The DM modelling in computer game is hard for one simple reason.
You have component hit boxes and HP pool on them, the more granular you go, the more accurate you get, but there comes a point where you have to do compromises. Hence, when you have an object that is big, even with lots of durability, it still can seem weaker because the way you model the other things.
When HE ammo has X amount of secondary effects (shrapnel), a larger object, even with nominally better durability, can be weaker in absolute because it will absorb more damage by the virtue of its size.
The P-47 might be sturdier on paper, but by the virtue of it size, it catches more damage in total, and seems to be weaker when actually being shot at.
If you have 100 hp on wing spar, but it is so small, that you only catch small % of shrapnel, vs 200 hp wing spar that hoovers up more % of the shrapnel, the end result might feel like the sturdier spar is weaker.
This is issue in many games that include granular hitboxes in its hull. Mechwarrior is poster-boy of those games, where huge HP pool parts that are bullet magnets can seem like weak tissue paper, and small hitbox parts with no hp to write home about might seem indestructible.
I am 80% sure that the granularity of component hitboxes play a big role of how the DM of p-47 might feel a bit off, even if there is effort made on the devs part to make the individual components stronger than average.