Armoured Glass Windscreens

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

Does anyone know how well the armoured glass Windscreens work in the game? What is the thickness on some of these and from what projectiles could they potentially shield the pilot?

 

I think the Hs129 front windscreen is somewhere like 70mm thick? I only have working knowledge of steel alloy armour, not glass.

[Talon_]

I think you're best treating them as pure placebo ? 

[RedKestrel]

I'm not sure about the HS-129, but I believe that the armored windscreens only really provided guaranteed protection against rifle-calibre machine guns and shell fragmentation. The thicker ones might provide protection against 12.7mm/.50 cal.

But consider that with every hit the glass takes, its structural integrity is reduced. So even if the glass will stop a 12.7 mm round, it probably will not stop 3 or 4 in short succession. And a burst that hits that square of armored glass is also likely to hit elsewhere.

My feeling is that it is modeled but doesn't make much difference - with the heavy armament available, the likelihood of multiple hits as part of a burst, and the relatively narrow protection it offers, it may be unnoticeable. I know that when I make straight head-on attacks on fighters equipped with armored glass, a pilot kill is often a result if I get hits. If not a PK then an engine fire. 
 

2 hours ago, Talon_ said:

I think you're best treating them as pure placebo ? 

This. I'm not sure they weren't more or less a placebo in real life, at least as the war dragged on and armament got heavier and heavier. I wouldn't want to go head on with a FW-190 with even a full canopy of armored glass. And only the lightest AA encountered is unlikely to punch through it.
 

[Guest deleted@134347]

occasionaly I experience the bullet impact/spiderwebbing on the front armor glass after either a plane on plane head-on or after attacking some ground targets. I always attribute it to "got very freaking lucky, time to rtb"...

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

I agree that most glass plates will only stop rifle caliber projectiles. 

 

I have become very curious about the glass on the Hs129 now though. It's super thicc.

 

I do remember having a head on with someone and only having impacts on it with no penetration. No way to tell what hit it though. Most folks don't dare go head on with a 129 though. It's a surefire way for your plane to end up in a dozen fragments.

[Yogiflight]

Like with normal armor, for armored windscreens the angle should be quite important, too. There surely should be a difference if you hit the very steep angled 109 windscreen or the shallow angled 190 windscreen.

[SharpeXB]

In A Higher Call, there’s an account of Franz Stigler who’s struck by a .50 cal from a bomber that goes straight through the armored glass and dents him in the forehead. 

[Sketch]

I've never taken the armor and then later went, "Well damn! Good thing I took the armor!"

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

I know I’ve experienced the odd armoured glass impact and said ‘woah that would have sucked’
 

but wasn’t the angle of it Also suppose to allow refraction over the nose cowl?

[MattS]

10 hours ago, Sketch said:

I've never taken the armor and then later went, "Well damn! Good thing I took the armor!"

 

Whether it be foot soldiers, tanks, ships, or airplanes, IMO armor has historically been outplayed by the primary weapons that it faces. 

 

Obviously some exceptions, but in most cases the function of armor isn't to become invulnerable but to increase the cost or skill required for the enemy to succeed. Without armor, assets are much more vulnerable to cheap and plentiful weapons wielded by low-skill adversaries.

 

So in this case, the windscreen armor protects against fast-firing rifle caliber shells which as a result became largely obsolete as an air-to-air or ground-to-air weapon. Likewise, from the larger shells it requires a better quality hit instead of being vulnerable from every angle.

 

But a quality hit from a heavy MG or cannon? Not going to stop that, any more than plate armor stopped a war hammer or bodkin arrow, battleship armor stopped shells at Jutland (or bombs or torpedos in WW2), or tank armor even now stops APFSDS when any of these weapons are used within their lethal envelopes. The armor just (hopefully) makes the envelope smaller and forces your enemy to bear the cost and inconvenience of hitting you with his best stuff.

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by MattS

[Sketch]

 

Just messin with you @MattS. ?

[MattS]

23 minutes ago, Sketch said:

 

Just messin with you @MattS. ?

 

Haha. Yeah I went Full Windbag there for a minute.

[E69_geramos109]

40 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

Whether it be foot soldiers, tanks, ships, or airplanes, IMO armor has historically been outplayed by the primary weapons that it faces. 

 

Obviously some exceptions, but in most cases the function of armor isn't to become invulnerable but to increase the cost or skill required for the enemy to succeed. Without armor, assets are much more vulnerable to cheap and plentiful weapons wielded by low-skill adversaries.

 

So in this case, the windscreen armor protects against fast-firing rifle caliber shells which as a result became largely obsolete as an air-to-air or ground-to-air weapon. Likewise, from the larger shells it requires a better quality hit instead of being vulnerable from every angle.

 

But a quality hit from a heavy MG or cannon? Not going to stop that, any more than plate armor stopped a war hammer or bodkin arrow, battleship armor stopped shells at Jutland (or bombs or torpedos in WW2), or tank armor even now stops APFSDS when any of these weapons are used within their lethal envelopes. The armor just (hopefully) makes the envelope smaller and forces your enemy to bear the cost and inconvenience of hitting you with his best stuff.

 

Take in mind that armor can protect from Shrapnel  as well  

Edited May 22, 2020 by E69_geramos109