Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Hickey
Hello,
Someone has pointed out to me the following sources about Hurrican armament during the WC/BoB. Seems there is considerable disagreement, although they are not very significant. What is the accurate number?
A. Gillet - 2 800 rounds, i.e. 350 rpg
Francis K. Mason in his "Hurricane" monograph - 2 660 rounds, i.e. 332.5 ( ?) rpg
Len Deighton in his book "Fighter" - 300 rpg (totalling 2 400 rounds)
Jerry Scutts in his "Squadron-Signal" monograph : 334 rpg (totalling 2
Regards,
|
It took me a minute, but I finally found the page I was looking for. I remembered seeing it a day or so ago, and I noted the numbers, but not the site. Anyway, according to this website (which may not be a book, but sounds reasonably accurate
, the Hurricane had:
"Four Browning 7.7 millimeter machine guns were mounted in single bay in each wing, firing outside the propeller arc. Elimination of the synchronizing gear needed for firing through a propeller arc both reduced weight and increased reliability. The guns were easily accessed for service and loading. The innermost gun in each wing had an ammunition box with a capacity of 338 rounds, while the next gun had 324 rounds, and the two outer guns 338 rounds each. Cyclic rate of fire of each gun was initially 1,100 rounds per minute, though this was later improved to 1,200 rounds per minute."
I suppose that just muddies the water a bit more, huh? But I thought that sounded a bit too specific to entirely dismiss. I have no idea where the numbers came from, but that's a total of 2,676 rounds in both wings...divided by eight guns is 334.5rpg! "3,272" rounds total sounds wrong to me...that's 408.75rpg. I think that the SPITFIRE had about 400rpg, but don't quote me on that...I may be imagining things.
Also, the cutaway Hurricane Mk I in one of my books states "outboard ammunition magazines, 338 rounds each" and "inboard ammunition magazines, 324 and 338 rounds", so that also agrees (to my surprise!). The website I got the numbers off of was:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avhurr.html
LOL, it always mildly amuses (and irritates) me when you find some little, seemingly easy-to-answer question like this, and no-one seems to have any definite answer! I have a lot of those; I'm always into the details.
I wonder whether the rated capacity for a magazine depends on how you measure it...perhaps some people only count the rounds that will actually fit into the box, and others count that plus the ammo in the belt leading from the box to the gun? That' possible. I don't remember the actual numbers, but the A-10 Thunderbolt's ammo drum holds a certain number of shells, but if you load the drum and the belt leading to the gun, it adds a dozen or so to the total. Kind of like loading a gun, chambering a round, and "topping it off", i.e. a shotgun with a 4-shot magazine actually holds 5, if you chamber a shell and replace it in the magazine. You'd say that shotgun had a capacity of "4+1".
I wonder what the reason for the lesser capacity of the second gun is? Something must be occupying the space that magazine should fill, so they had to cut it down a bit. The landing gear pivot was in about that location, I think. Maybe that's what takes up the space and reduces the #2 gun to only 324 rounds (if that is indeed the correct number).
And does anyone know whether there was really a change in the size of the magazines in the Mk I vs the Mk II? It would be possible, but I don't see why they should alter the magazines any. I suppose it might help explain all the different claims for ammunition capacity. I suppose it's even possible that there are a number of different magazines used, installed at different times during the production run.
I don't know why that should be the case, but things like that did happen...just because two planes are nominally the same type, doesn't make all their parts identical. We're talking pretty big production runs here, all under the pressures and urgency of war-time, so they may not have minded using whatever part was available, as long as it was roughly equivalent.
The Russians were notorious for that sort of approach to building planes (and never had cause to regret it, either). They were so hard-to-the-wall, in the midst of moving the whole industry over the Urals, that the design evolution of the planes seemed to go linearly, a plane at a time, rather than in stages. Okay, that's exaggeration! But there were so many workers and factories and small design changes introduced "on the line" that with planes like the Il-2, no two consecutive (or non-consecutive) planes were exactly alike.
Okay, I'm getting off track here. We're talking about the Hurricane, not Russian planes. I shall be looking into this a bit more soon, I hope.
Cheers, everyone!
Johnny .45
