Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIB Wing Armament Query

[Hugr1]

I'm perhaps missing something obvious or well documented here but I'm a little puzzled by sources which give the number of wing mounted machine guns fitted to the Hurricane Mk. IIB aircraft as being either 10 or 12 and certain photographs which I've seen do appear to show one machine gun port faired over as in this case where it's the second innermost one from the inboard group of four guns >

 

 

Is that because of the underwing external stores pylon, which perhaps blocked the bullet casing and belt linkage ejection chutes or was it simply necessary to save some weight ? 

 

Was the number of machine guns carried highly variable in this manner depending on aircraft configuration or was it the exception to the rule as best anyone has been able to establish ?

 

I was also curious to see the muzzle of the two outboard machine guns protruding from the wing ports whereas on the inner group of 4 guns they appear to be recessed. Again, would that be the norm or an anomaly or sorts ?

 

Grateful for any support or feedback regarding these queries.

 

Thanks in advance ;

 

Best Regards,

 

Hugr1

[barkin mad]

You are right, the reason one is covered over (it's a doped fabric patch btw not a fairing) is due to the mounting points for the pylon/bomb carrier go up into & occupy the space for where the machine gun would be, and the carrier fairing also covered the relevant bullet casing hole.

 

And yes, the number of machine guns a Hurricane IIB can fly with is variable, it can have all 12 if no bombs & carriers are fitted, or 10 if carrying 2 bombs, or even none if all were removed for some reason, but if it was 10 the covered over port would always be the second one innermost as the pylon/carrier location didn't change.

 

The 2 outboard guns stick out further, simply because the wing is thinner the further outboard you go hence, they are mounted slightly further forward than the group of four.

 

----------

 

[Chuck1945]

And in some instances both outboard guns were removed.

[Wild Weasel V]

Hi Hugh,

 

You can see the bomb carrier covering the casing ejector cut-out in this IWM film: https://film.iwmcollections.org.uk/record/998 ; if you want to skip the Bostons jump to about 4:45 to see a Hurricane IIb of 174 Squadron being bombed up and the guns 'pulled through'. Many of the Hurricanes (and the 340 Sqn Spitfires also featured) have 'Operation Rutter' stripes indicating that this was filmed in early July rather than during the actual Dieppe operations. Later on there's footage of the pilots synchronising their watches and moving off to their aircraft where you can see the doped over gun ports.

 

The same gun configuration would also be the same for Hurricanes carrying underwing fuel tanks.

 

You can also see some more gun servicing at 9:15 in this film from the same batch: https://film.iwmcollections.org.uk/record/2009

 

I believe the deletion of the outer gun pairs would have been more common in the African/Western Desert campaigns to save weight and regain some performance against a less dense Axis air threat. The outboard cannons on the Hurricane IIc were sometimes also removed for the same reason. In the European theatre having as much firepower as possible would probably be more important. I would say that when nothing was carried underwing the full 12 gun complement was standard.

 

HTH,

 

Jonathan

[Hugr1]

At first, thanks to everybody whose taken the trouble to provide such a comprehensive response to my query. All very helpful and, certainly, very interesting for me to learn more about this topic.

 

All makes sense !

 

And where do the muzzles of the four inboard guns sit in relation to the blast port itself ?

If I'm leaving the ports open I like to insert a section of tube to represent the muzzle but have never been sure just how close to the port they should be positioned. I have seen a number of cutaway drawings showing the arrangement of the machine gun bays in the wings but they weren't scaled and though they give a good representation of the layout it was just to ask.  

 

Another question on a similar theme which I've always been afraid to ask is if the machine guns were angled or offset one to another in order to achieve synchronisation of the rounds so as to arrive in, at least, nominally the same spot, say, at a firing distance of 300 yards for example. I can only think this must have been necessary to achieve this result.

 

I have read several articles regarding the topic of wing gun synchronisation and the suggestion appears to be this was something that was initially poorly understood or valued but became progressively more appreciated and was the subject of considerable experimentation and trials even at individual squadron level with many instances of individual preference as to where the rounds ought to converge for best effect, particularly, as the relatively weak hitting power of the .303 machine guns became more evident with the proximity to the target aircraft being reduced to a shorter & shorter distance.

 

Curious many aircraft designs other than British ones incorporated nose mounted armament to largely eliminate this requirement. I guess the Mosquito & Whirlwind are exceptions to the rule though not intended as out & out fighters !

 

Appreciate any thoughts or clarification on this matter ;

 

Regards,

 

Hugr1

 

 

[barkin mad]

You can see in this pic where the guns are in relation to the ports in the wings, though for the most part you wouldn't see the muzzles as it was part of the ground crew task to cover the muzzles with the fabric patches if they had time.

 

http://moore-photographs.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Airshow-ww2-33.jpg

 

And you are correct re the guns being very slightly angled, it's called harmonisation so that the guns are angled slightly inwards so that the bullets converged at a certain point several hundred yards in front of the fighter. It was of course adjustable, some pilots liked to have them harmonising much closer to the aircraft than other, some as close as 150yds, others preferred it further in front. I have also read a few stories of the lack of hitting power of the .303 bullet with accounts of German bombers coming back with 200 or more hits. And yet the .303 served throughout the early part of the war despite cannon being available. I guess the RAF preferred the amount of bullets fired over the stopping power of 20mm.

 

Aircraft such as the Mosquito, Whirlwind and American Lightning, with their guns on the centerline, did not need harmonisation as the firepower was concentrated at all distances.

 

---------------

 

Edited October 24, 2022 by barkin mad

[Hugr1]

Thank you for this information. Gun harmonisation, yes ! Couldn't bring the correct terminology to mind ! 

 

Photograph you provided is also useful as it reminds us the centreline of the gun ports weren't aligned with the centreline of the wing leading edge but are positioned somewhat above. Some models or illustrations don't reflect that arrangement too well in my experience.

 

And just to check if you based in North-East Scotland too if that's alright ?

 

Regards,

 

Hugr1

[barkin mad]

17 hours ago, Hugr1 said:

Photograph you provided is also useful as it reminds us the centreline of the gun ports weren't aligned with the centreline of the wing leading edge but are positioned somewhat above. Some models or illustrations don't reflect that arrangement too well in my experience.

 

And just to check if you based in North-East Scotland too if that's alright ?

The new tool 1/48 Airfix captures this, a nice kit overall but needs careful assembly, as does the Italeri 1/48, which has a fair few accuracy problems and isn't as nice as the Airfix kit.

 

And yes I am.

[Hugr1]

Okay. Thank you for the advice and guidance regarding the 2 kits you've highlighted above.

 

Will check each of those out in a bit more detail.

 

And just to mention I'm in Stonehaven if you know it ?

 

All the best ;

 

Regards,

 

Hugr1

[barkin mad]

Another for you is the Arma Hobby kit, though it's a IIc and hasn't been released yet (sometime next year) but is likely to be the gold standard where 1/48 Hurricanes are concerned. If you prefer them bigger, Revell has a 1/32 IIb out next month. 

 

https://www.armahobby.pl/40004-hurricane-mk-iic-expert-set-1-48.html

 

https://www.revell.de/en/products/modelmaking/planes/world-war-ii/hawker-hurricane-mk-iib.html

 

Yes, I know it fairly well, been to Dunnottar, the fireball ceremony, a nice beach & harbour is quite quaint. Had a notion to move there when I used to work in Portlethen to save on travelling distance, but never did. I'm about half an hour South.

 

-------------

 

[Hugr1]

Thank you for the head's up on these different kits. Will certainly look out for those. I have been looking at the Arma Hobby 1/72nd scale releases too !

 

Kit # 70042, 70043, 70044 & 70054 respectively.

 

Are you half an hour south on the coast or inland ?

 

Regards,

 

Hugr1

[barkin mad]

Good kits the Arma Hobby, very accurate, but may be a little fiddly to build. IE trial fit twice then glue, though I believe the Mk.II kits are easier to assemble than the Mk.I

 

You should have a PM as well.

 

--------------

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by barkin mad