me or post them here ??


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Btw FLYBOYJ, the MG131 is a 13mm weapon and the MG151 is a 15mm weapon. The MG151/20 is the 20mm version.


----------



## pbfoot (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ofcourse you're going to feel the recoil, but it wont be effecting your aim much really. You'll certainly be able to keep guns on an aircraft sized target at 1000 yards.
> 
> .


1000 yds are you serious ?


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Yes I am, but I'm not refering to keeping guns on a fighter 1,000 yards away while flying. I'm talking about a stationary target, which a fighter certainly is not. Yet another reason why the Me-323 is most likely going down, the Hurricane can lay down accurate fire on it at longer ranges than vice versa.

However my point is that the recoil wouldn't effect the aim more than the gunner being able to maintain his stream of bullets within an aircraft sized circle at a 1,000 yards. Other things than recoil make sure that accurate fire at 1,000 yards with defensive armaments is very inaccurate, esp. the closure rate and difficult time estimating the correct deflection is what makes it very hard hitting another a/c.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ofcourse you're going to feel the recoil, but it wont be effecting your aim much really. You'll certainly be able to keep guns on an aircraft sized target at 1000 yards.



No Soren it does affect your aim greatly. The recoil is still eneogh to send a jolt up through your arm.

Trust me on this matter Soren, I have actual real world expierence in it...

Also good luck at 1000 yards!



Soren said:


> Also as you know all too well a helicopter is a more bumpy ride than an airplane.



I do not know what helicopters you are flying. Modern helicopters today are no bumpier than fixed wing aircraft.

They are effected by turbulence no different than fixed wing aircraft. Advancement in vibration absorption is pretty much down to an art form now. A properly balanced helicopter feels almost the same as a fixed wing aircraft in flight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> However my point is that the recoil wouldn't effect the aim more than the gunner being able to maintain his stream of bullets within an aircraft sized circle at a 1,000 yards. Other things than recoil make sure that accurate fire at 1,000 yards with defensive armaments is very inaccurate, esp. the closure rate and difficult time estimating the correct deflection is what makes it very hard hitting another a/c.



Soren the biggest thing that effects the tragectory of a bullet from an aircraft is the wind flowing around the aircraft. Depending on the side of the aircraft depends on whether the bullet will fly low and to the left or high and to the right (I might actually have this backwards and need to check this out in the air gunnery manual, this is off course even more effected by the rotorwash of a helicopter, but we are not talking about helicopters here).

Also you have to take into account the speed and direction of the aircraft you are shooting from and the speed and direction of the aircraft you are shooting at.

All of these factors plus the definate recoil (which is strong eneogh to effect your aim and takes litterally hours and hours of shooting to become efficient at it) all contribute to how you aim and can make it difficult to hit your target.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No Soren it does affect your aim greatly. The recoil is still eneogh to send a jolt up through your arm.



You fired the M60 correct ?



> Trust me on this matter Soren, I have actual real world expierence in it...
> 
> Also good luck at 1000 yards!



I trust you Adler, 100%, but you're missunderstanding me.

Adler you and I can both send a stream of bullets within an aircraft sized target at 1,000 yards with the M60, which I'd compare to lobbing bullets into a 2 -3x football goal (15 x 10 m). However in flight it's another matter entirely!





> I do not know what helicopters you are flying. Modern helicopters today are no bumpier than fixed wing aircraft.



I've flown with the Huey and Sikorsky's allot and I do feel they are more bumpy.



> They are effected by turbulence no different than fixed wing aircraft. Advancement in vibration absorption is pretty much down to an art form now. A properly balanced helicopter feels almost the same as a fixed wing aircraft in flight.



I see, didn't know that they had come that far. Always felt the large prop created allot of vibrations.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> You fired the M60 correct ?



Among other machine guns as well.



Soren said:


> I trust you Adler, 100%, but you're missunderstanding me.
> 
> Adler you and I can both send a stream of bullets within an aircraft sized target at 1,000 yards with the M60, which I'd compare to lobbing bullets into a 2 -3x football goal (15 x 10 m). However in flight it's another matter entirely!



In flight it is much more difficult.

I am not missunderstanding you. You are saying that the recoil will not effect your aim. I am telling that it does.



Soren said:


> I've flown with the Huey and Sikorsky's allot and I do feel they are more bumpy.



I will agree with you on the Huey, but not on the Sikorsky. I have over 1500 hours in a Sikorsky...



Soren said:


> I see, didn't know that they had come that far. Always felt the large prop created allot of vibrations.



Nope.

Advancements in Transmission and drive shaft design, as well as vibration absorbers and ballancing of the main rotor blades, tail rotor and drive shafts as well as advancements in tracking the rotors have all lowered vibrations and any "bumpiness" down to a minimum and really no different from any other military aircraft.

For instance in the old Huey days the main rotor was tracked by taking a stick with a piece of chalk on it and holding it up to the turning blades. Now it is all done with computers and accelerameters (spelling is probably way off ) which get the track nearly perfect and the vibrations down to litterally in .01 to .05 within tolerance.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Among other machine guns as well.



Gatlings ??



> In flight it is much more difficult.



Fully agreed, and esp. when trying to aim at another a/c maneuvering.



> I am not missunderstanding you. You are saying that the recoil will not effect your aim. I am telling that it does.



Nope, you do missunderstand me, you just made that clear. Yes the recoil will affect your aim, but very little, esp. seeing that the gun fixed to the a/c itself. Also the recoil dampers mounted will reduce any recoil felt. 

The mounts for the M60 on helicopters don't seem to absorb the recoil as much, and the jolts you're talking about are very apparent.

Furthermore, looking at the pictures of the MG151 inside the Me323 it looks as if the handles and trigger are not connected to the gun except by an electric wire. The MG131 is another matter.



> I will agree with you on the Huey, but not on the Sikorsky. I have over 1500 hours in a Sikorsky...



The Sikorsky is definitely more bumpy than an airplane IMO.



> Advancements in Transmission and drive shaft design, as well as vibration absorbers and ballancing of the main rotor blades, tail rotor and drive shafts as well as advancements in tracking the rotors have all lowered vibrations and any "bumpiness" down to a minimum and really no different from any other military aircraft.
> 
> For instance in the old Huey days the main rotor was tracked by taking a stick with a piece of chalk on it and holding it up to the turning blades. Now it is all done with computers and accelerameters (spelling is probably way off ) which get the track nearly perfect and the vibrations down to litterally in .01 to .05 within tolerance.



Good info. How about when hovering ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Gatlings ??



Nope never got to play with those.

M60, 240G, and .50 Cal's...



Soren said:


> Nope, you do missunderstand me, you just made that clear. Yes the recoil will affect your aim, but very little, esp. seeing that the gun fixed to the a/c itself. Also the recoil dampers mounted will reduce any recoil felt.



It effects it a lot more than you think. I promise you. Just .01mm of a movement of the gun will effect where the round is going to hit. If you can feel the jolt of the weapon up your arm and it rattles your head, then the recoil is sufficient.

I am sure the recoil was no different in WW2 because the weapons and mounts have surely gotten better today.



Soren said:


> The mounts for the M60 on helicopters don't seem to absorb the recoil as much, and the jolts you're talking about are very apparent.



Soren I am sure they are no different. Airial gunnery has not changed over the years and if anything the equipment has gotten better.



Soren said:


> Furthermore, looking at the pictures of the MG151 inside the Me323 it looks as if the handles and trigger are not connected to the gun except by an electric wire. The MG131 is another matter.



How is that different from today. On the Aircraft mounted guns that we used the trigger/butterfly grip assy. was attached with a very small piece of metal that ran underneath the gun.



Soren said:


> The Sikorsky is definitely more bumpy than an airplane IMO.



Then the mechanics for the aircraft you flew in, did not know how to do there job. Either that or they did not care about the job they were doing.

Like I said I have over 1500 flight hours in a Hawk and a little over 100 in fixed wing aircraft and plenty of passenger time in military fixed wing aircraft. 

The difference is negligable...



Soren said:


> Good info. How about when hovering ?



Still effected by rotorwash, and it still depends on the side.

In a fixed wing aircraft the side you are firing from still is effected by the slipstream (not sure if that is what you would want to call it though) of wind flowing past the fuselage of the aircraft. That effects the trajectory as to whether it goes high or low and left or right.


----------



## Soren (May 26, 2008)

Ofcourse any movement of the gun will dictate where the rounds hit, even at .01mm, although .01mm will result in a very nice grouping if you ask me 

My point however is that recoil wont be affecting your aim very much, but ofcourse this varies with different mounts, but it's not going to jerk the gun 10cm to the sides. You're basically making it sound like you can't hit anything while in the air.. you can.

Now that having been said your undoubtedly the one with the most experience shooting from the air, but I think you're underestimating what you're capable of. I'm sure you're quite capable of hitting a car 300 - 400 meters away while flying, correct ?


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 26, 2008)

And Soren that 18x guns thing (MG 81's) was from wikipedia, and I haven't seen it elsewhere, so it's probably mistaken.

The early versions were said to be armed only with 7.92 mm MG 15's though. (2-4x) Similar to the ones on the Me 321 gliders.

The most common armamament I've seen was 5x MG 131's and 2x MG 151/20's, which is pretty heavy. (2x 131's in nose, 2x in waist, 1 in center top turret I think; and 1x MG-151/20 turet on each wing) Haven't read about the 15 mm MG 151 mountings.

Any more info on the different armament configurations?


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 26, 2008)

OK, it seems that there were a range of armaments ranging from 5-9 mountings with MG 131's and sometimes MG 151's. (so the 18x MG 81's from Wiki, may have been some alternate armament with 9x twin MG-81's) 

Heaviest production arangements with 11 mountings. (4x forewars fusalage, 1x nose turret, 4x top/wing turets, 2x waist mounts) On the E-2/WT

According to http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me323.html the heaviest was 11x MG 151/20, and 4x MG 131.


Me-323 Motorized Gigant






LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe


And on the first production model, only 2-4x MG 15's, and 5x MG 15's on the D-1.

The E model had much upgraded armaments.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 26, 2008)

And on toughness, Luftwaffe Resource Page - Messerschmitt Me 323


> In terms of aircraft design, the Me 323 was actually very resilient, and could absorb a huge amount of ene my fire, unless loaded with barrels with fuel - the Afrika Korps' nickname of Leukoplastbomber (Elastoplast Bomber) was somewhat unfair.




And with 12x .303's of the Hurricane IIB (or 8x of the IIA) it would be hard to bring down, and require sustained fire at weak points (or hitting the pilots) and the Hurricane would be very vulnerable to enemy fire (aganst the E models), particularly with the relatively short range and sustained fire necessary with the .303's.


With 4x 20mm (Mk.IIC) it's no contest though, long range and heavy hitting power.

Even with 6x .50's (of the P-40's) the 323 would be pretty vulnerable, although the P-40 would still have to put in a good burst, and would be fairly vulnerable to an 323E's guns.



And on the Gladiator comment, against the D model with only 2-4/5x MG 15 7.92mm's (plus ~6x army MG's could be fired from windows, albeit pretty inacurate) it would have a chance, but with 4x (or rarely, 6x) .303's it's going to take a lot of fire. A single Gladiator against an E model, way worse off than tha Hurricane IIB, or IIA (8x .303), with the exception of the tougher radial engine of the Gladiator.


----------



## pbfoot (May 26, 2008)

Jeez you could get a shot at the cockpit at your leisure the thing isn't going anywhere fast


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 26, 2008)

What was the armor like though on the 323? And you wouldn't have a free shot with the 323E's armament. (granted the Hurricane could prabably take the 7.92 mm fire from the D)

And the only place a fighter wouldn't be vulnerable to defensive fire on the E model is if attacking from directly below.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> My point however is that recoil wont be affecting your aim very much, but ofcourse this varies with different mounts, but it's not going to jerk the gun 10cm to the sides.



It does effect your aim a lot. You have to learn how to compensate it. Of course it is not going to move it around 10cm or anything, but until you get used to the gun you will not hit anything.

I used to teach air gunnery to new crew chiefs....



Soren said:


> You're basically making it sound like you can't hit anything while in the air.. you can.



I dont believe I ever said that. I am saying though that recol does effect it quite a bit and you are not trained in the weapon, you will not hit anything.



Soren said:


> Now that having been said your undoubtedly the one with the most experience shooting from the air, but I think you're underestimating what you're capable of. I'm sure you're quite capable of hitting a car 300 - 400 meters away while flying, correct ?




I can hit a man at 300 meters while flying....

With the first few rounds? No, you have to walk it in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Excellent pictures FLYBOYJ! You wouldn't happen to some of the entire interior of the Me-323 ?? If so could you PM them to me or post them here ??



Here's the site, you could alco find them if you google me 323 turret.

WIP: Messerschmitt Me 323 E-2/WT - Military-Meshes.com


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2008)

Thanks FJ!

Now does anyone have pictures of the cockpit and entire interior. I'm esp. interested in how the pilots got to their cockpit. Was it by a retractable ladder, or perhaps some simple steps on the inside of the fuselage ??

Many thanks in advance


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2008)

Somewhere on that site is a cockpit shot and a shot of the instrument panel.


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

Come on really? The gigant is a slow Big transporter not a bomber. Hurricanes would be shooting them down all over the place. And gigants were pushed to the limit NOT the land and carrier base hurricanes M.


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

Buzzard, a gigant CAN'T maneuver like a fighter AND the gigants were HUGE like the size of a b52 Bomber.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 19, 2016)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Blitzrockie (Jul 19, 2016)

If no one believes be the look it up. In ww2 gigants were attacked by hurricanes.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 19, 2016)

You're responding to an 8 year old thread and a member who hasn't been here for over 7. You are about to face the wrath of many, quit while you're ahead

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

