Jump to content

Is the pilot's armor plate actually modeled?


Recommended Posts

S!,

I'm almost hesitant to post this observation due to what I know will probably cause a S...storm.

 

I've notice since the last patch that I'm getting an extraordinary number of pilot kills while flying the 110g2. I started keeping track on the number of PKs while flying the 110. Prior to the patch, PKs happened, but not at this rate. As of today. I've died 21 times with the number of PKs being 14. I've started testing flying with and without the armor plate and it makes no difference in the number of times I've been PK'd. Out of the last 8x flying & dying, 5 have been flying with plate and 3 without. All testing so far has been while flying the 110g2.  Note: It doesn't seem to seem to matter if it's 20mm or .50cal, the results are the same. I did not make note of the enemy plane, but I encountered more spits than mustangs while dying, so it maybe 20mm rather than .50s doing the job. I have not noticed this so much with the Russian guns.

 

Let the debate begin ;)

 

HB

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -332FG-KW_1979 said:

US .50 M2 AP was rated to defeat an 8mm face hardened plate out to around 900 yards.

 

The german Fw-190s which were used as bomber killers by the Sturmgruppen had 5mm armor plate fixed around the cockpit. That worked pretty well to protect the pilots, so I wouldn´t be too sure about that penetration rate of the .50s.

 

image.png.6a232ba45d39be804e6692e9febd92bb.png

Edited by sevenless
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

.50 API can pen an inch of facehardened armour at 600 feet and half an inch at 1800 feet,  so it will easily go through an aircraft's armour plate at pretty much any range you would open fire at. Of course succesful penetration may not occur if the round tumbles or hits at such an oblique angle that it will richochet way, but a good dead on hit should penetrate pretty much every time. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

The german Fw-190s which were used as bomber killers by the Sturmgruppen had 5mm armor plate fixed around the cockpit. That worked pretty well to protect the pilots, so I wouldn´t be too sure about that penetration rate of the .50s.

 

image.png.6a232ba45d39be804e6692e9febd92bb.png

I'd imagine this sort of armor would prove more effective, as I imagine quite a fair bit of the fire striking the aircraft would come from the front cone, striking at a pretty oblique angle increasing the likelihood of ricochet then a shot fired by a fighter at around dead six, which would hit a head-rest plate more squarely than this. Pretty sure a .50 cal that hit those plates square on (which would be a solid deflection shot) would go through without too much trouble. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

S!,

I couldn't find the info concerning the thickness of the armor plate for the 110. I didn't realize the Luftwaffe would make it so thin. With that being said, I get that .50cal rounds should easily punch through the plate, not to mention 20mm when the plate is set to 90deg.  When fired at from 45deg, If I did the math right, 45deg of 8x8mm is a little over 11m thick or .45inches, which is well below the noted penetration abilities of .50ap rounds. 

 

@DBS Browning: How did you test it on the ground? I had a 110 fly in a straight line at 300kph & 500m with convergence set to 300, saddled up on the 110's 6 in a p40 and aimed at the rear gunner. I was able to get PKs without much difficulty. I would like to repeat the ground test you performed. Perhaps, there is something about the angle that adds to deflection?

 

So, even if the armor plate is modeled, it's pointless to to use it during late war operations? Very few late war planes used rifle caliber rounds, IIRC, so it seems like just added weight w/o benefit to the pilot.

 

HB

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

But the armor plate is at an angle of about 45°. So it is much more than 8mm.


For what I could measure in game it's at around 35º from the vertical, we can check the penetration in function of angle and distance.

Ignore the red lines as those were in the original image, also there is no line for 35º, so i'm going to use 40º since it's the closest, and gives it a bit more resistance as well.

First we dial in the armor thickness (8mm or 0.315 inches) and check how fast does the M2 AP round need to travel to defeat it at a 40º from the vertical angle. Around 1800 ft/s. Then we see at which distance does the velocity drop off to 1825 ft/s from the 36 inch barrel, and the chart says around 860 yards, so roughly 790 meters.
 

Spoiler

unknown.png


So from a more or less straight 6 o clock, we can say an M2 AP round can consistently defeat a 8mm plate at 40º from the vertical from 750 meters or less.

Also I noticed because of it's forward angle, from higher angle deflection shots the pilot head does get exposed a bit:

unknown.png

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My only criticism is that you’re using the chart for rolled homogeneous armor, rather than face hardened armor.  But even then you’re still looking at being able to defeat that armor out to around 500 yards or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

@DBS Browning: How did you test it on the ground? I had a 110 fly in a straight line at 300kph & 500m with convergence set to 300, saddled up on the 110's 6 in a p40 and aimed at the rear gunner. I was able to get PKs without much difficulty. I would like to repeat the ground test you performed. Perhaps, there is something about the angle that adds to deflection?

 

I simply spawned bombers and a test aircraft and then shot the test aircraft with the bomber's gunners.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I simply spawned bombers and a test aircraft and then shot the test aircraft with the bomber's gunners.

Doh!!! I didn't think of that.

 

Next question: What caliber was the gunner from the bomber using? Was it rifle caliber?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, -332FG-KW_1979 said:

My only criticism is that you’re using the chart for rolled homogeneous armor, rather than face hardened armor.  But even then you’re still looking at being able to defeat that armor out to around 500 yards or more.


Yeah, if there is a chart for face hardened armor we could use that ^^  Also I thought that once the round caliber exceeds the armor thickness by a significant margin high hardness starts decreasing the penetration resistance rather than increasing it.  Like it happens with the T-34, it's 45mm high hardness armor makes it more effective against 37mm projectiles but comparatively less effective against 75mm and larger rounds than if it had softer armor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s the original document.

 

Page 140 (49 in the part 2 pdf) has the face hardened chart for M2 .50 cal.  From the handful of tests I’ve seen, I think any aircraft armor was generally face hardened, but of course a low quality plate with poor metallurgy or a bad heat treat would probably perform more like the rolled homogeneous stuff.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, migmadmarine said:

I'd imagine this sort of armor would prove more effective, as I imagine quite a fair bit of the fire striking the aircraft would come from the front cone, striking at a pretty oblique angle increasing the likelihood of ricochet

That side armor was mainly thought to protect from the side guns and turned upper and lower turrets, shooting from the side at the 190. So, I wonder if they were really that protective with a thickness of just 5mm.

 

43 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

For what I could measure in game it's at around 35º from the vertical

The 45° were just a wild guess, so as you kind of measured it, I am absolutely with you.

 

45 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Also I noticed because of it's forward angle, from higher angle deflection shots the pilot head does get exposed a bit:

Yes, that is something I also see as a disadvantage. Of course if the fighter hits the armor plate, the angle gets worse, so the chance it won't penetrate increases.

 

Stays the question, if those armor plates didn't protect the pilot, why fit that additional weight, which decreases the view of the pilot to his rear. And I am talking about all aircrafts equipped with armor protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -332FG-KW_1979 said:

Here’s the original document.

 

Page 140 (49 in the part 2 pdf) has the face hardened chart for M2 .50 cal.  From the handful of tests I’ve seen, I think any aircraft armor was generally face hardened, but of course a low quality plate with poor metallurgy or a bad heat treat would probably perform more like the rolled homogeneous stuff.


Thanks, looking at it, it manages to decrease the penetration range to about 500 yards (460 meters).

 

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

The 45° were just a wild guess, so as you kind of measured it, I am absolutely with you.


Your guess was quite good, just 10º difference ^^
 

 

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

Stays the question, if those armor plates didn't protect the pilot, why fit that additional weight, which decreases the view of the pilot to his rear. And I am talking about all aircrafts equipped with armor protection.


They would still offer protection against fragmentation or direct high explosive hits at least. In the end though the Germans started added some quite thick armor in their late fighters, I think the Dora should have 20mm thick headrest, late strike variants of the 190A as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luftschiff said:

I have never found anything in the german planes, be it armour plates, armoured headrests or armoured glass to do piss all. I throw it out if I can, it does nothing whatsoever.

 

Well... try attacking bombers in the MC.202 with and without the armoured windscreen...

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

I have never found anything in the german planes, be it armour plates, armoured headrests or armoured glass to do piss all. I throw it out if I can, it does nothing whatsoever.

 

the thing is that they only protect u from rifle caliber rounds or HE cannon rounds.

 

Soviets have 12.7mm heavy mgs and 20mm ap rounds that go clean through it.  US has .50 cal ap rounds that also pen all german aircraft armor at reasonable ranges.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're talking about way more physics in real life than can realistically be modelled in game.  We are talking about the armor plate, but what about the fact that the bullet usually penetrates something else and then has to penetrate the armored plate.  Even if the initial strike does not slow the bullet down that much it can cause a tumble that will make the next strike on the plate itself less effective.  Or maybe the strike angle doesn't cause any deviation or significant loss of energy and it goes right through everything.  Doubt anything that sophisticated is modeled.

 

My guess is that in game it helps but is not a proof against injury.  I know I'm happy to have it because more than once an HE round has hit my plane and I have gotten away with some extra ventilation but otherwise none the worse.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Stays the question, if those armor plates didn't protect the pilot, why fit that additional weight, which decreases the view of the pilot to his rear. And I am talking about all aircrafts equipped with armor protection.

 

Several reasons, really. First: psychological. People have worn body armor in combat for thousands of years, despite the fact that, depending on the situation, it can be almost useless. Giving people going into combat a small sense of security, even if largely false, is beneficial for morale. If you (as their nation, their leader, whatever) send them off to fight practically naked (or the air equivalent, the Japanese Zero), it looks like you don't care whether they live or die, and morale will suffer.

 

Secondly, even weak armor is better than none. A .50 cal that passes through plate armor might lose enough energy so that it deflects away from you even if it penetrates, or it lodges in your parachute, or it enters your body with significantly less force than if it passed through no armor at all.

 

You don't want to get shot with a .50 round directly. You can trust me on that.

 

Now, all that aside, I hate the 109's headrest armor. I never fly with it mounted. The cockpit rearward visibility is abominable with the early-war plate. It's quite passable without it. I'd rather see an enemy coming and take evasive action, than not see him at all, and hope my plate holds up to the inevitable stream of bullets from a successful bounce. I don't even like the armored glass headrest when it's combined with the old heavy frame canopy. I do like the G-14 and K canopy (Erla haube) and glass headrest combination, though.

 

I'm not a fan of armored glass windscreens, but without them even a bad-luck birdstrike could be catastrophic. I therefore grudgingly accept their necessity.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree about the psychology. It was a fact that, according to the GAF's own gun cam films, 190s usually got much closer than109's in attack runs on US heavies before breaking off. 

After all, child soldiers in Africa show what seems to be suicidal bravery when given witch-doctor approved amulets to make them "bullet proof".

 

There is some real benefit even against heavier calibres than shell splinters and 303s. Tests against a bare plate do not represent the reality of bullets that usually have to pass through a variety of other things before striking the plate. Also that bullets can ricochet off surfaces that in theory they should be able to penetrate.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Secondly, even weak armor is better than none. A .50 cal that passes through plate armor might lose enough energy so that it deflects away from you even if it penetrates, or it lodges in your parachute, or it enters your body with significantly less force than if it passed through no armor at all.

I would not completely agree with that statement. A bullet, first penetrating an armor plate, before hitting your body, will make a much larger hole in your body, than one, that hits your body undeformed by an armor plate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I would not completely agree with that statement. A bullet, first penetrating an armor plate, before hitting your body, will make a much larger hole in your body, than one, that hits your body undeformed by an armor plate.

 

Nevertheless, I'd take the armour plate 😅

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Well... try attacking bombers in the MC.202 with and without the armoured windscreen...

 

If you're trying to attack a russian bomber in the MC.202 you might as well armour your monitor screen for all the good it'll do you, ;) I salute your bravery (and excellent taste in aircraft)
 

13 hours ago, Mollotin said:

 

the thing is that they only protect u from [weapon that is basically nonexistant in the game]

 

 

And thus, are useless in 99% of cases, which is precisely why I'd rather have a better view behind me so I know I'm about to be PK'd instead of having it be a total surprise.

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

If you're trying to attack a russian bomber in the MC.202 you might as well armour your monitor screen for all the good it'll do you, ;) I salute your bravery (and excellent taste in aircraft)

 

It seems to help sometimes... maybe glancing shots or ricochets... I certainly seem to last longer with it.

 

As for the MC.202... I'm afraid sir, my honour compels me to say that I enjoy the weaker armament and higher roll rate compared to the Bf-109... but the stall characteristics have kept it from being a favourite (the way the Mig-3 is)... and sometimes I kindof actually wish the IAR-80 had one the poll when we were asked about collector planes... that said, it is a lovely bird - and I'm glad you appreciate it. I'll try to do it more justice! S!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides being effective against high angle fire, long range fire, and ricochets, thin hardened plates used for aircraft armor were good for stopping shell fragments (at least the size you get from aircraft weapons).  So if that armor is preventing the 20mm shell that detonated 4 feet behind your head from killing you, it’s pretty damn handy to have.
 

It’s  also worth keeping in mind that most aircraft in 1939 were armed with various numbers of 30 caliber machine guns, so it’s understandable why armor started with these thin plates that were quite effective against those threats.  The problem was the quantity of armor needed to stop HMG or cannon AP rounds was simply too heavy.  The Japanese employed some really thick plates on some of their later aircraft - 13mm or even 17mm, and even these could be defeated by .50 fire.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2020 at 5:28 AM, sevenless said:

 

The german Fw-190s which were used as bomber killers by the Sturmgruppen had 5mm armor plate fixed around the cockpit. That worked pretty well to protect the pilots, so I wouldn´t be too sure about that penetration rate of the .50s.

 

image.png.6a232ba45d39be804e6692e9febd92bb.png

 

This is just one .50cal round... Now imagine 6-8, .50cal guns going on full-auto .. 
 

 

Edited by Y-29.Silky
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I would not completely agree with that statement. A bullet, first penetrating an armor plate, before hitting your body, will make a much larger hole in your body, than one, that hits your body undeformed by an armor plate.

 

I'm not sure whether an AP round would deform like a bullet designed to kill people (as in, the mushrooming of a hollow-point pistol round, for instance).

 

Regardless, the force with which a bullet strikes flesh does have a major effect on how much tissue damage results. It's for this reason that the relatively tiny 5.56mm assault rifle round causes such tremendous organ damage and blood loss. The speed with which it strikes lends itself to far greater lethality than even the best performing pistol ammunition; even those bullets designed to deform for maximum tumbling effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I'm not sure whether an AP round would deform like a bullet designed to kill people (as in, the mushrooming of a hollow-point pistol round, for instance).

 

Regardless, the force with which a bullet strikes flesh does have a major effect on how much tissue damage results. It's for this reason that the relatively tiny 5.56mm assault rifle round causes such tremendous organ damage and blood loss. The speed with which it strikes lends itself to far greater lethality than even the best performing pistol ammunition; even those bullets designed to deform for maximum tumbling effect.

 While this is a pretty succinct answer in and of itself, the game completely changes when armor is involved.

 

Velocity is still king, but the AP nature of a round becomes a very close #2.  A small ballistically efficient AP round might make a clean hole through steel and have enough energy for a clean thru-n-thru.  A large lumbering AP round might cause significan shrapnel on exit leading to more overall lethality.

 

The most important variable, IMO, is distance to target because it has a hand in changing all other variables. (As noted by some others above.)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2020 at 7:47 PM, migmadmarine said:

 striking at a pretty oblique angle increasing the likelihood of ricochet then a shot fired by a fighter at around dead six, which would hit a head-rest plate more squarely than this.

 

Yep, I agree. That is most likely the point of that additional armor. Increasing the likelihood of ricochets. Those A8/R2 planes additionally carried 20mm armor in front of the 108 ammo cases and only 4mm on their top and bottom sides.

 

panzerung_a-8res-jpg.100381

image.png.fea402195f090055d5488ce5005ba283.png

 

(PDF) Non-invasive examination of a skull fragment recovered from a World War Two aircraft crash site (researchgate.net)

 

3 hours ago, Y-29.Silky said:

This is just one .50cal round... Now imagine 6-8, .50cal guns going on full-auto .. 

 

Thanks. I have no doubts about that.

Edited by sevenless
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Y-29.Silky said:

This is just one .50cal round... Now imagine 6-8, .50cal guns going on full-auto .. 

 

Alloys used and penetration have varied quite a bit over the years though?

 

I mean, it'll still probably penetrate almost all fighter armour... but maybe not the engine block etc.

Edited by Avimimus
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2020 at 5:42 PM, Avimimus said:

 

Alloys used and penetration have varied quite a bit over the years though?

 

I mean, it'll still probably penetrate almost all fighter armour... but maybe not the engine block etc.


Oh yes .. The thing is with the German 20mm, they used HE rounds because they were mainly targeting bombers where if the bomber were hit in a wing, it would explode outside and damage the bomber engines, rather than the control surfaces that proved more effective. The Americans didn't have to face bombers, only fighters, so they used API, if they wanted, they used tracers, but it was armored-piercing-incendiary, now I'm not saying the engines should be caught on fire, but with six to eight, .50cals, it definitely damaged and disabled the engines. Again, most of the pilots opened fire within 300m, six-eight, 50cals within 300m is a lot of firepower.

What gets me about this game, is the .50 cal is 12.7mm .... The Germans have the 13mm that alone can rip the A-20 in 6 pieces.

 

 

Somethings wrong there.

Edited by Y-29.Silky
Link to post
Share on other sites

The additional armor on the Sturmbock is not to stop a cal 50 from going through at right angles, but to make penetration of the aluminum skin less likely from forward quarter angles.

 

Like any kind of armor it's not to make the pilot invincible, but to provide increased protection for a given set of cases of being fired upon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Y-29.Silky said:


Oh yes .. The thing is with the German 20mm, they used HE rounds because they were mainly targeting bombers where if the bomber were hit in a wing, it would explode outside and damage the bomber engines, rather than the control surfaces that proved more effective. The Americans didn't have to face bombers, only fighters, so they used API, if they wanted, they used tracers, but it was armored-piercing-incendiary, now I'm not saying the engines should be caught on fire, but with six to eight, .50cals, it definitely damaged and disabled the engines. Again, most of the pilots opened fire within 300m, six-eight, 50cals within 300m is a lot of firepower.

What gets me about this game, is the .50 cal is 12.7mm .... The Germans have the 13mm that alone can rip the A-20 in 6 pieces.

 

 

Somethings wrong there.

Do remember that there were 3 rounds for the 1.3cm gun.

ApI

He-t

Hei-t

Likely a mixed belt used in all planes but yeah, explosive mixed in with the others, not a big bang considering size but still, way more damage than you'd see from a 50 cal.

If this is modelled in game I'd argue from 43 seeing api on 50's in mixed belts, though I will say 50's atm tend to set German craft alight quite well atm. 

 

Also 2cm minengeschoss was used on everything as soon as it game in, 2cm was the goto suggestion in the 30's for the future of aircraft armament, the germans really were the first to get mass produced 2cm cannon off the ground (heh). But the explosive ammo was used on literally anything they could shoot at, turns out blowing large holes in, or parts off of planes detrimentally alters their flight characteristics.

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
×
×
  • Create New...