Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MattS

Effectiveness of Armored Windshields

Recommended Posts

There are plenty of places a bullet can hit the pilot from the 12oc. Even more places a bullet can ricochet.

If it had gone through the armoured glass, then it would likely hit your head which is more likely to result in death than injury.

 

If you really want to test how the glass works, do it with gunners and parked planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

There are plenty of places a bullet can hit the pilot from the 12oc. Even more places a bullet can ricochet.

If it had gone through the armoured glass, then it would likely hit your head which is more likely to result in death than injury.

 

If you really want to test how the glass works, do it with gunners and parked planes.

 

Well, one thing is for certain...nature and IL-2 AI gunners side with the Hidden Flaw 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

Well, one thing is for certain...nature and IL-2 AI gunners side with the Hidden Flaw 🤣

 

AI issues aside, you had asked if it was plausible that 7.92mm LMG rounds could penetrate bullet resistant glass on a P-47 at 350m.  In real life, the answer is yes, it's plausible if you sitting behind the bomber making a reasonably steady target and were hit with multiple rounds which weakened the armoured glass integrity.  Remember this is a sim and the devs are having to use best approximations for damage models.  So there could be a simple hit percentage going on where after 2 or 3 direct hits your armour % is pretty much zero (even if there is no visual damage).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cacodemon96 said:

There is such effect. I've seen it a couple of times.

I haven't. 

I'd love to see a picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ICDP said:

 

AI issues aside, you had asked if it was plausible that 7.92mm LMG rounds could penetrate bullet resistant glass on a P-47 at 350m.  In real life, the answer is yes, it's plausible if you sitting behind the bomber making a reasonably steady target and were hit with multiple rounds which weakened the armoured glass integrity.  Remember this is a sim and the devs are having to use best approximations for damage models.  So there could be a simple hit percentage going on where after 2 or 3 direct hits your armour % is pretty much zero (even if there is no visual damage).

 

Seems reasonable. Perhaps it is just an overall small % chance of a wound being assigned to fire coming from the frontal area, and with enough dice rolls the pilot gets hit.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

Seems reasonable. Perhaps it is just an overall small % chance of a wound being assigned to fire coming from the frontal area, and with enough dice rolls the pilot gets hit.

 

 

Pretty much this would be how it works it in sim for most if not all projectile damage calculations.  You've hit the nail on the head (pun intended) :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ICDP said:

AI issues aside, you had asked if it was plausible that 7.92mm LMG rounds could penetrate bullet resistant glass on a P-47 at 350m.  In real life, the answer is yes, it's plausible if you sitting behind the bomber making a reasonably steady target and were hit with multiple rounds which weakened the armoured glass integrity

The problem is, the windshield is a pretty small target at 350m. Shooting from a fast moving firing position at a fast moving target with a fast firing machinegun makes it pretty unlikely to get several hits on such a small target with the spread, fast firíng machineguns have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

The problem is, the windshield is a pretty small target at 350m. Shooting from a fast moving firing position at a fast moving target with a fast firing machinegun makes it pretty unlikely to get several hits on such a small target with the spread, fast firíng machineguns have.

 

That's purely down the the sniper AI rather than the damage model.  It might be fine to have a damage percentage for critical parts but the AI sniping them from unrealistic ranges would be a different fix.

Edited by ICDP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2020 at 9:37 AM, oc2209 said:

 

I'm referring to the fact that the defensive fire from a bomber's gun would be striking most parts of the plane at an extreme angle.

 

I'm not saying aircraft skin has any bullet resistant properties above .30 cal, and extreme angles.

 

.30 cals were notoriously poor in penetrative power under most combat (as in, not ideal testing) scenarios. To be at all effective, they needed to be used at virtually point-blank range. 350m is not point-blank range.

 

So you feel confident sheltering behind a sheet of (let's be generous 5mm) aluminium at say 400m while someone uses a .30 cal against it?

Trust me you're going to lose that argument...🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Georgio said:

 

So you feel confident sheltering behind a sheet of (let's be generous 5mm) aluminium at say 400m while someone uses a .30 cal against it?

Trust me you're going to lose that argument...🤣

 

Are you telling me those movies where the hero shelters behind an upturned wooden table while being shot at from two metres by an automatic weapon are LIES? 😄

 

Edited by ICDP
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ICDP said:

 

Are you telling me those movies where the hero shelters behind an upturned wooden table while being shot at with an automatic weapon are LIES? 😄

 

 

I've got one word for you:

 

D R Y W A L L 

 

🤣

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ICDP said:

 

Are you telling me those movies where the hero shelters behind an upturned wooden table while being shot at from two metres by an automatic weapon are LIES? 😄

 

 

Hahaha, well, I've seen some very strange things over 40 years of chucking bits of lead around but common sense tells me that sheltering behind a wooden table will just give you some nasty splinters....to go with the obvious even nastier holes where flesh tried to defeat physics and failed miserably...🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ICDP said:

 

Are you telling me those movies where the hero shelters behind an upturned wooden table while being shot at from two metres by an automatic weapon are LIES? 😄

 

Not to forget shots through the rear window of a car, shot by someone in a car behind, without hitting the wind shield or injuring someone sitting in the car. Those bullets must have lost all their energy by penetrating the rear window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ICDP said:

Are you telling me those movies where the hero shelters behind an upturned wooden table while being shot at from two metres by an automatic weapon are LIES? 😄

 

Stalinwood.

 

Whereas the P-47 fuselage, heavy as it is, sometimes seems to consist of super heavy duty marshmallinium.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Georgio said:

 

So you feel confident sheltering behind a sheet of (let's be generous 5mm) aluminium at say 400m while someone uses a .30 cal against it?

Trust me you're going to lose that argument...🤣

 

I think I've taken an amount of ridicule not commensurate with my initial comment. Especially because I never claimed to be an expert.

 

For one thing, I subsequently said extreme angle. I think it's plausible that at 350m, aircraft skin would deflect a glancing shot from a .30. I'm not stupid enough to categorically state that aluminum is bullet resistant at angles anywhere close to perpendicular.

 

Should I have phrased my first comment more carefully? Sure. But my point about the gross inadequacy of .30 ammunition--in air combat--at any range beyond ~150m was valid; even if poorly stated.

 

Here's what some quick searching turned up:

 

"Similarly, while both German and British steel-cored armour-piercing (AP) rounds could penetrate up to 12 mm of armour plate if fired directly at it from 180 m, most of the bullets were deflected or tumbled by first passing through the fuselage skin or structure. In consequence, only a quarter to a third of the bullets reached the Blenheim’s 4 mm-thick armour plate at all, and very few penetrated it."

 

And this one:

 

One lesson of early fighting was that the RAF fighters’ battery of RCMGs was less effective than expected. Although the eight guns between them fired no fewer than 160 rounds per second (rps), they were initially adjusted to concentrate their fire at the long range of 365 m which led to the bullet strikes being spread across the target at shorter ranges. As self-sealing fuel tanks and armour became much more common during 1940, it proved necessary to concentrate fire at much closer ranges.

 

Both quotes taken from here: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/cannon-or-machine-gun-the-second-world-war-aircraft-gun-controversy.html

 

And the last one:

 

"Armoured glass windscreens were more difficult to make in sufficient strength while maintaining good transparancy, and armoured glass is also very heavy. The laminated glass panels developed for the B-17 were about 40 mm thick, and they would stop a rifle-calibre bullet at 100 yards. But these large panels and weighed 88 kg per square meter (18 lb per sq. ft.). Fighter windscreens were smaller, and could be thicker and better supported; armourglass of up to 90 mm was used."

 

http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-ar.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

I think I've taken an amount of ridicule not commensurate with my initial comment. Especially because I never claimed to be an expert.

 

For one thing, I subsequently said extreme angle. I think it's plausible that at 350m, aircraft skin would deflect a glancing shot from a .30. I'm not stupid enough to categorically state that aluminum is bullet resistant at angles anywhere close to perpendicular.

 

Should I have phrased my first comment more carefully? Sure. But my point about the gross inadequacy of .30 ammunition--in air combat--at any range beyond ~150m was valid; even if poorly stated.

 

Here's what some quick searching turned up:

 

"Similarly, while both German and British steel-cored armour-piercing (AP) rounds could penetrate up to 12 mm of armour plate if fired directly at it from 180 m, most of the bullets were deflected or tumbled by first passing through the fuselage skin or structure. In consequence, only a quarter to a third of the bullets reached the Blenheim’s 4 mm-thick armour plate at all, and very few penetrated it."

 

And this one:

 

One lesson of early fighting was that the RAF fighters’ battery of RCMGs was less effective than expected. Although the eight guns between them fired no fewer than 160 rounds per second (rps), they were initially adjusted to concentrate their fire at the long range of 365 m which led to the bullet strikes being spread across the target at shorter ranges. As self-sealing fuel tanks and armour became much more common during 1940, it proved necessary to concentrate fire at much closer ranges.

 

Both quotes taken from here: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/cannon-or-machine-gun-the-second-world-war-aircraft-gun-controversy.html

 

And the last one:

 

"Armoured glass windscreens were more difficult to make in sufficient strength while maintaining good transparancy, and armoured glass is also very heavy. The laminated glass panels developed for the B-17 were about 40 mm thick, and they would stop a rifle-calibre bullet at 100 yards. But these large panels and weighed 88 kg per square meter (18 lb per sq. ft.). Fighter windscreens were smaller, and could be thicker and better supported; armourglass of up to 90 mm was used."

 

http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-ar.html

 

This was already discussed, bullet resistant glass will lose integrity after only a few hits of LMG rounds.  None of the evidence you posted indicates it would deflect bullets forever as you and others seem to believe.  The RAF test on the Blenheim shows that even with tumbling 1 out of 5 LMG rounds were able to reach the armour and even if very few penetrated it, only one doing so will ruin the pilot's day.  Hits to your front windscreen will not be tumbling, they will be hitting full force.  In real life, if you saddle up on the dead 6 of a bomber at 350m and provide an easy target, your bullet resistant glass will provide some but not complete protection against a rigid mounted LMG.  Most certainly not after multiple hits and spalling starts to occur even if the rounds aren't penetrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...