Bf 109 G14 v K4

[Asgar]

2 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

Luke, that book is a creditable source even if you or I cannot read it. Althrough generally it's helpfull if the person presenting information and a source could translate said source as it furthers the strength of that statement(atleast from my perspective).

he only stated the name of a book, with 0 indication what he says here is actually stated in the book. a scan would be nice, then it become a source, till then it's hear-say

[SCG_Syn]

2 minutes ago, SCG_DR1FT3R said:

 

 

But you support a guy who gave 0 evidence of his side of the argument?

True, we should be giving sources and evidence without being pushed to do so. If not you might aswell give it the credibility of a pissed man talking wildly

2 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

he only stated the name of a book, with 0 indication what he says here is actually stated in the book. a scan would be nice, then it become a source, till then it's hear-say

I'm attempting to translate it now actually. Let's try not to get side tracked with a discussion of what counts as a source.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Let's get back on topic, which is whether the K4 could only mount an MK108 or could get fitted with MG151/20 or MK108.

 

I looked around a bit, and it seems that this discussion had been completed to conclusions several times already, with sources given as well.

 

 

Hence, to quote a user called Messerschmitt (all thanks to him!)

 

Quote

The Bf 109 K-4 should have the option to have the  MG 151/20 as the engine cannon but by default on the production lines mounted the MK 108.

 

Source

 

Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, & K. by Jochen Prien & Peter Rodeike

 

 

Messerschmitt Bf109K Tomas P

 

I just checked, you can (edit) buy one of the books here as well.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[SCG_Syn]

That's good enough for me

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

On a sidenote, I also like this picture:

 

 

Any Pe-2s bloody nightmare.

 

Personally, I'd consider this totally overkill though. Consider that just food for thought ?

[Voidhunger]

There is no evidence that the K variant had MG 151 cannon fitted. (Maybe there was one prototype variant with MG151. one single source)

MK 108 was standard armament from the factory.

There was probably plan to prepare wiring for that 20mm variant but there is no evidence as well.

 

I honestly think that the team will make this variant, but it will be wrong.

 

Me262 was fitted in prototype with a propeller, so I expect that we can have prop as modification

Edited August 21, 2018 by Voidhunger

[SCG_Syn]

So you are dismissing evidence brought to you why? 

5 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

There is no evidence that the K variant had MG 151 cannon fitted.

You dismiss evidence with just words without supporting evidence. Are you really going to state something so blatantly contradictory to source material above without any of your own to back up your statement.

I wonder if their is Gun cam footage of a k4 firing that we could find...

[Voidhunger]

From the Japo publication Fenris provided:

 

Armament was concentrated in the fuselage. A 30mm MK 108 cannon with 65 rounds shot through the hollow aircrew shaft. The gun mount as well as the gun casing in the cockpit had to be completely re-designed in comparison with the Bf 109g- mounted MG 151/20.

The cannon was not fed from the port wing magazines now, but the ammunition came to it from the space above the gun, where the MK108 was being fixed in a lateral gun mount.

 

Messerschmidt´s employees knew well about the flaws of Rheinmetall-Borsig cannons, which might have even delayed the whole production of Bf 109Ks.

Thats why electrical wiring was prepared for alternative installation of an earlier Mauser MG151/20, too.

This meant a few more cables on the one hand (the question is whether they were installed during production at all) ....

 

I dont have to show evidence ( there is only one " evidence" of prototype with MG151/20 delivered to unit)

its you who should show it. Show me the proof, because every publication or book I have read mentioned only MK108 armament delivered to the units

 

[SCG_Syn]

11 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

its you who should show it. Show me the proof

I don't have the burden of proof, I have only agreed with given documents and have not made any declareation or statement regarding the mg 151/20 on the k4

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

If there is as you say at least one recorded incident, how do you call that? Evidence.

 

?‍♂️

Edited August 21, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[SCG_Syn]

Please show me evidence it only had the mk108

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

8 hours ago, Legioneod said:

American aircraft are all very hands on, I think that's why players have so much trouble with them compared to German or Soviet aircraft.

The P-51 is a very easy aircraft to fly and it's engine management is pretty simple, the P-47 will require more knowledge to use it properly since there are more things going on in the P-47 cockpit than in the P-51.

 

P-51 engine management is basically like the P-40 or P-39. The P-47 is similar but you also have the turbo and water injection to consider.

 

Basically at the end of the day it just comes down to who knows their aircraft better.

A 1v1 between an ace 109 pilot and an ace Jug/Mustang pilot will be a tough fight for both sides.

What's so hard about American aircraft? Unless I'm doing something wrong they dont seem any less demanding than say a LA-5 or a Ju-87.  Just radiators, mixture (which I set to auto in American aircraft), rpm, and throttle.  American aircraft dont have 2 stage superchargers that I'm aware of yet and I know the mustangs' is auto with an override.  No boost button either like the la5 or fw190f3.

[Talon_]

Posted without source however it seems important that both diagrams have been drawn in such a way that you would expect the Mk108 ammo to be included if it were visible.

 

Po

 

 

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Joeasyrida said:

What's so hard about American aircraft? Unless I'm doing something wrong they dont seem any less demanding than say a LA-5 or a Ju-87.  Just radiators, mixture (which I set to auto in American aircraft), rpm, and throttle.  American aircraft dont have 2 stage superchargers that I'm aware of yet and I know the mustangs' is auto with an override.  No boost button either like the la5 or fw190f3.

I dont think they are hard at all., it's just that some players dont understand how to properly manage their engines in the American aircraft. The unrealistic engine time limits are what really hurt American aircraft in this game and cause problems for many players who are unaware on how to properly manage the engine settings.

 

Like I said, P-51 is a very easy aircraft to fly, it's basically like the current Soviet and American crates we have in-game.

P-47 is similar but everything is manual and you have a few extra things to consider like the turbo-supercharger and water injection system. Another thing about the P-47 is that if you move the controls  in the wrong order you can damage the turbo or the engine.

 

So basically in the P-47 you'll have:

 

Throttle

RPM

Turboshupercharger

Water Injection (basically like boost)

Mixture

 

All of this is manual except for the mixture, and will require the player to keep a close eye on his settings.

 

Sorry for being OT, once I start talking about the Jug it's hard to stop.

 

[Talon_]

After further googling, the above diagram is for the G6/U4 and has labels in German

 

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

14 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I dont think they are hard at all., it's just that some players dont understand how to properly manage their engines in the American aircraft. The unrealistic engine time limits are what really hurt American aircraft in this game and cause problems for many players who are unaware on how to properly manage the engine settings.

 

Like I said, P-51 is a very easy aircraft to fly, it's basically like the current Soviet and American crates we have in-game.

P-47 is similar but everything is manual and you have a few extra things to consider like the turbo-supercharger and water injection system. Another thing about the P-47 is that if you move the controls  in the wrong order you can damage the turbo or the engine.

 

So basically in the P-47 you'll have:

 

Throttle

RPM

Turboshupercharger

Water Injection (basically like boost)

Mixture

 

All of this is manual except for the mixture, and will require the player to keep a close eye on his settings.

 

Sorry for being OT, once I start talking about the Jug it's hard to stop.

 

Cool, never knew all that about the jug, I'm stoked to fly it.

[Mac_Messer]

10 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

For me the option to fit the K-4 with the MG151/20 is one of gameplay choice. If it's plausible in real life that's good enough justification in my view, even if it can't be positively proved to have happened. The simple reason is that although some people might love the MK108, it is a sub-optimal weapon for fighter vs fighter combat, which is what most of BoBp will be and what a lot of people want to do when joining the game. To essentially ward off a plane from a large chunk of the playerbase due to forced armament choice would be a bad decision in my opinion.

Sounds like the 37mm Bordkanone for Hs129 case. Just few were produced, yet none in the game.

 

The problem with MK108 in 109`s particular case is that it`s not that powerful. It cripples a fighter, yes, but 4-6 shells of 151/20 do the same and MG131 has even more ammo. So there`s not enough reward for lack of ammo, talking gameplay-wise. IMO the 108 should disintegrate a fighter size aicraft with one shell though that narration seems to be lost among the game`s more urgent problems.

[Ehret]

39 minutes ago, Mac_Messer said:

Sounds like the 37mm Bordkanone for Hs129 case. Just few were produced, yet none in the game.

 

The problem with MK108 in 109`s particular case is that it`s not that powerful. It cripples a fighter, yes, but 4-6 shells of 151/20 do the same and MG131 has even more ammo. So there`s not enough reward for lack of ammo, talking gameplay-wise. IMO the 108 should disintegrate a fighter size aicraft with one shell though that narration seems to be lost among the game`s more urgent problems.

 

The MK108 has similar rate of fire to the MG151/20 (650rpm vs 700rpm) - not that good ballistics, yes, but once a burst connects odds are there will be multiple 30mm hits. This guarantees a shot-down even with supposed HE ammo problems.

 

And no - disintegrating a fighter with just one 30mm hit is fantasy. Why, even, anyone would want something like that when just "normal" shot-down is enough? It'd be a waste of resources and would put pilots at extra risk by debris hits. (check the 190-A8 equip with 2xMK108 to see what happens)

 

The 37mm M4 has similar reliability problems and they are much worse because of the very slow rate of fire. Yet, no one is making constant noises about that...

Edited August 22, 2018 by Ehret

[Kurfurst]

13 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Agreed, had never seen anything about K-4 with a 151 but did not appreciate the difference in the ammunition feed system. Obliged to you.

 

Happy to oblige.

 

13 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

One thing I have wondered - is the disappearance of the gondola cannon tied to the adoption of the MK 108? I suspected that it was felt the additional 20mm  cannon were no longer needed and the performance impact was becoming increasing problematic.

 

I do not think its directly related to the MK 108, which has been fitted to G-6/U4 already in 1943 and it still had the gondolas option. Some rarer types even had the MK 108 gondies as option. It was also easier that way, if you check a 109s lower wing surface, you will noticed that the metal panels where the gondolas are mounted are fixed there with flush screws, rather than rivets, for easy installation.

 

My guess is that tactical-operational conditions were simply such that these external hangers fell out of favor by late 1944. At least that's what some of the interviews suggest about Wgr 21s, even though they were still used occasionally for ground attack purposes. Nobody wanted to have a performance killing option if you could expect Allied fighters to be everywhere from takeoff. Hence why gondolas were only used occasionally (JG 26's K-4s are rumored to have them fitted), even though the wiring etc. was there also on the 109K - same for the WGr 21, though the 109K manual notes that the rocket's wiring is present only on early aircraft. 

 

5 minutes ago, Ehret said:

And no - disintegrating a fighter with just one 30mm hit is fantasy. Why, even, anyone would want something like that when just "normal" shot-down is enough? It'd be a waste of resources and would put pilots at extra risk by debris hits. (check the 190-A8 equip with 2xMK108 to see what happens)

 

These are pictures of a Spitfire and a Blenheim after post-war British live fire trials. Single MK 108 hit. It looks pretty much done for me. 

[bzc3lk]

https://imgur.com/gallery/HkGqW      

Edited August 22, 2018 by bzc3lk

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

These are pictures of a Spitfire and a Blenheim after post-war British live fire trials. Single MK 108 hit. It looks pretty much done for me.

 

Seen them before - no full disintegration on some of them. Limited number of plane types used as targets as well as the number of tries. Some heavier build planes (like the P-47) were known to return with similarly damaged wings. Expecting 100% shot-down, never-mind 100% "disintegration", rates by single 30mm hit is still fantasy. Suspiciously, no one makes that much noise about the 37mm M4 in the game when LW's planes absorb multiple hits by it.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Ehret

[LeLv76_Erkki]

47 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Seen them before - no full disintegration on some of them. Limited number of plane types used as targets as well as the number of tries. Some heavier build planes (like the P-47) were known to return with similarly damaged wings. Expecting 100% shot-down, never-mind 100% "disintegration", rates by single 30mm hit is still fantasy. Suspiciously, no one makes that much noise about the 37mm M4 in the game when LW's planes absorb multiple hits by it.

 

All but maybe one wing shot were or would have been distintegrations. I dont claim Mk 108 should kill every single engine aircraft in one hit, all the time, but very likely all or all but one of those test examples would have gotten torn apart in flight. Btw I do think that M4 cannon suffers from the same relative lack of oomph as the Mk108 and even MG151/20, it just gets discussed less as the M4 is on just one plane. And that one plane isnt even particularly popular.

 

 

On topic, I dont think MG151/20 should be available for K4. Theres no solid proof of K4s ever using them and the game does not need any more borderline ahistorical modifications that will become commonplace in mp. It will also make choosing between G-14 and K-4 more interesting.

[Voidhunger]

11 hours ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

If there is as you say at least one recorded incident, how do you call that? Evidence.

 

?‍♂️

You provided one evidence of prototype plane. Prototype.

 

EDIT: I just hope if they decide to make MG151/20 , MK108 will be the standard armament and MG151/20 will be option in modification list. Opposite to what we have now in G-14.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Voidhunger

[Voidhunger]

It would be nice to have planes locked with some hard to change in fields modifications. ..something like : your squadron received 2x Bf109 G-14 and 3x Bf109 G-14/U4...

 

Also when you take off to some emergency situation you will be not allowed to change your loadout. If there are no planes with gunpods you cant take them to bomber intercept.

 

Or our squadron received one single junk from the factory. Bf109K-4 with MG151/20 . It was sabotage by one of factory employee to reduce firepower of our excellent new plane and since you cant hit even barn with MK108 you leutnant Fenris, you have to fly it, its perfect modification for you  

Edited August 22, 2018 by Voidhunger

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

All but maybe one wing shot were or would have been distintegrations. I dont claim Mk 108 should kill every single engine aircraft in one hit, all the time, but very likely all or all but one of those test examples would have gotten torn apart in flight. Btw I do think that M4 cannon suffers from the same relative lack of oomph as the Mk108 and even MG151/20, it just gets discussed less as the M4 is on just one plane. And that one plane isnt even particularly popular.

 

So far we have only 3 American planes in the game and MK108 trials show results from British made targets only. When the NAA was working on the lightweight (P-51H) Mustang they had to ask the Supermarine for details on how it could be done. It happens that British design rules weren't as strict as American. WW2 P-51s and Spits have the same engine, similar sizes and wings surface, yet, when empty the latter is around 1000kg lighter - a non trivial amount. Therefore, MK108' trial results shouldn't be taken 1 to 1 for all other (some much sturdier) air-frames. It'd be like testing AP-I rounds on the Zero then assuming that all others have to burn the same.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Ehret

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

2 hours ago, Ehret said:

Expecting 100% shot-down, never-mind 100% "disintegration", rates by single 30mm hit is still fantasy.

 

? you do realize that this ought have something to do with the fact that they were shot at while sitting on the ground and unlike a sitting plane there are forces acting on a flying one?

[Ehret]

25 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

? you do realize that this ought have something to do with the fact that they were shot at while sitting on the ground and unlike a sitting plane there are forces acting on a flying one?

 

Do you realize that only 2, one of them very lightly build, planes were tested and mirroring it to all other air-frames one to one is...

There are historical pictures of P-47 flying back to base with similarly damaged wings, too. Some B-17 could return even with heavily damaged fuselage or tail. One could put pictures of them into that trial and most wouldn't notice.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Ehret

[Kurfurst]

Sounds like a very interesting subject, worthwhile for its own thread, eh?

[LeLv76_Erkki]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

So far we have only 3 American planes in the game and MK108 trials show results from British made targets only. When the NAA was working on the lightweight (P-51H) Mustang they had to ask the Supermarine for details on how it could be done. It happens that British design rules weren't as strict as American. WW2 P-51s and Spits have the same engine, similar sizes and wings surface, yet, when empty the latter is around 1000kg lighter - a non trivial amount. Therefore, MK108' trial results shouldn't be taken 1 to 1 for all other (some much sturdier) air-frames. It'd be like testing AP-I rounds on the Zero then assuming that all others have to burn the same.

 

We have so far got to shoot Mk 108 against neither P-51 nor P-47...

[novicebutdeadly]

As long as I get a ME 262 E-1 I'll be happy ???

 

20 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Seen them before - no full disintegration on some of them. Limited number of plane types used as targets as well as the number of tries. Some heavier build planes (like the P-47) were known to return with similarly damaged wings. Expecting 100% shot-down, never-mind 100% "disintegration", rates by single 30mm hit is still fantasy. Suspiciously, no one makes that much noise about the 37mm M4 in the game when LW's planes absorb multiple hits by it.

The German 30mm has more HE filler than the American 37mm (70 grams versus 85 grams), I'm sure someone can do a comparrison of the difference of American explosive used and the German RDX used in the 30mm round.

Also the Russians for some reason have AP rounds in their belt

So if a fighter is hit by an AP round in any un-armoured section, it should pass through without detonating, and it if does detonate an AP round contains less explosive than a HE round.

[Ehret]

4 hours ago, novicebutdeadly said:

The German 30mm has more HE filler than the American 37mm (70 grams versus 85 grams), I'm sure someone can do a comparrison of the difference of American explosive used and the German RDX used in the 30mm round.

 

Shouldn't off-topic further but I will say last time -

Is not that simple - pressure waves, shell momentum, fragmentation, brisance of filler - all affects results. Also, the damage is not increased linearly with explosive yield - to get 2x range of the effect one need to increase the yield 8x-10x times. The effectiveness of a weapon system is not decided by a single factor.

[Mac_Messer]

On 8/22/2018 at 8:18 AM, Ehret said:

 

The MK108 has similar rate of fire to the MG151/20 (650rpm vs 700rpm) - not that good ballistics, yes, but once a burst connects odds are there will be multiple 30mm hits. This guarantees a shot-down even with supposed HE ammo problems.

 

And no - disintegrating a fighter with just one 30mm hit is fantasy. Why, even, anyone would want something like that when just "normal" shot-down is enough? It'd be a waste of resources and would put pilots at extra risk by debris hits. (check the 190-A8 equip with 2xMK108 to see what happens)

 

The 37mm M4 has similar reliability problems and they are much worse because of the very slow rate of fire. Yet, no one is making constant noises about that...

It`s not unrealistic to view a fighter sized aircraft lose a wing or see fuselage structure failure when hit by a single HE shell with stats of real MK108. Basicly anything that would make it lose ability to fly instantly - debris is not a problem in such instances. The point is to damage the plane beyond any chances for it to make a ditch landing.You must have watched too many Holywood movies to imagine a huge explosion everytime someone says "disintegrate".

 

And since MK108 has very few ammo, using it in bursts linger than 2-3 shells is wholy unpractical. The ammocount - damage tradeoff is what should be but is absent here. You can end up with no kills at all if you don`t try to make the most of every single shell.

 

For the record, the problem with M4 is very similar IMO and should also be fixed, and "no noises" thing you brought up has nothing to do with it.

 

Also try to test MK108 against bombers such as Peshka or Boston. If you don`t concentrate hits on limited plane surface (ex. wingtip or engine), the bomber will keep on flying even when hit with 5 shells.  With MG131 both concentrating fire and spending ammo is much more efficient even for bomber busting 3-5 kills on single ammoload is easy to do. So why even think of using the MK108 if both MG151/20 and MG131 are easier and more effective for ingame use.

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, Mac_Messer said:

And since MK108 has very few ammo, using it in bursts linger than 2-3 shells is wholy unpractical. The ammocount - damage tradeoff is what should be but is absent here. You can end up with no kills at all if you don`t try to make the most of every single shell.

 

Historical average hit ratio is around 2% and it includes shooting at bigger planes, too. Expending  the whole ammo reserve to shot-down a single enemy plane is acceptable. Cost of re-arming a fighter is marginal when compared to the enemy's cost of lost airplane including crew and failed mission.

But I understand that this is a game, striving for accuracy, yes, yet a game. Many people are flying for fun of shooting down planes not to re-live harsh historic realities to the last detail.

 

The 65 rounds that the 109 can carry for the 30mm is pretty good, actually. The Spit V has meager 60rpg for 20mm, the P-39 carries only 30 37mm rounds, the Lagg even less at 20.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Ehret

[Voidhunger]

I dont agree, im flying only with MK108 and for 95% fighter is shot down with just one hit. In a few occasion fighter survive 2 or 3 hits but the engine is almost always damaged. Also we dont suffer for mk108 jamming. So im ok with this. I would take MK108 everytime . Its amazing weapon.

[Legioneod]

37 minutes ago, Mac_Messer said:

 

Also try to test MK108 against bombers such as Peshka or Boston. If you don`t concentrate hits on limited plane surface (ex. wingtip or engine), the bomber will keep on flying even when hit with 5 shells.  With MG131 both concentrating fire and spending ammo is much more efficient even for bomber busting 3-5 kills on single ammoload is easy to do. So why even think of using the MK108 if both MG151/20 and MG131 are easier and more effective for ingame use.

This isnt all that unrealistic actually. Hits to non vital areas usually wont kill an aircraft, even if it causes a huge hole. 3-5 hits from a Mk108 to non vital areas is completely survivable. You can't expect it to be a doom cannon and kill everything in 1-2 shots no matter where it hits.

 

Control Surfaces, Engine, Cockpit, these are the vital areas you should always aim for.

 

[Voidhunger]

17 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

3-5 hits from a Mk108 to non vital areas is completely survivable.

To bomber. 3 hits to fighter i dont know. Maybe some unlucky hits to tips of the wings or tail. I expect fighter to stop fighting after one or two hits

[Legioneod]

26 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

To bomber. 3 hits to fighter i dont know. Maybe some unlucky hits to tips of the wings or tail. I expect fighter to stop fighting after one or two hits

I agree it would be pretty combat ineffective after a few hits but it's completely possible for it to fly after taking hits. Of course, there are plenty of variables that I don't think are taken into account in-game.

[JtD]

P-47:

Probability of a MK108 mine round to produce an "A" kill when hit from front and below (20° off): ~29%

Reasons: structural failure (~24%), pilot (~3%), fuel (~1%), engine (~1%)

(0.50 APIT: ~2%)

 

Probability of a MK108 mine round to produce a "B" kill when hit from front and below (20° off): ~42%

Reasons: structural failure (~32%), engine (~6%), fuel (3%), pilot (3%)

(0.50 APIT: ~4%)

 

B-25:

Probability of a MK108 mine round to produce an "A" kill when hit from rear and above (20°/13° off): ~6%

(0.50 APIT: ~0%)

Probability of a MK108 mine round to produce a "B" kill when hit from rear and above (20°/13° off): ~12%

(0.50 APIT: ~1%)

 

"A" kill: The aircraft is killed within 5 minutes after the hit.

"B" kill: The aircraft fails to return to base.

"B" kill includes "A" kill.

 

From a postwar US weapons/damage study.

[E69_geramos109]

On 8/22/2018 at 12:32 AM, Legioneod said:

I dont think they are hard at all., it's just that some players dont understand how to properly manage their engines in the American aircraft. The unrealistic engine time limits are what really hurt American aircraft in this game and cause problems for many players who are unaware on how to properly manage the engine settings.

 

Like I said, P-51 is a very easy aircraft to fly, it's basically like the current Soviet and American crates we have in-game.

P-47 is similar but everything is manual and you have a few extra things to consider like the turbo-supercharger and water injection system. Another thing about the P-47 is that if you move the controls  in the wrong order you can damage the turbo or the engine.

 

So basically in the P-47 you'll have:

 

Throttle

RPM

Turboshupercharger

Water Injection (basically like boost)

Mixture

 

All of this is manual except for the mixture, and will require the player to keep a close eye on his settings.

 

Sorry for being OT, once I start talking about the Jug it's hard to stop.

 

Lets see how they model the P47 management regarding turbo damage etc. Rus planes also had damage if they did not follow the steps to change supercharger and here nothing happens. They had a cluch that suffered overheat etc and nothing of that is modelled so lets see the P47 turbo

[Sgt_Joch]

As to how much punishment a fighter can absorb, I just read about a P-38 that flew back from a bomber escort mission over Bremen to england in nov.43 on one engine with over 100 bullet holes and 5 20mm holes. The pilot landed safely.