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

Hi Graeme,

>Tried that myself but encountered a few problems. Scale? True flying 'attitide'? and where's my protractor?

Looks good! The flying attitude is not a problem, but we would need to find the sightline depression for each type for an accurate measurement of actual deflection capability. (Though we can do without for pure forward search view). As the sightline depression is measured against the design centre line (which we'd have to find, too), flying attitude doesn't enter the picture.

As it's possible (and common) to elevate the guns slightly above the design centre line to give the best match with the sightline, we can assume that both aircraft can be set up to hit the centre of the reticle at the desired combat distance.

Problems with the forward view: Refraction on the angled armour glass windscreen slightly shifts the sigthline (which would have to start at the sight, by the way And the gun sight body itself provides a visual obstruction, too - I'm not sure if that might influence these two aircraft, but for a two-engined fighter with a stub nose, it certainly would.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Claidemore, A full deflection shot would be at 90 degrees to the target line. If you recall, from your target shooting, with a 303 or 3006 or any round in that category, the muzzle needs to be tilted up slightly to hit a target at a distance. I have done a lot of shooting with that category of rifle. To hit a mark at 200 yards the weapon must be sighted in to be around 2.5 inches high at 100 yards. Of course the trajectory will vary according to the ballistics of the cartridge. An interesting fact is with a round in the 3006 class, if you are 3 inches high at 100 yards, you will be within 3 inches of point of aim anywhere out to 300 yards. As you can see, the muzzles have to be tilted up slightly if one is to hit at any distance. However this ballistic info is not really relevent to deflection shooting. The problem with full deflection shooting is two fold. First, it requires a LOT of practise. Second, if the view over the nose is insufficent, the pilot loses sight of the target during the maneuver to fly the path necessary for the full deflection pass. My typing is too labor intensive to go into detail and I can't reproduce the diagrams and illustrations but if you can lay your hands on Lundstrom's "The First Team" you will readily see what the problem is. That book and the follow up, "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign" are, IMO, the finest books about WW2 aviation ever written and belong in everyone's library that share our interests.

renrich said:

Claidemore, A full deflection shot would be at 90 degrees to the target line. If you recall, from your target shooting, with a 303 or 3006 or any round in that category, the muzzle needs to be tilted up slightly to hit a target at a distance. I have done a lot of shooting with that category of rifle. To hit a mark at 200 yards the weapon must be sighted in to be around 2.5 inches high at 100 yards. Of course the trajectory will vary according to the ballistics of the cartridge. An interesting fact is with a round in the 3006 class, if you are 3 inches high at 100 yards, you will be within 3 inches of point of aim anywhere out to 300 yards. .

Click to expand...

Thanks Renrich, I'm gonna try to get that Lundstrom book, this thread has sparked an interest for me in that theatre of the war.

While we're talking about rifle shootin. Years ago I read an article by Wooters, who had a different idea about where to sight a hunting rifle. His idea was to sight it dead on at 100 yards, rather than 2-3 inches high like most 'experts' suggest. 90% of hunting shots are at 100 yards so it made sense to me. Wooters thinking was that anybody can judge 100 yards, but further than that there is a large margin of error. With his system, when your quarry is further than 100 yards, you just hold a couple inches below the top line of the animal and you are guaranteed a hit in the spine/lung/heart area out to about 350 yards with any modern hunting round. Been sighting dead on at 100 yards ever since.

If I understand right, 90 degrees to the target line, fighter vs fighter, means flight path of the two planes is 90 degrees to each other? That would be a snap shot opportunity, since the speed of the target plane would move it through the cone of fire and out of range quickly and the shooters plane could not turn hard enough to maintain any sort of lead. The 240 rds per second of a IIb would be better there than the 75 or so rds of the F4F-4 in that situation.
Sorta like shooting snipe or woodcock with #8 rather than BBshot.

Where I hunted mostly long shots were the norm. I zeroed my .270 at three hundred yards. With the load I was using the bullet drop was about 18-24 inches at 500 yards. From a rest I made a number of kills at 500 paces. Remember, the full deflection shooter begins to fire at an angle of 90 degrees but as he continues the range decreases and the deflection angle decreases also. Therefore it is not a snap shot as it would be with a shotgun on a crossing shot with a duck or dove. However, there would be some similarity even though the shooter is not moving in bird hunting. Many time I have gotten off three shots at a crossing dove with each shot a decreasing deflection angle. You will really like Lundstrom's books because of how well researched they are. There are other members of this forum who have those books. I understand he is in poor health. In more ways than one I regret that because I wish he would do a third book finishing the Guadalcanal campaign which would include my favorite AC, the Corsair.

Graeme said:

Quite possibly, but then if you were an Australian Defence Force illustrator, what enemy aircraft would you depict, if your country was involved in both the European and Pacific theatres? (a small image, but it's actually a Ju88).
However there is definitely an Aussie larrikin attitude in the artistry!..

Click to expand...

That makes sense. (I thought of that later too...)

But the tail is wrong for a Ju-88 and the fuselage and cockpit canopy are longer than an 88's too.

The two a/c look very similar but you can see the key differences:

From http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/luftwaffe.htm

Renrich:
I mostly bow hut with a recurve now, so 20-30 yds is the norm, but back a few years I was guiding a hunter from Wisconsin on the Muskwa river, northern BC. He spooked a black bear that should have been an easy shot. The bear ran down the mountain, then slowed to a walk when it got to the bottom. It was 750+ yds, and the hunter hadn't fired, so he and I took turns pot shooting at the bear (with his 06). The bear lay down, which seemed odd, but bears do odd things, so after a few minutes we started down to see if we could get closer. That bear never did move again, one of us had hit him while pot shooting at him and he was DOA when we got to the bottom.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with Wildcats or Hurricanes.

The way JoeB seems to be referring to "tactics" seems more like "strategy" but both are broad unspecific terms which are somewhat interchangeable.

What most seem to mean by "tactics" here is using a certain type combat "style" which "proper tactics" play to the a/c's strengths in a certain situation.

For example the P-47 was best off using "boom zoom" or "dive zoom" tactics against most opponents (though in late models with better power loading and and a paddle prop it could handle a normal "dogfight" better, particularly when climbing or vertical maneuvers) likewise the Wildcat used similar "tactics" against the Japanese, though group tactics also proved important. The same would go for the AVG's "Hit and Run" tactics with their P-40s. (though their P-40s were also 30 mph faster in level flight than the Ki-43, and 70 mph faster than the Ki-27) Plus all these a/c were tougher than their opponents' a/c.

The "proper tactics" for the Hurricane in the ETO were usually "turn and Burn" as it was slower than its LW opponents in level and dive speed, no better in climb, and not really tougher, but it could turn tighter and faster than most opposing a/c. (principally the 109)
The situation was not such in the PTO so anyone using those tactics would have to quickly unlearn them against Japanese fighters. The only real advantages the Hurricane had over most Japanese a/c were ruggedness (albeit not of the engine), maximum dive speed, engine performance above 20,000 ft, and (debatably) armament.
-although 12x .303 guns would be more effective against an Oscar than 2x 12.7 mm's against the Hurricane, and the 2x 20mm guns of the Zero had poor ballistics and short firing time, though quite effective if you can hit a hurricane with one, and the cowl mounted 7.7mm guns of the Zero, Nate, and some Oscars would be almost useless-


That said, in the argument at hand, even if the Hurricanes could get and stay on the tails of the Wildcats (as in the mock combat, and an F4F-3 would be more agile than a -4, and the Wildcats should out-dive and out run the hurries with enough altitude: >10,000 ft) they would be hard pressed to take an F4F down even with 12x .303 guns as the Wildcat was virtually invulnerable to RCMG's. The oil cooler could be disabled, but the Wildcat would still be able to fly a good distance before the engine ceased. (due to the high capacity of oil) Other than a luck shot to the pilot (through the canopy) or a hit to the controls it would take a hell of allot of .303 rounds to down a Wildcat.

On the other hand the Hurricane would be quite Vulnerable to .50 cal fire (albeit the Wildcat would also be vulnerable to .50s, and had a radial engine) and the engine would easily be disabled and probably set on fire with incendiary rounds.

KK, I have a reference that shows the Hurricane IIB and the A6M5 to both have a service ceiling of around 35000 feet. The critical altitude of the A6M where it's Vmax would occur would be at about 20000 feet. The early Hurricane(BOB) could barely get to 30000 feet. Are you sure the Hurri had any significant edge in high altitude performance over the A6M? Actually, the tactics used by the F4F4 were not so much energy tactics or as the flight sims call it B&Z. The best tactic for a Wildcat was to turn into the Zero for a head on pass or if the Zero was on his tail to cut throttle or skid enough to force the Zero into an overshoot. Failing that a dive at high speed combined with turns was a means of getting away. Of course if the Wildcat had an altitude advantage, energy tactics were feasible but an altitude advantage in the context of the Pacific War was not easily attained.

Graeme said:

Tried that myself but encountered a few problems. Scale? True flying 'attitide'? and where's my protractor?

Have also read that, according to one author, regards the Wildcat, that...

"...the pilot's seat was cramped and too low relative to the location of his head and need for visibility."

Click to expand...

The line for the Wildcat should be even higher than that as the instrument panel obscures vision even more as easily seen in the picture. (as well as the resulting high placement of the gun sight) So the Hurricane would indeed have better visibility.

Though neither had any real rear view w/out a mirror.

claidemore said:

If I understand right, 90 degrees to the target line, fighter vs fighter, means flight path of the two planes is 90 degrees to each other?

Click to expand...

To the RAAF, the "Fly-Through" Method. Not recommended for Aussies! A confession of weakness! (Much preferred is the "Follow-Through" method).

The principles and terminology. Later chapters go into the mathematics of ballistics and trajectories, as Renich pointed out.

Hi kool kitty!

kool kitty89 said:

But the tail is wrong for a Ju-88 and the fuselage and cockpit canopy are longer than an 88's too.

Click to expand...

Most certainly poorly drawn, (Australian artist?! ) but it is meant to be a Ju88. Single tail is the clue. (Gives you some idea how hard it must have been to identify aircraft at critical moments).

kool kitty89 said:

The line for the Wildcat should be even higher than that as the instrument panel obscures vision even more as easily seen in the picture. (as well as the resulting high placement of the gun sight) So the Hurricane would indeed have better visibility.

Click to expand...

Good point, and I guess the problem is where exactly is the pilot's head/retinas in the cockpit?

kool kitty89 said:

Though neither had any real rear view w/out a mirror.

Click to expand...

Very small, but it is there on the Hurricane...

...and the Wildcat had a Panoramic mirror (No. 66) inside the cockpit...

The Hurricane driver had one panel of perspex behind him, so he had a bit of an angle of view to the rear, though not a good one. Photos show the Wildcat pilot basically looking out the side of that last panel, so a bit less angle of rear view.
Doing a rough test pressing against the cabin window here at home, you get about 10-15 degrees more view by having that extra bit of glass back there. The 'make-up' mirror would help too.

That's one advantage the Buffalo had, all around view canopy, albeit with plenty of framework.

And looking at the Hurricane's nose and canopy it may have had better foreward visibility than the Spitfire as well.

Now that I see it zoomed in, it is a Ju 88, but the tail fin seems too small, but the tailplane can be seen to be well foreward of the rudder which is characteristic of the Ju 88. The tail can now be seen as rounded as well and the Do 17 had squared off tail fins. (though later Ju 88s did have a squareed off fin as well, notably the Nightfighters) And both tailfins of a Do 17 may not be visible from the side view as one could cover the other.


Also the Ju 88 and Do 17 can easily be told apart in the plan view as the Ju 88 had much longer and more tapered wings and the twin tail of the Do 17 is much more obvious. (the tails are also easily seen from an off-center side view or in a rear or head-on view)

Hi Graeme,

>Tried that myself but encountered a few problems. Scale? True flying 'attitide'? and where's my protractor?

Here is an interesting page from Frederick A. Johnson's "Republic P-47 Thunderbolt" (Warbird Tech Series Volume 23).

It shows the angles of forward visibility of different USAAF fighters (though Navy fighters would have been more interesting in this context).

Note that obstruction created by the gunsight itself is not portrayed in the comparison.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

a description of deflectiom shooying by Buerling....."heres the way it works . i try to shoot at 300 yds , because that is the range of my cannon is harmonized for . but often i can't work it that fine and that is where deflection shooting and alot of just plain shooting come in .
You see if you get inside that 300yds you are shooting 2 streams of stuff at it .I have figured out how far those streams are apart and try and get one stream hitting the target forgetting the other. That means i have to aim at something else to make my hit>so i take my line off the exhaust or something else handy allow for the speed i am travelling and the speed the enemy is travelling and then let go .......I never attack from dead astern amd most of the time the way I fight depends on deflection shooting

Hi again,

Corrected source:

Frederick A. Johnsen's "Republic P-47 Thunderbolt" (Warbird Tech Series Volume 23).

And attached image

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

The Hurricane driver had one panel of perspex behind him

Click to expand...

Where, can you show on a drawing?

I know the P-40 had a rear view with the "scalloped" decking behind the pilot with plexiglass pannels on either side. This was most pronounced on the P-40N where the pannels were enlarged and extended to the top, the sliding canopy was also a frameless type on this model. The P-36 had this as well.
The Spitfire also had rear panels to see out of.

HoHun said:

And attached image

Click to expand...

Thanks HoHun, much appreciated!

kool kitty89 said:

Where, can you show on a drawing?

Click to expand...

That's faulty reasoning though. It would only apply if the panels were the same size, otherwise less framin would mean better visibillity.

Inless he meant that the Hurricane sate somewhat foreward of the cockpit wall while the F4F's was aganst the wall, and thus part of the canopy of the Hurricane would be behind the pilot...

Come to think of it that's probably what he meant. It makes more sence with a pilot in the picture.

Oops, turns out I was wrong. The pilot in the Hurricane has TWO panels behind him! lol
Heres two views, one slightly forward, one slightly to the rear.