Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat

[Glider]

Well, I am very sceptical about that. I posted this before, but I can't find my original so here it is again:



Brown seems to imply a superior RoC for the F4F-4, which is nonsense. Even the lowly and much despised (by some, but not me...) Fulmar II could outclimb an F4F-4 to 10,000 ft.

Brown states a steaper angle of climb, not a better ROC the difference in combat is significant. If I have the better angle of climb then you in an aircraft with a better ROC will not be able to get a shot at me if we are both climbing as you will stall out. If I am behind you then you may be able to climb faster but I will have my guns on you all the time and the probability is that you will be hit.

To put it another way a better ROC is an advantage in a tactical sense as you will have a much better chance of gaining the height advantage. Once the fighting starts then the angle of climb is more important.

 

[the ace]

Funny, both the Belgians and the Soviets armed their Hurricanes with 4x.50.

 

[RCAFson]

Funny, both the Belgians and the Soviets armed their Hurricanes with 4x.50.

I agree that a .5", if reliable, was a better armament than the .303.

the Vickers .5" HMG was actually a pretty good gun, that was lighter than the BMG and fired lighter, albeit less powerful ammo, but still better than the .303:

Several different loadings of the .5V/580 round were developed for British service, as follows:

Ball Mark I.z: 580 grain bullet with two-piece core (front aluminium, rear lead). Approved for service 1924, but not issued.
*
Ball Mark II.z: 580 grain bullet as above, muzzle velocity 2,540 fps (774 m/s). Approved for service 1925.
*
Ball Mark II (cordite propellant): approved for land service 1933.
*
Armour Piercing W. Mark 1.z: bullet with hardened steel core and lead sleeve and tip filler. Approved for service 1925. To pass proof, seven out of ten bullets had to penetrate 18 mm of armour plate at 100 yards range at 0 (90) degrees, and 70% also had to penetrate 14 mm armour striking at 20 (70) degrees.
*
Armour Piercing W. Mark 1 (cordite propellant): as above, approved for land service 1933.
*
Semi Armour Piercing F Mark 1.z: bullet as AP except steel core not hardened. 2,470 fps (753 m/s). Approved for naval use 1938. To pass proof, 70% of bullets had to penetrate 15 mm armour plate at 100 yards and 0 (90) degrees.
*
SAP Tracer FG Mark 1.z, II.z, III.z: bullets weighed 542, 549 and 515 grains respectively (35.1, 35.6, 33.4 g), all at 2,470 fps (753 m/s). They all had a steel core with a tracer cavity drilled in the base, and all traced to 800 yards (730 m); the Mks II and III had a dark trace (i.e. tracer did not illuminate until 100 yards from muzzle). All were approved between 1940 and 1944. All had to achieve the same penetration figure as the SAP F Mk 1.z.
*
Incendiary B Mark I.z: bullet weighed 562 grains (36.4 g) and was similar in design to the .303 inch B Mk. VII (i.e., a simplified "De Wilde"). Within the jacket was a steel sleeve containing 28 grains of incendiary composition with a further 2 grains of QF composition held in the jacket tip. Introduced after 1939.

and the weight of 4 guns and 1800 rnds of ammo =

216 + 423 = 639lb (Vickers)

266lb + 556lb = 822lb (BMG)

 

[Mustang nut]

It may be seen as a good idea to use the Wildcats range to chase the LW back over the channel but during the later stages of the BoB the Pas de Calais was home to over 500 109s chasing one group of fighters could lead to getting bounced by another. There were many good pilots "last seen chasing enemy fighters back to France". Park instructed pilots not to do it and in the later stages did not even want to engage the LW over the channel. Parachuting into water is difficult and pilots hard to spot in the water.

I cannot see that the RAF would take the Wildcat to replace the Hurricane it may have been marginally better in some respects worse in others but would require re training all pilots and ground crew and create a new logistical problem. During the BoB a fighter could land at any fighter field and get re armed engine seen to at least.

 

[Shortround6]

The Vickers .5 machine gun may not have been a viable option. While Vicker's guns may have been long lasting and nearly unbreakable they could suffer from a wide variety of jams or stoppages. This is what lead to the adoption of the Browning in .303, the Vickers wasn't reliable enough to put in a wing where the pilot couldn't get to it.

 

[Readie]

The Vickers .5 machine gun may not have been a viable option. While Vicker's guns may have been long lasting and nearly unbreakable they could suffer from a wide variety of jams or stoppages. This is what lead to the adoption of the Browning in .303, the Vickers wasn't reliable enough to put in a wing where the pilot couldn't get to it.

Yep, look at the SE5a for Vickers access !
Cheers
John

 

[Shortround6]

You mean like this:

http://www.wwi-models.org/Images/Miller/render/SE5a/scout2.jpg

 

[Readie]

And like this...

SE.5a Walkaround | The Vintage Aviator

The 'upper gun' was a lewis I think...

Cheers
John