Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIB vs. Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat

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

The rugged but it was no Corsair or Thunderbolt, I reckon 12 .30 cal wouldn't have too much trouble. I don't know exactly how many rounds would have to hit the Wildcat but with an increase in RoF due to the massive amount of guns, it would increase chances of hitting a vital spot.

On top of all that, the Hurricane isn't exactly weak. It could take a lot of punishment and get home.
 
Last year we went to Newfoundland for our holiday and I read up on the Hurricane squadrons based thee. They also used to arm their planes with depth charges so great minds think alike.
Pity it wasn't taken up more widely
 
.30s, .303s and 7.62 mm are all basically the same round. Stop being a pussy.
 
No because everyone knows it's .303 cal. Plus the fact, even if they did say .30 everyone would know what they're talking about since it's basically the same.

In fact, it might even be the same but the Americans miss off the last three.
 
From what I have read the Hurricane seems to have been more of a 'pilots aircraft'. It was small and light and very nimble, a real challenge but at the samwe time a joy to fly.

The Wildcat, on the other hand, seems o me to be a more effective team aircraft (or though that may be an aspect of the eventual tactics that were evolved for it) or maybe a machine that was simply designed for a war rather than combat. It was fairly heavy, very rugged, nicely armoured, could dive well and was more than adequately manuverable (although not compared to it Japanese opponents, who had a veritable mania for agile single seat fighters).

Put these aircraft in a one-on-one situation and I would feel more confident in a Hurricane. Lighter, more agile in the horizontal and vertical and more heavily armed in later versions. As an offensive weapon in a classic dogfight its the superior aircraft.

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately from another perspective, WW2 aviation didn't work like that. It was a TEAM effort. Co-operative tactics were a pre requisite for sucess. A one-on-one or even a four-on-four enccunter was unlikely. Usually there were DOZENS of fighters involved in engagements. Here is where the Wildcat, with its survivability and escapability, tends to come out on top.
 

I think this is a good way of putting it!
 
As someone put it before, the F4F is a manueverable aircraft. Put up against the Zero however, everyything, even the nimble Spitfire will be put to shame.

Having said that I would take the Wildcat over the IIB anyday. Of course the Hurri was and is a great fighter for its day but not many aircraft can withstand the punishment of those .50s.
 
If Hawk-75s with six .303cal can shoot down Wildcats then a Hurricane IIB with twelve .303cal wouldn't have too hard of a time.
 

Dont write off the Hurricane as any type of slug, Sir Sydney Camm knew what he was doing in the early 1930s (although, despite my love of it, we can forgive him just a little for the Typhoon). While the Hurrican may not outpace or outclimb the Spitfire, just because it didn't have those greyhound lines, doesn't mean that it wasn't very nimble. Sure the Wildcat was agile, but a Hurricane has it beat for manuverability in a fair fight.

Comparig it to is WW2 stablemate, the Hurricane had a better rate of role, better turning circle, faster turn and much lighter control requirements (pounds of stick force) than the Spitfire. Its still not quite in the Ki-27, Ki-43, A5M or A6M leauge, but then the Japanese did always had a mania for horizontal manuverability. Both the Wildcat and the Hurricane fell prey to the nimble Japanese birds.

Stick a Merlin XX (1850 hp at 21000 feet!) on a Hurricane, add a Bendix-Stromberg carburettor, reinforce the airframe, add a dozen .303s at 250 yards convergence, plumb in a 90 imp. gal. center line drop-tank and you have a very capable bird. Switch out the Merlin XX for a Merlin 24 or a 27 (1,640 hp at 3000 feet) and all of a sudden the Hurri loks very good at low alt as well.

I would argue that the Hurricane was the superior DEFENSIVE fighter of the pair. It operated as a interceptor far better than the Wildcat. It could climb to altitude faster, manuver better to close with its target and inflict significant damage when it got there.

The Wildcat was probably a superior OFFENSIVE weapon; greater range, carrier capable, heavier armament, an exellent team based airplane against foes who had trouble at higher altitudes.
 

I think that sums it up!
 
I have a book on hurricanes at home and there is a piece in there were pilots flying hurricanes out of halifax took on wildcats from a carrier that had docked there. They started flying towards each other at same hieght. evey instance hurricane got on the tail of the wildcats and wildcats couldn't shake them,
 
"I have a book on hurricanes at home and there is a piece in there were pilots flying hurricanes out of halifax took on wildcats from a carrier that had docked there. They started flying towards each other at same hieght. evey instance hurricane got on the tail of the wildcats and wildcats couldn't shake them."

Really.

Did the story also have a giant clown with pigs flying out of his butt?
 
Hurricanes were more forgiving and when equipped with cannons were deadly. But useless for Arctic service. Wildcats - radial engines and better rate of climb for interceptions made from carriers. Large cockpits and not as responsive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
Pinnacle of Piston fighter: XP-72 vs Spiteful Mk XVI?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
5K
Jugman
J
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
1K
dedalos
D
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
916
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register