FW-190 and the Armor Plate.

[KoN_]

Hi all , loving the new summer maps , i still have issues with the Fw-190 and the Armor plate , i have been flying most VVs aircraft lately and today decided to take my favorite aircraft up again the 190.

Got into a fight with a La-5 and got good hits on him , as he was extending away, i line and just about to pull the triger and BANG ..!!!  - PK . outside view a/c smoking .

This has happend so many times to me ,  while flying the 190 and its an instant pilot Kill , canopy is closed.

Who else is getting this in the FW190 . i mean its instant ..!!!! no sound effect " no nothing , and always the Fw190 . for me .

Does the Armor plate really work .

 

[Alkyan]

hello !

 

I think I was the La5 pilot, I was getting ready to jump when I saw your plane crashed. I'll answer the same thing as I did in the server "a 20mm cannon shot in your pilot's face". Ironically I crashed while answering to you

 

Seriously, for all plane you can get one shot killed if the pilot is hit hard. 

[Finkeren]

It works, but it only protected you from directly behind, fire coming in from slightly to the side will hit you.

 

Also: If you were fighting La-5s, the armour isn't gonna do you much good. A lot of people fly with full AP-ammo (greatly increases the chance of PK or engine damage) for their ShVAKs and against that the armour of the Fw 190 is pretty useless.

 

Generally speaking, the kind of armour that were available on most WW2 aircraft (with a few notable exceptions) only protected against rifle caliber bullets and against shrapnel from HE shells?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

A diagram of the Fw-190A-3 armour, for reference

 

"Armor on the FW-190 is located in the following areas: the pilot is protected by the engine and 60 mm armored glass. Nose of the plane enclosing the oil radiator is made of 5 mm armored plate; the rest of the nose is 3 mm armor. There is also an 8 mm armored seat that covers the pilot up to the shoulder level. There is an indent in the sear for the parachute. A 5 mm armored plate behind the pilot seat fills the full fuselage profile except the area for the parachute indent. 12 mm headrest protects pilot’s head and shoulders. There is no armor protecting pilot from the side or below."

 

Edited November 11, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

[KoN_]

This is always from behind , six oclock , this never happens in any other aircraft , not even the Yak , or the 109 . Its always 190 with me ,  its like the 190 is made of glass , history says the 190 was a tough bugger to bring down . like i said not first time happend , its an instant kill . I stopped flying the 190 for a while .

[LukeFF]

 

 

history says the 190 was a tough bugger to bring down

 

And reality shows 20 mm cannon fire would rip fighter planes apart. A couple millimeters of armor is like tissue paper to such a cartridge. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

A tough bird is one that can take two-three 20mm in non-vital areas and keep flying, whereas other aircraft would be shredded. Your pilot however is a vital area, one 20mm hit kills quick.

[KoN_]

Never mind ,  lets leave it at that , and close the thread .

[LukeFF]

 

 

close the thread

 

Why? It's a good topic. 

[ema33ig]

This is always from behind , six oclock , this never happens in any other aircraft , not even the Yak , or the 109 . Its always 190 with me ,  its like the 190 is made of glass , history says the 190 was a tough bugger to bring down . like i said not first time happend , its an instant kill . I stopped flying the 190 for a while .

I experience it in FW 190 against La5 very often.

[Finkeren]

I really think it's got to do with the La-5 and the fact that many ppl use all-AP ammo with it. That's four times as many pilot killing 20mm AP rounds coming your way compared to a Yak-1.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Perhaps FW pilots could borrow the armoured headrests from the 109 pilots who removed it for double protection?

[Wulf]

I only fly the 190 so I'm not in a position to know if 'through-armour' p/ks are more or less likely than in other aircraft.  However, as other's have noted,  aircraft armour doesn't guarantee much.  In most almost all instances it will probably stop rifle caliber ball ammo and flak splinters.  20 mm HE rounds would probably get stopped in most instances but at very short range you may be unlucky.   The real problem of course is AP rounds.  At 2-3 hundred meters probably about 1/3 of all AP rounds that strike the plating will penetrate.  The remainder will typically get deflected to some degree by the airframe or components inside the airframe (and therefore yaw or tumble in flight) and consequently strike the plating at less than optimal angles.  At extended ranges resistance to AP would increase but again, there would be few guarantees.  

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Why? It's a good topic. 

 

Rant vs. discussion.

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I am rarely killed from dead 6 in the Fw. Shot in the face by a Pe-2? OFTEN - but that is my own fault. My AC is usually disabled from dead 6 in one way or another but I survive most of the AC losses.

 

It's probably modeled reasonably well.

[Gunsmith86]

For players who like to know:

 

The Soviet 20mm ShVAK API, which had a hard steel core with  the incendary mixture in the tip of the jacket, performed erratically in the german tests (We know that these test were accurate because German and English did get almost the same results in tests), achieving 24mm at 100m and 90°, but only 7mm after passing through the dural skin of an airplane ( The bad results maybe because a projectile whit lighter tip is not very stable after hitting something in flyth. The reason why they put the Incendary in the tip could be that the developers of the projectile thought it to be more important than its armour penetration capability). In the same test, figures for the 23mm VYa (taken at 300m instead of 100m) were 30mm at 300m and 90°, and 16mm at 300m after passing through the dural skin of an airplane.

 

For german data look here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sX8ZB27l94Dy7DXSG6dbhXqbVKdvJ78MDlmnUMD4Q3M/edit#gid=1465002216

[Y-29.Silky]

I've read from multiple sources that on average, it took 4-6 rounds of 20mm to bring down a fighter.

 

Anyways, I've had different experiences with the 190. Usually when I encounter La-5's they're the ones who take out my damn stabilizers and it's the Yak's and P-40's who pilot snipe me.

But as mentioned, the La-5 was probably (hopefully) using all AP rounds.

[KoN_]

For me to post here , i feel that something wasnt quite right with the protection of the 190 ..

May be its the sound bug i have , where i hear nothing at all ,  then see my crate burning .

But it always seems tobe the 190 for me .

Please dont turn this into a heated debate .

Edited November 15, 2015 by II./JG77_Con

[LLv24_Zami]

There will be improvements to the ballistics and armor modeling in next patch as we can see in DD113.

[LukeFF]

 

 

Please dont turn this into a heated debate .

 

Dude, no one is turning this into a heated debate. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they want to get into some sort of flame war. 

[Wulf]

I've read from multiple sources that on average, it took 4-6 rounds of 20mm to bring down a fighter.

 

 

I'm guessing these figures exclude those instances where the pilot is literally blown in two by one of those rounds.  

[II./JG77_Manu*]

The reason is simple. Armor Piercing ammunition is way to powerful. If you take it with the La5, you can exploit that fact. But in the next update they nerf it, like Zami already stated. So it's not a 190 thing, more a AP/La5 thing at the moment. Getting fixed already.

[MadisonV44]

I confirm the same direct kill from the 6 in the 190, much more than flying the 109 .. strange indeed. 

 

We fly both LW & VVS planes during training with our squad mates and my global feeling after 2 years of practice is that the VVS ammunition are far more efficient compared to LW. Another observation is that LW planes are less vulnerable (despite large plates obstructing visibility in both 109 and 190). A Yak easily tolerate much more gunfire compared to the 109. I would have guess the contrary in  regards to its wood conception. 

 

Details given by Gunsmith86 regarding armour penetration capability are interesting and could be the beginning of an explanation but I would be much interested in having more details and sources about it. Any other links except the Excel one ? 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Just a note on the resistance of the Yak-1 - while it still used wood generously, the internal structure itself was made of metal, making for a very sturdy plane. This light yet tough structure allowed the OKB Yakovlev to shed many of the heavier wooden components while still keeping the aircraft resistant to damage. Per se wooden constructions can be very damage and fire resistant as well - it all depends on the type of wood and how it is used, the LaGG-3 being a good example of that.

 

These pics don't prove much but are interesting nonetheless, demonstrating the assembly of the Fw-190, LaGG-3 and Yak-1 (mostly fuselage, wings were hard to come by and I couldn't find a good pic for the 109):

 

Fw-190A-3

 

 

Yak-1

 

 

LaGG-3

 

[Willy__]

Does the 190 have armored windshield ? Its really annoying getting killed when attacking pe2's, even though you have that huge engine upfront and the supposed armored windshield.....

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Does the 190 have armored windshield ? Its really annoying getting killed when attacking pe2's, even though you have that huge engine upfront and the supposed armored windshield.....

 

Yes, of course... The field-of-view through said windshield and over the aforementioned BMW801 is one of the most fiercely contested items in the entirety of combat flight simulation.

[Gunsmith86]

Details given by Gunsmith86 regarding armour penetration capability are interesting and could be the beginning of an explanation but I would be much interested in having more details and sources about it. Any other links except the Excel one ? 

The Excel table is made from informations found in:

Handbuch der Flugzeug Bordwaffenmunition 1936-1945

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/65538633/New%20folder/handbuchderflugzeugbordwaffenmunition1936-1945.pdf

 

also:

- L.D.v.4000/10 Munitionsvorschriften für Fliegerbordwaffen (

 

- Flying Guns World war II

  Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-1945

  Anthony G. Williams

Edited November 17, 2015 by Gunsmith86

[MadisonV44]

Hi Lucas and Gunsmith, thanks for the additional details and clarifications. Always welcome 

[Willy__]

Yes, of course... The field-of-view through said windshield and over the aforementioned BMW801 is one of the most fiercely contested items in the entirety of combat flight simulation.

 

Ok... should it stop HMG's fire ? Because last night I made the mistake of sitting on the 6 of a pe2 and got insta-killed, the plane suffered no damage at all (I could see it, because after you're killed, the game forces the external camera and the plane was just fine). I have no problem with getting shot down, but lately I've been noticing those insta-kills, especially on the 190, the plane seems fine (apart from a few superficial bullet holes), but the pilot get squished... Maybe theres something borked with it ?

Edited November 17, 2015 by istruba

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Do you have information on the thickness and material of the Fw-190A-3 windshield armour? That way someone with more knowledge on the subject (or with the right sources) can at least risk a more educated guess.

 

This has no comparison value, but might be of interest: if you look at modern helicopters (Mi-28N and Mi-35M4, for reference), these are specifically armoured to take .50/12.7mm to the pilot's face without letting anything through. The Mi-28 has 45mm of armour, while I can't remember the value of the Mi-35M but I spoke to some crews who gave me the information two years ago. Istruba, since you're in Brazil you can see if you can catch one in a Portões Abertos nearby. The Poti (2/8 GAv) crews are awesome people, and I'm sure they can give some insight on it.

 

For a Fw-190 flying behind a Pe-2 there are a few factors that make a comparison difficult of course, like speed (air-to-air fire versus ground-to-air), thickness of the glass and also the technologies available in 1942 compared to what Mil is using now.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Ok... should it stop HMG's fire ? Because last night I made the mistake of sitting on the 6 of a pe2 and got insta-killed, the plane suffered no damage at all (I could see it, because after you're killed, the game forces the external camera and the plane was just fine). I have no problem with getting shot down, but lately I've been noticing those insta-kills, especially on the 190, the plane seems fine (apart from a few superficial bullet holes), but the pilot get squished... Maybe theres something borked with it ?

 

Yes, but do be aware that once the glass has stopped one round nearly all of its structural integrity has been compromised - don't expect it to stop anything at any range... Generally speaking, that plate glass should deflect or stop rifle caliber ammunition (even larger cartridges) from certain ranges... If you were say... 50-100m behind him I would expect to eat some lead because one round is going to shatter or damage the plate and all of the others are going to break up/pass through it... If you're 250-300m+ you should expect it to deflect a few rounds or to stop them entirely. The angle that the glass sits (it is at a shallower angle than the 109's) is especially important for how the cartridges interact with the glass and the 190 has a real-world advantage there.

[Gunsmith86]

This may also be of interest: ( on page 12 - 16  are information about ammunition also of interest is the drawing belowe.)

US Armament in the Air War (GAF = German Air Force)

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/a/Alliierte/US%20Armament%20in%20the%20Air%20War.pdf

 

Edited November 17, 2015 by Gunsmith86

[Matt]

You need 1-3 rounds of the UBT to kill the pilot of a Fw 190 through the windshield at 30 meters distance in BoS. So while one hit can be enough at close range, there's good chance that atleast one round has been stopped before you got killed (it's 15+ rounds per second from the UBT, it's pretty hard to only hit with one round in the first place).

[KoN_]

I confirm the same direct kill from the 6 in the 190, much more than flying the 109 .. strange indeed. 

 

We fly both LW & VVS planes during training with our squad mates and my global feeling after 2 years of practice is that the VVS ammunition are far more efficient compared to LW. Another observation is that LW planes are less vulnerable (despite large plates obstructing visibility in both 109 and 190). A Yak easily tolerate much more gunfire compared to the 109. I would have guess the contrary in  regards to its wood conception. 

 

Details given by Gunsmith86 regarding armour penetration capability are interesting and could be the beginning of an explanation but I would be much interested in having more details and sources about it. Any other links except the Excel one ? 

Agree ..!

I feel that something isnt quite right . Looking forward to the next patch .

Edited November 18, 2015 by II./JG77_Con

[Wulf]

You need 1-3 rounds of the UBT to kill the pilot of a Fw 190 through the windshield at 30 meters distance in BoS. So while one hit can be enough at close range, there's good chance that atleast one round has been stopped before you got killed (it's 15+ rounds per second from the UBT, it's pretty hard to only hit with one round in the first place).

 

 

Well that depends.  If, for example, your 190 is doing 600 kph at the time of the engagement, it will have traveled over 160 m or 500+ feet in the time that those 19 rounds are fired.  So, even if we were to place all of the inherent inaccuracies associated with the discharge of an automatic weapon to one side for a moment, you are still going to have extreme difficulty grouping projectiles on something as small as the armoured windscreen of a 190 - even from a perfectly straight dead six attack.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Wulf

[Finkeren]

Well that depends. If, for example, your 190 is doing 600 kph at the time of the engagement, it will have traveled over 160 m or 500+ feet in the time that those 19 rounds are fired. So, even if we were to place all of the inherent inaccuracies associated with the discharge of an automatic weapon to one side for a moment, you are still going to have extreme difficulty grouping projectiles on something as small as the armoured windscreen of a 190 - even from a perfectly straight dead six attack.

You forget, that he was attacking the Pe-2 from behind. In that case it really doesn't matter how fast the Fw 190 is going (and 600 km/h is something that is seldom achieved in actual combat outside of a dive)

 

What matters is the closing speed - the relative speed between the aircraft - which are going to be significantly less than 600 km/h.

 

Istruba specifically mentioned "making the mistake of sitting on the 6 of a Pe-2", which means that the closing speed was likely very low, and a burst from the UB hmg would almost certainly mean multiple hits in a tight group.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Finkeren

[Willy__]

As a side note and more of a curiosity, when a bullet hits the 190 windshield, does it have the same visual effect as the armored windscreen on the 109s ? I think only once I had a bullet hit the armored windscreen on the 109, and it had that nice visual "hit effect", but it never happened to me on the 190... Its always pilot kill or engine damage when I get hit on that area... 

[Wulf]

You forget, that he was attacking the Pe-2 from behind. In that case it really doesn't matter how fast the Fw 190 is going (and 600 km/h is something that is seldom achieved in actual combat outside of a dive)

 

What matters is the closing speed - the relative speed between the aircraft - which are going to be significantly less than 600 km/h.

 

Istruba specifically mentioned "making the mistake of sitting on the 6 of a Pe-2", which means that the closing speed was likely very low, and a burst from the UB hmg would almost certainly mean multiple hits in a tight group.

 

If you attack an enemy bomber from a dead-six position you stand a very good chance of being shot down.  For this reason alone, dead-six attacks are generally to be avoided.   'Sturmbock' tactics utilized late in the War did involve deliberate level attacks, from the rear, against American bomber formations, but the 190s used in these operations were specially armed and armoured for this purpose (although, as far as I'm aware, the armoured windscreen itself was not augmented beyond what would have been fitted to a standard 190).  What is more, these attacks were made at a unit level, not by individual fighters.   However, even in circumstances where the action is in fact limited to a single bomber and fighter, both aircraft are highly unlikely to be moving perfectly in sync with one another as you imply, so speed will have a critical influence on the outcome.  In an attack of this nature the defending air gunner will be attempting to land hits on the attacking 'aircraft', not the armoured windscreen of that aircraft and he will be doing this from a gun platform that is, in all probability, involved in some pretty desperate evasive maneuvering.  To suggest that in such circumstances an object the size of a dinner plate, traveling at or near max level speed, is likely to be hit multiple times is really stretching the bounds of what is credible.  While not entirely impossible, it is certainly highly unlikely.

 

In more typical situations, where the bomber is engaged by a 190 attacking in a steep dive, at speeds in excess of  600 kph, the prospect of being hit at all by defensive fire let alone by multiple shots to the windscreen is war comic stuff.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Wulf

[KoN_]

Ask yourself  ,  if it was you as a real WWII pilot , " and your life depended upon it " !!!  and had the choice for todays mission as it stands today with this FM .

Would you take the 190 or the 109 .

[Trinkof]

Ask yourself , if it was you as a real WWII pilot , " and your life depended upon it " !!! and had the choice for todays mission as it stands today with this FM .

Would you take the 190 or the 109 .

190 definitely runaway at will! (almost...)