the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
taking guns out of a fighter wont allow more room for fuel........
P-40 vs. Hurricane
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Wanna Bet?
plan_D said:
Exactly!
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
Wouldn't the room also be used for extra ammo for the four guns? If you remove 2 guns, then there is much more room for ammo and fuel, and thus more flight and firing time.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
and how many fighters in the P-40's class had wing tanks exactly??
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
P-39, P-63, KI-43, Zero, off the top of my head......
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yeah but them planes didn't even have all their armourment in the wings of course they can have wing tanks 
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:yeah but them planes didn't even have all their armourment in the wings of course they can have wing tanks
WRONG! P-36, P-39 and Zero had wing guns!!!
Royzee617
Tech Sergeant
Tough one. I like both planes and no doubt it will all be subjective. Both had mixed careers as fighters (pursuit) and ground attack.
The Hurri was already obsolescent by WW2. Under the skin it used much of the design of 30s biplanes. But that made it easier to build and repair when that was important. In contrast the P40 was the first of the next generation with a lot more metal. As a fighter it outgunned the Hurri (until the 20 mm cannon but they were for ground attack not AtA). But I think the Hurri was more manoeuvrable at most altitudes.
They were contemporary and the RAF used both... I don't think the Hurri ever made it to USAAF service etc. (Unlike the Spitfire) - and kept using them until they were replaced by the Typhoon and P51, respectively (I think). So they were not in service for all that long c.f. the Spitfire or 109 which the Hurri fought with in BoB.
On reflection I would have to say that the Hurri edges out the P40 due to its versatility. It was used in some very challenging roles but few planes could have withstood being rocket-fired off a pitching merchantman's deck in the Arctic to pursue Condors. Plus I think the Hurri was one of the first allied planes to use rocket projectiles and the P40 did not.
The Hurri was already obsolescent by WW2. Under the skin it used much of the design of 30s biplanes. But that made it easier to build and repair when that was important. In contrast the P40 was the first of the next generation with a lot more metal. As a fighter it outgunned the Hurri (until the 20 mm cannon but they were for ground attack not AtA). But I think the Hurri was more manoeuvrable at most altitudes.
They were contemporary and the RAF used both... I don't think the Hurri ever made it to USAAF service etc. (Unlike the Spitfire) - and kept using them until they were replaced by the Typhoon and P51, respectively (I think). So they were not in service for all that long c.f. the Spitfire or 109 which the Hurri fought with in BoB.
On reflection I would have to say that the Hurri edges out the P40 due to its versatility. It was used in some very challenging roles but few planes could have withstood being rocket-fired off a pitching merchantman's deck in the Arctic to pursue Condors. Plus I think the Hurri was one of the first allied planes to use rocket projectiles and the P40 did not.
Good points Roy. I agree with all of them.Royzee617 said:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Agree, good points for the Hurricane - my sources showing both aircraft with the ability to carry a 500 pound bomb load as well.
Found out as well the Tomahawk IIB carried 380 rpg for it's four wing mounted .50s. The P-40E carried 281 rpg for it's 6 .50s.....
Found out as well the Tomahawk IIB carried 380 rpg for it's four wing mounted .50s. The P-40E carried 281 rpg for it's 6 .50s.....
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
FLYBOYJ said:the lancaster kicks ass said:yeah but them planes didn't even have all their armourment in the wings of course they can have wing tanks
WRONG! P-36, P-39 and Zero had wing guns!!!
if you re-read what i said i said they didn't have ALL their armorment in their wings, so i wasn't wrong........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:FLYBOYJ said:the lancaster kicks ass said:yeah but them planes didn't even have all their armourment in the wings of course they can have wing tanks
WRONG! P-36, P-39 and Zero had wing guns!!!
if you re-read what i said i said they didn't have ALL their armorment in their wings, so i wasn't wrong........
But they had armament in the wing With wing fuel tanks - isn't that what we were discussing?!?!
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yes but you ceemed under the impression i wasn't aware those fighters had wing guns, which i was.........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:
OK - my mistake...
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
The point was that the P40 N could carry more ammo and more fuel. Thus it was the better fighter because it could carry more rounds of a harder hitting gun.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
all them rounds are useless though if the plane is a poor gunnery platform, i know the P-40 was a good platform i'm just saying ammo isn't everything, you take out a plane with a couple of bullets if you put them in the right place, there's more to a good fighter than ammo.........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
the lancaster kicks ass said:
I read somewhere that Jimmie Thach was confronted about F4F pilots dismayed about some modles only having 4 guns as opposed to 6. His response was "What good is having 6 guns when you can't hit anything with 4?"
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
exactily........
