PDA

View Full Version : Hurricane....god of war or goat?



santini812
07-18-2005, 02:05 PM
I'm not a real Hurricane fan, I grant that they won the Battle Of Britain, but then downing a few Ju-87's, Me-110's, and He-111's isn't that big a deal. I guess what I'm asking is, Do you think a pilot of equal training with a Hurricane can take out a Me-109 with the same training. I'm not demeaning the job the pilots did in their 110's or 87's but there is an inherent law of being the prey and not the preditor. The Hurricane had a small window in world history where it could have a great effect and it did so, but overall was this a great plane?

Airmail109
07-18-2005, 02:17 PM
The hurricane was in my opinion a liability during the battle of britain. It shot more enemy aircraft down simply because there were more of them than spitfires, both aircraft had the same kill to number of aircraft ratio. On the other hand the hurricane was far more vunerable than the spitfire, more got shot down in relation to their numbers. The me109 shot down 70 percent of the hurricanes lost whilst the me109 sot down 60 percent of the spitfires lost. This does not sound much but had the country geared towards producing more spitfires and phased out the hurricanes i think losses would have been substatially lower.

And any 109 pilot worth his salt in an equal confrontation would have a better chance than the opposing hurricane pilot of surviving, the hurrican only had manuveribility on its side.

santini812
07-18-2005, 02:29 PM
Sorry I really didn't mean this to be a flame war so I decided I should clarify what I meant. Was the Hurricane a great plane or just a plane that filled a need. If the BF-109 had a longer range would the Hurricane even be remembered now, except as an afterthought, like the FW-190 and the Yak-3.
I've never flown or fought in a Hurricane, nor a BF-109, but the British and Canadian pilots who have flown 109's havs said it was just as good or at least an equal to the Spitfire, not in all situtations but overall they were equal. Where does this put the Hurricane, by no means was the Hurricane a dog, but then it was not the myth and legend that people have made it recently. I may be wrong, looking forward to the discussion this may generate.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-18-2005, 02:35 PM
Definitely, it was "a plane that filled a need"; I'd add to that, "a plane in the right situation at the right time".

Examine WWII history in all theatres, and you'll find Hurris getting their collective arses handed to them time and again...but surviving long enough for better planes to arrive and reverse their fortunes. And, in the case of the Dutch East Indies, the help didn't come soon enough.

A Hurricane, in my view, doesn't hold a candle to a contemporary 109. Situational specifics can change this dynamic, though: are the 109s "tied" closely to a group of slow-flying Stukas or Heinkels, and the Hurris dive in with speed? Advantage Hurricane. Is the battle strictly an on-the-deck turnfight, with lots of aircraft (and the Hurris have cannon). Closer to an even match. In a mid-alt fight where the 109 can use its climb advantage and speed parity/advantage? Messerschmitt advantage all the way.

Atomic_Marten
07-18-2005, 02:47 PM
Well I think that, according to IL-2, Me-109E is plane with advantage over Hurricane. At least it was in previous patches.. I'm not a real fan of these planes so I did not fly them much in FB 4.01.
You can test it for yourself if you want to.
Check how fast it can turn, how fast it can go, how fast it can climb.. there. You will have the answer. But be sure to pay special attn to speed and climb rate, because planes inferior in this areas will IMO lose in most times 1 vs. 1 fights. Assuming that pilots are similar experienced. Especially if they are very experienced, because with rookie pilots it can happen that one don't utilise advantages of his fighter well.

DeerHunterUK
07-18-2005, 02:54 PM
The Hurricane has been rated by experts as being 1 of the most underrated and most versatile aircraft of World War II. The really sad fact about the Battle of Britain is the common understanding that the Spitfire was the aircraft that attacked the 109s whilst the slow lumbering Hurricane attacked the easier bomber formations. Only when Goering had switched his attacks to London in September and 12 Group could finally bring their "Big Wing" tactics into play was this possible before then 11 Group tended to only attack in Squadron number or less. I'll have a look around and see if I can find any numbers on 109s shotdown by Hurricanes, for some reason the figure 264 is floating around in my head but I'm sure that's too high.
Interestingly enough out of the 11,400 WWII RAF kill claims made in air to air combat reports, 55 per cent were made by Hurricane pilots and only 33 per cent by Spitfire pilots.

VV_Holdenb
07-18-2005, 03:41 PM
"Was the Hurricane a great plane or just a plane that filled a need."

The Hurricane was a great plane because it filled the need. IMHO.

I really like the Hurri, through sometimes in
game I wish it had just a little more hp!

F19_Ob
07-18-2005, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by santini812:
.........Do you think a pilot of equal training with a Hurricane can take out a Me-109 with the same training...........but ...overall was this a great plane?

I ofcourse cant compare the real planes but....... I always had a soft spot for the Hurricane and with my knowledge of the 109 and hurri in the sim I can clearly say that a hurricane have a limited chance against an equally skilled 109 and a group of hurricanes have a limited chance against an equal group of 109's.
With that said, there is a big difference in killing ability between a cannon-equipped and light mg equipped Hurricane.

It's easier to understand what can happen if we compare the 109's goodies over the hurricane.

The 109 out-accellerates and is faster than the hurricane in level flight. 109's climbs much better and keeps the energy up in the climb longer aswell. This practically allows the 109 to engage or disengage at will, while the Hurricane cant outrun the 109 and thus cant leave when things go bad.
The 109 can kill a hurricane with one short burst while the mg equipped hurricane needs multiple hits wich the 109 usually denyes it.
If the 109's use correct tactics they usually are above the hurricanes wich cant climb with the 109 and if someone tries he quickly loses a his energy wich makes him a stationary target for another 109's.
This is what enables a few 109's to quite easily take out many hurricanes online. The hurricane simply become too sluggish if it tries to climb with 109's and in slow speeds the 109 even can outturn the hurricane or simply just climb away and watch the hurricane stall. When I got a hurricane to lose his energy online I simply could fly away in level flight and be out of range before he could point his guns at my direction.

The only thing a Hurricane can do better than a 109 is turn at medium speed.
In fastest and slowest speeds the 109 outturn the Hurricane. Thats why one never should try to escape by outdiving a 109 because he often then can turn inside your turn.

However the hurricane 2c or the russian field model is equipped with cannons wich means one hit may kill the 109 so the chances increases somewhat although the performance is still the same.

I still prefer the Hurricane online though and I do fairly well with it since I know the 109 well. The most difficult task in the hurricane is to keep mediumspeed in combatsituations, where it maneuvers best. Sometimes in furball one loses the energy and it may take long to gain it again.
If one have no other way to go but down in the hurricane it's best to do it in a hard and steep spiral so one doesn't gain too much speed and become sluggish. It also makes it a bit harder for a chaser to hit aswell.

well, a few thoughts.

SeaFireLIV
07-18-2005, 04:44 PM
Well the books I have make it pretty clear that the Hurricane was really obsolete compared to more modern aircraft, but it filled an important niche - and in BOB that was crucial.

The Hurricane is NOT an aircraft to take up alone but to use as part of a fighting group.

As for the 109 and its turn capabilities... well I just don`t know enough about it historically, but the fact that now outturns the Hurri is depressing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Monty_Thrud
07-18-2005, 05:12 PM
Sadly, i think the Hurricane gets a raw deal in this game, but she's still one of my favourite aircraft

Hurricane (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_109_turn_2.jpg)

Nick_Toznost
07-18-2005, 05:20 PM
I'm no great expert on aviation history but I do recall the fact that one of the Hurricane's great advantages was it's durability. Granted, this was entirely due to it's wood and canvas construction which enabled it to take a huge amount of "bullet" damage compared to its all metal counterparts. A BF109's cannon would probably make a mess of it though. I just thought I'd mention it.

F19_Olli72
07-18-2005, 05:26 PM
Sure wouldve been fun to have the Mk IID

http://www.hasegawa-model.co.jp/zaikorisuto/JT-PTO/images/JT52.jpg

faustnik
07-18-2005, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
I'm no great expert on aviation history but I do recall the fact that one of the Hurricane's great advantages was it's durability. Granted, this was entirely due to it's wood and canvas construction which enabled it to take a huge amount of "bullet" damage compared to its all metal counterparts. A BF109's cannon would probably make a mess of it though. I just thought I'd mention it.

Wasn't the Hurri also a good one for operating out of rough fields?

SeaFireLIV
07-18-2005, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Sadly, i think the Hurricane gets a raw deal in this game, but she's still one of my favourite aircraft



Just read your link. I`m wondering if once again, the Brits have lost out due to Luftwaffe pressure on Oleg. It seems to me that the Hurri should have at least some superior turning ability on the early 109. It`s strange to see the Hurri turn from a relatively good turner to almost useless...

I`ll do some testing....

faustnik
07-18-2005, 05:58 PM
In Mushroom Model Publications title "Bell P-39 Airacobra they provide a chart of Soviet Lend-Lease a/c with turn times. The Hurricane was listed the worst out of all at 20 seconds. That really surprised me as I have always thought of the Hurricane as a superior turner.

Here are the times listed, seconds at 1000 meters:

Hurricane MkII: 19-20
P-40C: 18
P-40E: 19.2
P-39D-2: 17.7-18.7
P-63A: 20.5
Spit IX: 17.5

Mushroom Model Publications (http://www.mmpbooks.biz/main.html)

VW-IceFire
07-18-2005, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
In Mushroom Model Publications title "Bell P-39 Airacobra they provide a chart of Soviet Lend-Lease a/c with turn times. The Hurricane was listed the worst out of all at 20 seconds. That really surprised me as I have always thought of the Hurricane as a superior turner.

Here are the times listed, seconds at 1000 meters:

Hurricane MkII: 19-20
P-40C: 18
P-40E: 19.2
P-39D-2: 17.7-18.7
P-63A: 20.5
Spit IX: 17.5

Mushroom Model Publications (http://www.mmpbooks.biz/main.html)
Hurricane II got a bit heavy and didn't turn as well. It turned better than the 109s it faced and that was enough.

I personally have great affection for the Hurricane. Hawker did a great job with the Hurricane and to its credit, the aircraft served with RAF squadrons in all sorts of roles from the outbreak of the war right to the end.

The biggest benefits of the Hurricane?

It was easy to fly. It was relatively solid and tough and generally able to sustain some battle damage. During the Battle of Britain, the plane was easily repaired and sent back into operations if the damage was not too significant. At the time, its concentrated .303s were better than the Spitfire Mark I/II's which were more spread out.

After the Battle of Britain, you saw Mark IIs showing up which were definately the last of the frontline Hurricane fighters (the Hurricane had been around in some fashion since 1936-7 by this time) but they moved on. Operated in the Desert, at Singapore, Burma, India, and with the Russians as pretty much everything including ground attack.

Less people know the Mark IV with the 40mm Vickers anti-tank cannons. These too were pretty good at what they did. No longer a fighter but enough to bust tanks up in the desert and in Burma.

Hurricane was a big success...it wasn't a glorious aircraft but it got the job done.

LStarosta
07-18-2005, 08:39 PM
I, like all Aces, will pwn with the Hurricane. Fact.

PlimPlam
07-18-2005, 08:55 PM
Put me in a hurricane- in this game- and have it fly against my twin evil self in an emil and the evil self wins hands down.

In real life I dont know if it would be as easy as it is in game. The hurricane was supposedly really easy to fly whereas the 09s werent. But I think the 09s would have the advantage in the end as they could always just leave if things went bad mano o mano.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-18-2005, 09:21 PM
I'd put the Hurricane and the P-40 in the same category. Both fighters were outclassed and outshined by later/more advanced models, but they were around when needed and they got the job done. The Hurricane was a proven, easy to manufacture design, that could be flown by hastily trained replacement pilots that was made suitable for operations in a number of drastically different combat situation. I think a workhorse best describes plane's like the Hurricane.

WarWolfe_1
07-18-2005, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I'd put the Hurricane and the P-40 in the same category. Both fighters were outclassed and outshined by later/more advanced models, but they were around when needed and they got the job done. The Hurricane was a proven, easy to manufacture design, that could be flown by hastily trained replacement pilots that was made suitable for operations in a number of drastically different combat situation. I think a workhorse best describes plane's like the Hurricane.

Add F4F to your 2 planes.

PlimPlam
07-18-2005, 10:43 PM
I think workhorse is an apt discription as well.

FlatSpinMan
07-18-2005, 10:50 PM
So everyone on THIS forum actually AGREES on something???!!! I must have missed my medication again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif.

Friendly_flyer
07-19-2005, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
So everyone on THIS forum actually AGREES on something???!!!

Notice though, that several of the authors in this tread are self confessed "you know what word" plane lowers, and there's probably quite a few "in the closet" "ditto" plane lovers too.

Oh, and I agree with what the other guys have said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F19_Ob
07-19-2005, 05:11 AM
Additional note about russian Hurricanes.

Many russians thought the performance of the hurricane was less than i-16.
example here:
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

And they generally thought the p40 was better in the russian configuration.
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part2.htm

Generally the hurricane in russian service did better with the fieldmodel configuration with russian armament of two 20mm cannons and two heavy machineguns.
The 12 light Browning guns in the original configuration was good at very close range but the main problem was to achieve that close range so cannons were always better, in the west aswell.

Generally the Finns thought lowly of the hurricane and felt it was easily taken out with 109's and brewsters at low altitude below 3000m.
mentioned here:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-CaptainW...tTacticsLecture.html (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html)

The Finns got a few Hurricanes to fly them selves but weren't at all impressed and prefered the brewster any day.

Banger2004
07-19-2005, 12:27 PM
Although the 109 was generally a better performer, a great strength of the Hurricane was that it was a very stable gun platform (at least with 8 Brownings).

In the hands of a skilled pilot the damage it could inflict in a short space of time (firing bursts of 2-5 seconds) would have been very substantial simply because the aircraft was easier to aim, and maintain 'lock-on'.

So yes, a bit of both really, I think the aircraft at the time of BoB was a great team-mate to the Spitfire and fulfilled its role of air defence quite well.

Kocur_
07-19-2005, 12:54 PM
F19_Ob Posted Tue July 19 2005 04:11

"The 12 light lewis guns in the original configuration was good at very close range but the main problem was to achieve that close range so cannons were always better, in the west aswell."

Brownings not lewis' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (Smiling not at you, just imagined what a clever device it would have to be to enable pilot to exchange lewis magazines in flight)

Polish pilots fighting in BoB considered firepower of those 8 mg's excellent! But one must note two things: 1st:before BoB they were shooting LW planes down with only 2 mg's on P.11c in sept.39, 2nd: they were tought back in Dęblin fighters school to fire at close, and very close distances: 50-30m on some occasions.
Anyway cannons, which "hurt" target not only with kinetic but also chemical energy of explosive are far better solution. After-BoB research proved that vast majority of LW bombers shot down was lost due to crew death and/or control cables damage. Loss of power by damaged engines, fires and structural damage were pretty much lower in percentage.

Hurris were built in obsolete technology. Fuselage was steel pipes welded framework (stressed), on which another, wooden structure was built to support plywood/fabric skin (non stressed) to provide aerodynamical shape. If skin was shot through: no problem - put a patch and you can go back up. But pray not to have any part of basic framework broken apart, shot through for instance...
In case of semi-monocoque aluminium or wood design the very external skin carries stress and its aerodynamically correct too. Such design is far more efficient in terms of weight/strenght as skin performes both roles. On the other hand every hole weakens it. Size/number of holes is directly joined with endurance. Small one might make little difference, but if its too many/too large holes, fixing it is beyound 1st line unit ground crew possibilities, as it takes de-riveting structure to put new skin panel.

The190Flyer
07-19-2005, 01:12 PM
It was a good fighter back in the early part of the war, IMO. I think it was a good fighter, not great but average.

F19_Ob
07-19-2005, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
F19_Ob Posted Tue July 19 2005 04:11

"The 12 light lewis guns in the original configuration was good at very close range but the main problem was to achieve that close range so cannons were always better, in the west aswell."

Brownings not lewis' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

He he...corrected it.
Actually I was just reading about ww1 guns.

"....enable pilot to exchange lewis magazines in flight." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif