Hawker Hurricane vs Me 323 Gigant

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[pbfoot]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

You fired the M60 correct ?

Among other machine guns as well.

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.

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...

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]

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]

Gatlings ??

Nope never got to play with those.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[kool kitty89]

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.