Messerschmitt 109 durability

[Raymondo77]

 

 

 

I agree completely about the composite fragility issue you bring up and have posted to that effect earlier on here and here and here and here and……you get the picture!

 

You may also want to save some further images from the German 30 mm test: https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/193904-урон-от-немецких-30-мм-авиационных-боеприпасов/(in Russian)

[Raymondo77]

Yes, the Germans evaluated captured specimens of Russian wood and concluded it was of high quality and just as strong as their own phenolic wood products. Attached are a couple of pages I photographed some years ago from Aeronautical Engineering 1942. The strength values are really impressive and delta wood is commented on as being "remarkably strong".

 

Here are also some interesting flight articles:

 

Plywood and Plastics I.pdf:

Resin-bonded and Impregnated Wood Veneer Heralds a Return to Wood Construction

 

Plywood and Plastics II.pdf:

Moulded Plywood Constrution: Characteristics of Wood Veneer: Effects of Moisture Contents : Glue Spread

 

Plywood and Plastics III.pdf:

Basic Desing Factors and Stress Data for Plywood Structures: The Simple Plywood Fuselage: Moulded Plywood Design

 

Edit: fixed link

Edit 2: add pdf files with better images quality

Edited December 18, 2017 by Raymondo77

[JG1_Shadepiece]

Would love to open a thread on HE vs AP DM Modeling, but when I tried in suggestions I was only told there are many threads dedicated to such however, I have not found them. Would love to start a fresh one in a place where it'll be seen.

[Holtzauge]

You may also want to save some further images from the German 30 mm test: https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/193904-урон-от-немецких-30-мм-авиационных-боеприпасов/(in Russian)

 

Great stuff Raymondo. Have not seen such high quality images of this type of damage before. Will take a closer look and read the details later on. Thanks for posting the link!

[Raymondo77]

Great stuff Raymondo. Have not seen such high quality images of this type of damage before. Will take a closer look and read the details later on. Thanks for posting the link!

 

You can even find dozens of 20 mm tests in the National Archives:

 

Trials with 20mm HE/I ammunition (MG FF - 1941)

Firing trials with new type German 20mm HE and HE incendiary tracer ammunition taken from Me 109 F/2 aircraft (1941)

151/20mm Mauser MG high explosive ammunition: trials (1943)

.etc

 

Sorry for being off-topic

Edit: typo

Edited December 18, 2017 by Raymondo77

[JG1_Shadepiece]

Is there any way to actually view those reports, because it looks like you'd have to go in person yo see them.

[BubiHUN]

Did Devs see this?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

You can actually request a copy of those, I did in regard to a few Japanese documents. Price was something like 1.2-1.4 British Pounds per page (its A3 size btw) and it cost me a small fortune to get a 60 page document. Never again. Someone who lives nearby could request to view documents in person and copy them but any other way would not be satisfactory from a price standpoint. It's British archive after all.

[JG1_Shadepiece]

I wish we could see those available online.

 

I have looked quite a bit for any of the damage evaluations available online, but have yet to see any. I would love to see anything that anyone might have. If there is any links I would love to view them.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

This kind of stuff is rarely available online. Many archives still do not provide digital copies of their documents but instead allow you to order separate pages or complete reels. Its annoying. But the same documents may be available in other facilities, try with AFHRA or Australian records. Both send you documents on CD (or even via email) and at significantly lower price. 

[ACG_KaiLae]

This is the same issue I found with the NASM. The best solution is to get someone who can go there and copy it for you, and then scan it in.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

The more I fly BoS the more I "feel" like the fragility or strength of any one aircraft vs a cannon round isn't so bad. If a 109 needs a tweak it isn't by much.

 

Il2's and Pe'2s also might need a tweak but again, not by much.

 

From anecdotal evidence (the WORST kind) all aircraft it "feel" pretty good.

 

As I have no data but muh feels I'll leave it there. 

Is there any way to actually view those reports, because it looks like you'd have to go in person yo see them.

 

Stop being selfish get transferred to DC before you quit and go to the archives for us.

[LukeFF]

 

And how many shells had to get into the enemy fighter, in order to knock him down for sure?

 

Even in the school we were given tables, where it was said that for a reliable defeat (up to 0.9) of the bomber, it is necessary that 6-7-mm 20 mm shells of the SHVAK cannon hit it. For the fighter, a reliable defeat ensured the entry of 3-4 shells. At the front, these calculations were confirmed, usually hits 3-4 shells "missed" at least "Messer", even "Fokker." Sometimes they lost their way. Well, that's where it gets to.

 

http://www.airpages.ru/ru/aleks.shtml

Edited January 1, 2018 by LukeFF

[BubiHUN]

Is there anything new about this? 
Will Devs listen to the facts?

[BraveSirRobin]

No

Yes

[BubiHUN]

No

Yes

Can i ask a post, maybe a quote about it?

[BraveSirRobin]

What are you talking about? I said there was nothing new. What are you expecting to see quoted?

[BubiHUN]

What are you talking about? I said there was nothing new. What are you expecting to see quoted?

i would like to see that the devs reacted to this. Not for the first of my question. 

[LukeFF]

i would like to see that the devs reacted to this. Not for the first of my question.

What, is this Facebook now? You know very well that the devs don't "react" to every single claim of inaccuracy here.

[BubiHUN]

What, is this Facebook now? You know very well that the devs don't "react" to every single claim of inaccuracy here.

I wrote "MAYBE" if there is none, then write that. If there is something, write that one, please. 

I asked it nicely. 

Why so salty?

[BubiHUN]

He always is, there are a certain amount of people who act like that all the time. Bet most of them don't act like that in real life. Salting on someone is the common courtesy in this forum, so come at me bois!  

Internet brings out the Worst and Best from  people, i know that. 

I really like to know will be there any change regarding to this topic. Thats all. 

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

Here's a clip of a 109 taking a ludicrous amount of hits from 20mm ShVAKs and flying off with nothing but a leak.  Exactly how durable do you people want the 109 to be?

 

 

https://gfycat.com/WindingYearlyAcaciarat

[BubiHUN]

Here's a clip of a 109 taking a ludicrous amount of hits from 20mm ShVAKs and flying off with nothing but a leak.  Exactly how durable do you people want the 109 to be?

 

 

 

https://gfycat.com/WindingYearlyAcaciarat

Thats purely netcode or lagg. 

109s are like made from glass in this game. 

[unreasonable]

<snip>

109s are like made from glass in this game. 

 

Rubbish. They are marginally less durable than a Yak.  How do I know this? Because I have tested them in an airfield attack mission using identical flak opposition and flight paths.

 

When put up against the 20mm Flak 38, the 109s take the same number of hits as the Yaks. The Yaks are marginally more likely to escape from the hit without being shot down or sustaining oil, water or fuel leaks: compare lines 5 and 6 in the table.

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by unreasonable

[Panthera]

Rubbish. They are marginally less durable than a Yak.  How do I know this? Because I have tested them in an airfield attack mission using identical flak opposition and flight paths.

 

When put up against the 20mm Flak 38, the 109s take the same number of hits as the Yaks. The Yaks are marginally more likely to escape from the hit without being shot down or sustaining oil, water or fuel leaks: compare lines 45 and 6 in the table.

 

Test Summary 1.PNG

 

 

Logically it should be the opposite though, considering the Yak incorperates a lot of wood in its construction. Blasting off one of its wing should be relatively easy as wood doesn't take explosives very well. In other words HE shot should be absolutely devastating against the VVS aircraft.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Here's a clip of a 109 taking a ludicrous amount of hits from 20mm ShVAKs and flying off with nothing but a leak.  Exactly how durable do you people want the 109 to be?

 

 

 

https://gfycat.com/WindingYearlyAcaciarat

 

And the same in reverse... from a vid posted by JG4_Karaya

 

https://gfycat.com/WideeyedWetChinesecrocodilelizard

[Brano]

...Blasting off one of its wing should be relatively easy as....

Contrary to messer,Yak wing is made of one piece.

[unreasonable]

Logically it should be the opposite though, considering the Yak incorperates a lot of wood in its construction. Blasting off one of its wing should be relatively easy as wood doesn't take explosives very well. In other words HE shot should be absolutely devastating against the VVS aircraft.

 

It is not a matter of logic, it is an empirical matter, about which many electrons have already been spent. Yak uses two spar construction, etc.  Wood is not necessarily weaker than aluminium if you use more of it, and so on.

 

Whether the RL Yak wing would stand up to more damage that the 109 wing I have no idea. What I know for a fact - because I have tested it with a statistically significant number of tests in a controlled environment - is that any claim that the BoX 109s are much weaker than the Yaks is demonstrably false. They are measurably but only marginally weaker.

 

Not that I expect facts to actually change minds of the cohort who flies one side in MP, but with a bit of luck some empirical research may help stop the paranoia spreading. 

Edited February 11, 2018 by unreasonable

[Dakpilot]

Logically it should be the opposite though, considering the Yak incorperates a lot of wood in its construction. Blasting off one of its wing should be relatively easy as wood doesn't take explosives very well. In other words HE shot should be absolutely devastating against the VVS aircraft.

 

 

People always say this, but I never can fathom how the IL-2 got its reputation of hard to shoot down and "Flying Tank" etc. with its completely wooden fuselage and tail, the large outer wings also being wood until the later 3M model and only very late production models getting aluminium tail 

 

The reputation not just from Russian propaganda but also from multiple German Pilot/Gunner reports/anecdotes and memoirs.

 

What would have been the point of the armoured tub if you could just shoot off the tail/fuselage or wing easily with a couple of hits

 

logic would say that the 'Myth' of the survivability of the  IL-2 cannot be all untrue, and the many easily found images of severely damaged landed IL-2's were just not pure luck

 

Logic would also say that the wooden construction of the Mosquito when used as low level bomber would be a disadvantage but from 28,000 sorties only 193 were lost, I have yet to read any article/anecdote complaining or mentioning weak durability and poor battle damage resistance..(apart from the humidity/glue/rot issues in the Far East) perhaps they exist in multitudes?  but I have just not come across them

 

Logically with 50+ thousand  Yak, La, Lagg and Il-2's being in combat there should be loads of anecdotes of the weak damage resistance of 'wooden' Russian fighter/bomber aircraft, but this is just not generally the case with most reports from both sides and neutral parties leaning towards very good durability and battle damage resistance

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Panthera]

I believe the IL-2's reputation has to do with the armoured tub which meant the prefered tactic of attacking the cockpit or center area of the aircraft didn't work so well against it. Also regular small arms fire didn't pose a serious threat to it, where'as it could down a regular aircraft, an important advantage when the main job was attacking ground targets where lots of small arms return fire could be expected. 

 

That said loads of IL-2's were shot down, several in one sortie by various 109 pilots not even using gun pods. So it wasn't THAT tough, the weak spot being the wings, esp. if they were of the wooden type as also mentioned by the Soviets themselves. 

 

A really tough single engined aircraft would be something like a P-47 with its all metal construction and radial engine, as also proven. 

 

As for the Mosquito, AFAIK it wasn't known to be particularly resilient and instead relied on speed for safety.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Panthera

[Holtzauge]

I think the Flak test unreasonable did a while back provided some very good input in that there did not seem to be that much of a difference between the Yak and 109 in terms of hardiness against battle damage IIRC and while I agree with Panthera that HE/Mingeschoss damage to a composite structure like wood would be bad news, there is also the overdimensioning aspect (added safety factors) due to wood having more of a spread in durability and strength meaning that the average wooden winged fighter probably had a larger margin to structural failure in the first place which to some extent would outweigh the Dural wings more ductile properties. In addition, Messerschmitt was known for optimizing his designs in regards to structural weight which while not necessarily meaning a weak structure does leave less margin to battle damage.

 

So how all these factors weigh against each other is difficult to tell but from unreasonable's test it looks like in-game they are about similar in DM strength and based on the above reasoning that seems like a fair guess to me unless there is data to prove otherwize which I have not seen so far.

 

So to sum up I think the problem is the HE/Mingeschoss DM and not the aircraft durability and since the German planes rely more on explosive damage by mixing in Mingeshoss in the belting they are left holding the muddy end of the stick. On the bright side I think the in-game HE DM issue has been acknowledged by the developers so hopefully they have it on their "to do" list.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Holtzauge

[Willy__]

 

 

Rubbish. They are marginally less durable than a Yak.  How do I know this? Because I have tested them in an airfield attack mission using identical flak opposition and flight paths.   When put up against the 20mm Flak 38, the 109s take the same number of hits as the Yaks. The Yaks are marginally more likely to escape from the hit without being shot down or sustaining oil, water or fuel leaks: compare lines 5 and 6 in the table.

 

 

I would love to know the % of 109s downed by the removal of the tail section....

 

The 109 tail section seems waaaaaay weaker compared to the russian counterpart, while a Yak may get shot and rtb with one less elevator, the 109s seems to lose everything (Stabs, elevators, rudder and vertical stab) all together when shot.

[unreasonable]

 

 

I would love to know the % of 109s downed by the removal of the tail section....

 

The 109 tail section seems waaaaaay weaker compared to the russian counterpart, while a Yak may get shot and rtb with one less elevator, the 109s seems to lose everything (Stabs, elevators, rudder and vertical stab) all together when shot.

 

 

I did not actually count how often specific damage types caused a crash - except for the division between actually shot down during the mission and arriving at the RV point leaking one or more of fuel, water or oil, all of which I took to mean that the aircraft could not RTB and was therefore lost.  The planes that were "hit" but not "lost" arrived at the RV point showing only the decals for superficial damage. 

 

For an immediate shoot down you get either part of a wing gone, the tail assembly or elevators gone, huge explosion (very rare), or catastrophic engine damage: or if none of the above I assume that either the pilot was incapacitated or a control surface was lost. 

 

I suspect, however, that had I counted the complete tail removal would be more common for the 109s as you suggest. While watching I thought the same thing myself, but whether the DM portrays the whole tail coming off or you just lose your elevators, the effect would be the same. Cannot fly without elevators.... 

 

Given that both in my test (due to the AI behaviour of the gunners) and in flying contexts, a large proportion of hits are on or near the tail, having a weaker tail unit in the DM could explain the difference in the ability of the 109 and Yak to survive 20 mm hits, but not necessarily, if you count all tail and elevator hits.  But I do not feel like spending another 10 hours re-running the tests to find out....  anyone who wished to volunteer can PM me for the mission files.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Rubbish. They are marginally less durable than a Yak. How do I know this? Because I have tested them in an airfield attack mission using identical flak opposition and flight paths.

 

When put up against the 20mm Flak 38, the 109s take the same number of hits as the Yaks. The Yaks are marginally more likely to escape from the hit without being shot down or sustaining oil, water or fuel leaks: compare lines 5 and 6 in the table.

 

Test Summary 1.PNG

I am sorry but your test does not say a lot about the combat durability’s unless you include what ditection the planes were hit from. If you let them fly over AAA I would suspect that a lot of them were hit in the front, where only a small amount of hits Is fatal to all models.

This does not say a lot about combat survivabulity where most of the hits are from either dead 6 or other angles. As Istruba points out problems like the tail section coming off are greatly underrepresented in your test.

So apart from your test method being wrong, I absolutley agree with Holtzauge when he says it’s actually a n AP vs HE issue

Edited February 12, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[Dakpilot]

People should look at the differences between fuselage construction methods on real 109 and Yak, and why one is heavier

 

 

Yak, Traditional  welded steel trellis

 

 

 

Bf 109, 2 half sections riveted aluminium skin, lightweight stringers interlocking flanges form 'frames' advanced lightweight monocoque 

 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[unreasonable]

I am sorry but your test does not say a lot about the combat durability’s unless you include what ditection the planes were hit from. If you let them fly over AAA I would suspect that a lot of them were hit in the front, where only a small amount of hits Is fatal to all models.

This does not say a lot about combat survivabulity where most of the hits are from either dead 6 or other angles. As Istruba points out problems like the tail section coming off are greatly underrepresented in your test.

So apart from your test method being wrong, I absolutley agree with Holtzauge when he says it’s actually a n AP vs HE issue

 

No you are dead wrong - one thing that I did notice in the several hours of watching planes get shot down is the vast majority of the shoot downs in the tests were made on planes flying away from the guns as I discussed during the conversation about the details about how the AI behaves.   Secondly, irrespective of that, the only true test is to put different aircraft types through the same kind of test, against the same kind of LAA, using the same kind of ammunition, repeatedly, (46 aircraft, two passes per mission, 10 repeats of the mission for each plane/gun combination) which is what I did.  

 

If you have actually downloaded the original airfield attack mission and tested it yourself over a statistically significant number of runs, you would already know that.  

 

So forgive me if I ignore your ignorant and ill-informed comment.

 

edit: For readers with an open mind I would add that you test the DM of planes (their ability to withstand damage) by taking different planes and firing the same kind of ammo at them in the same sort of circumstances.  You test the capability to inflict damage of ammunition types by taking the same kind of plane and firing different types of ammunition at them.  To separate the effects of accuracy vs damage, you look at the ratio of kills/hits rather than the overall number of hits or kills.

 

My tests did all this. Since both 109s and Yaks were subjected to the same ammo, and the number of hits the 20mm Flak inflicted on 109s and YAks was the same - within rounding error - the difference in the ratio of kills/hits in lines 5 and 6 is down to the DM of the planes. 

Edited February 12, 2018 by unreasonable

[Ehret]

People should look at the differences between fuselage construction methods on real 109 and Yak, and why one is heavier

 

yak_1_03.jpg

 

Yak, Traditional  welded steel trellis

 

The skin in a truss-constructed fuselage isn't taking any loads, is only needed for aerodynamics. A HE round exploding on its surface may not damage the load bearing structure at all. Basically, it acts like a shield on contact fused shells...

 

Maybe this supposed Yak's resilience to HE is the way it should be?

Edited February 12, 2018 by Ehret

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

No you are dead wrong - one thing that I did notice in the several hours of watching planes get shot down is the vast majority of the shoot downs in the tests were made on planes flying away from the guns as I discussed during the conversation about the details about how the AI behaves. Secondly, irrespective of that, the only true test is to put different aircraft types through the same kind of test, against the same kind of LAA, using the same kind of ammunition, repeatedly, (46 aircraft, two passes per mission, 10 repeats of the mission for each plane/gun combination) which is what I did.

 

If you have actually downloaded the original airfield attack mission and tested it yourself over a statistically significant number of runs, you would already know that.

 

So forgive me if I ignore your ignorant and ill-informed comment.

 

edit: For readers with an open mind I would add that you test the DM of planes (their ability to withstand damage) by taking different planes and firing the same kind of ammo at them in the same sort of circumstances. You test the capability to inflict damage of ammunition types by taking the same kind of plane and firing different types of ammunition at them. To separate the effects of accuracy vs damage, you look at the ratio of kills/hits rather than the overall number of hits or kills.

 

My tests did all this. Since both 109s and Yaks were subjected to the same ammo, and the number of hits the 20mm Flak inflicted on 109s and YAks was the same - within rounding error - the difference in the ratio of kills/hits in lines 5 and 6 is down to the DM of the planes.

I looked at your not so intelligent test again just to make sure I didn’t miss anything. I’m sorry to hear that you still haven’t properly thought about it...

There are many aspects, that your test doesn’t cover, what I said is that your test is utter rubbish Because it’s a pure test of „how many bullets can the plane take before it goes down“. You could have derived this number by just looking at the stats that the Devs published anyways, which states the yak is around 20% stronger. The fact that German planes go down much faster is due overmodelled AP. But that’s what I said anyways...

 

So your test doesn’t tell us anything new. The significant question whether this difference in strength is reasonable are not addressed as far as I can see

Edited February 12, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[unreasonable]

The test was never supposed to cover all aspects: it was originally just a comparative test of low/normal/high AI in a given LAA airfield attack setting. The plane and gun comparisons were a by product that people asked for because they could see that a test like this can control one variable at a time and measure the outcomes quantitatively.  Called the scientific method, BTW.  

 

BubiHUN's comment that "109s are like made from glass in this game. " can only be evaluated by comparison to other aircraft attacked with the same ordnance,  in the same situation, and that my test, intelligent or not, actually does cover that eventuality.  "109s being made like glass" is a statement about 109s, implicitly in comparison to other aircraft,  not about the shells that hit them.    

 

I look forwards to seeing your tests published for all to see. Actually I do not - given your attitude I think I would rather just add you to my "ignore" list.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Right, the statement „all 109s are made out of glass“ has to be viewed within the context it was made in. The context is Russian guns firing at German planes in combat situations. All your test does is stick planes in a ristrictive setting and count the number of shots it takes to down them. While this does exclude the theory of German planes deviating from the figures given by the Devs in terms of structural strength - and I do give the test credit there- it absolutley fails to address the problem which Bubi tries to point out. Even though he states it in a polemic way. You pointing out that every other opinion is one that only LW flyers only could have, i.e. the standard liftwhiner argument, doesn’t make you much better.

Edited February 12, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn