Armor plates in Bf-109 ineffective or inexistent in game, after patch 5.002b

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

It seems that after last patch 5.002b (nov. 2022), the Cal.50" bullets are laser beams again. Only 3 bullets shooting from a P-51 were enough to kill my pilot.
The problem is not, the nonexistence of the Bf-109 armor plates in game, the big problem is this occurs the 75% of the sorties, or more. ... and it´s not realistic, and it´s not funny too.
 

Spoiler

remembering the British test

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

the big problem is this occurs the 75% of the sorties, or more. ... and it´s not realistic, and it´s not funny too.

I have to agree with you but I think you are probably wasting your time. Just be careful you don't get dog piled and accused of spreading misinformation.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

It seems that after last patch 5.002b (nov. 2022), the Cal.50" bullets are laser beams again. Only 3 bullets shooting from a P-51 were enough to kill my pilot.
The problem is not, the nonexistence of the Bf-109 armor plates in game, the big problem is this occurs the 75% of the sorties, or more. ... and it´s not realistic, and it´s not funny too.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

remembering the British test

Maybe check if something is wrong with your game as i see you are removing armor head rest in sorties, im sure this is some mistake as it seams you belive 109s have to little armor, why would anyone remove armor or replace it with glass if he belives he needs more armor ?

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/3104103/?tour=57

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/3104079/?tour=57

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/3104134/?tour=57

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/3104118/?tour=57

...

 

Also devs fixed AP bullets in game and on top removed "crew health cheat" so i would first belive more pk is resoult of that then some missing armor all of suden when they didnt change anything about 109s DM. People are seing incress of pK on all airplanes.

Edited November 17, 2022 by CountZero

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

Maybe check if something is wrong with your game as i see you are removing armor head rest in sorties, im sure this is some mistake as it seams you belive 109s have to little armor, why would anyone remove armor or replace it with glass if he belives he needs more armor ?

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/3104103/?tour=57

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/3104079/?tour=57

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/3104134/?tour=57

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/3104118/?tour=57

...

 

Also devs fixed AP bullets in game and on top removed "crew health cheat" so i would first belive more pk is resoult of that then some missing armor all of suden when they didnt change anything about 109s DM. People are seing incress of pK on all airplanes.

 

Maybe you should read the links you post.  Almost all of the Bf-109G6 and onward had ARMORED GLASS HEADREST.  It was better head protection  for the pilot IRL, but not in game

 

By the way, don't matter if you install or uninstall the top armored headrest plate in this game, the pilot is killed anyway. i've checked hundreds times in Berloga server.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[=RS=EnvyC]

6xM2AN @850 rounds a minute comes to about 85 bullets a second. Assuming roughly 10% accuracy rate that's ~3 bullets a second that will go through the armour according to your source.

 

That seems to match your experience, bad luck.

 

Edit: it's worth noting that test was almost certainly not the M2AN, but a Vickers (or at least using inferior British .50 ammunition) which was less effective and not the gun or ammo in the P51. Without that information that document cannot be used to evaluate the effectiveness of M2AN M8

Edited November 18, 2022 by =RS=EnvyC

[the_emperor]

I dont know if this is taken into account by the game, but the German did extensively test AP perfomance of different rounds taking the aircraft skin/interior&space into account

and the result was, that traditionally core AP rounds did lose significantly in performance and that short homogeneous AP projectiles (like the german 13mm AP or british 20mmAP) are performing much better.

Following performance loss was detected (at 100m)

 

.50cal AP                                                  24mm ->  10.5mm

soviet 12.7mm API                                   25mm  -> 8.5mm

soviet 20mm API                                      24mm -> 7mm

british 20mm AP                                       25mm -> 23mm (homogeneous projectile with cap (probably Bakelite))

german 13mm AP                                     17mm -> 16mm

german 20mm Pzsprg (151/20)               17mm -> 14mm

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by the_emperor

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

6 hours ago, the_emperor said:

Following performance loss was detected

 

.50cal AP                    24mm ->  10.5mm

soviet 12.7mm API     25mm  -> 8.5mm

soviet 20mm API        24mm -> 7mm

british 20mm AP        25mm -> 23mm (short homogeneous projectiler with cap)

 

 

Are there charts for these rounds?

[357th_KW]

Looking at pilot survivability stats of the P-51D, B109G14, and Spit IX for October of this year on CB vs October of 2020 (back before any of the recent DM adjustments had taken place), you're looking at 42-47% today vs 49-51% 2 years ago.  So we're talking about less then 1 extra pilot death for every 10 sorties where you take damage, on average.

 

In regards to that British testing of the 109F armor, there are a variety of factors to note here.  First, as Envy pointed out, we don't know exactly what gun/ammo combination the British used in that test.  They describe .5" B. Mk. II and .5" AP.  This may mean .5" Vickers Ball and AP.  The British did have a Browning .5" Ball Mk IIz bullet, but it wasn't approved until December 1942, after this testing was done.  British Browning .5" AP ammo was essentially a clone of the US M1 AP round.  It's not clear what exactly they were using in this test, but all of these possibilities perform significantly worse then US M2 AP or M8 API.  The Vickers AP rounds were rated for 70% penetrations of 15 or 18mm's at 100 yards, and the British Browning .5" AP round had a muzzle velocity of only 2500 fps.  The US M2 AP round had a muzzle velocity of 2835 fps from an AN/M2 and was rated to defeat 24mm of face hardened armor at 100 yards.  Note that even the much weaker AP round used in this test could consistently defeat the Bf109 head plate.

 

It's also worth noting, that the 20mm Hispano Ball round was still effective in 20% of cases below the fuel line, and the 20mm AP Mk II was still able to penetrate.  The penetration data I've been able to find for those rounds, puts them at 12mm and 27mm respectively at 200 yards.  At that range, the US M2 AP is rated at 20.8mm.

 

Another point to note - this document provides some follow up on that test, and notes that subsequent testing showed the the US M1 Incendiary (not an AP round) could defeat the dural plate and pierce the fuel tank.  This also add some evidence that the British definitely weren't using US ammo in their testing (and maybe not even a .5" Browning), as their incendiary round couldn't defeat the dural plate.

 

Lastly, we have to consider the quality of German armor plate - the quality of German armor decreased dramatically as the war went on and they lost access to various critical metals.  As you can see from US Ballistics data, switching the target from face hardened armor to rolled homogenous significantly reduces the protection provided - for instance if we look at 30 degree offset shot against the 11mm head plate. .50 M2 AP can defeat that only to around 300 yards against face hardened armor, but can go out to 550 yards against rolled homogenous.

 

All this data (including that British report) have been shared with the devs before to arrive at our current model.  And in game right now, a dead 6 shot against a 190 or a 109 is in no way a guaranteed PK.  You can build a mission in the ME to try it out, with a target plane flying straight and level to a waypoint set to high priority, and they will just sit there and let you shoot them.   Both types are pretty tanky from dead six against .50s, in large part because we don't have any incendiary capability which should be setting the fuel tank on fire.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by 357th_KW
Added a link for US Ballistics Charts for the M2 .50 AP

[Roland_HUNter]

On 11/17/2022 at 7:36 PM, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

It seems that after last patch 5.002b (nov. 2022), the Cal.50" bullets are laser beams again. Only 3 bullets shooting from a P-51 were enough to kill my pilot.
The problem is not, the nonexistence of the Bf-109 armor plates in game, the big problem is this occurs the 75% of the sorties, or more. ... and it´s not realistic, and it´s not funny too.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

remembering the British test

Fun fact: From the G-2 (until K-4) the 8mm behälterschutzplatte (leichtmetall-panzerung) increased to 21mm.

F-4 armor: 8mm Rückenschutzplatten (leichtmetall-panzerung), fuel tank and then 8mm Behälterschutzplatte (leichtmetall-panzerung).

G-2 :8mm Rückenschutzplatten (leichtmetall-panzerung), fuel tank and then 21mm Behälterschutzplatte (leichtmetall-panzerung). The fuel tank sides got 4mm leichtmetall-panzerung

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

2 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Fun fact: From the G-2 (until K-4) the 8mm behälterschutzplatte (leichtmetall-panzerung) increased to 21mm.

F-4 armor: 8mm Rückenschutzplatten (leichtmetall-panzerung), fuel tank and then 8mm Behälterschutzplatte (leichtmetall-panzerung).

G-2 :8mm Rückenschutzplatten (leichtmetall-panzerung), fuel tank and then 21mm Behälterschutzplatte (leichtmetall-panzerung). The fuel tank sides got 4mm leichtmetall-panzerung

That's the duralumin armor array sandwich that's mentioned in the F-4 report "30 sheets of 22 gauge laminated plates of dural behind the petrol tank. The shield is approximately 22mm".  This is a high resistance aluminum alloy, same material plane skin is made of. If i'm not mistaken 22mm of dural would be equivalent to around 8mm of steel armor.

[CountZero]

and if that upper part of kopfsschnitzelbodenplatten from picture is removed, there is 0mm protection where bullets hit pilot.

[the_emperor]

8 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

un fact: From the G-2 (until K-4) the 8mm behälterschutzplatte (leichtmetall-panzerung) increased to 21mm.

 

I was under the impression that the fuel tank armour was substituted for the  MW-50 installation as all planes with that show a decreased armour weight (46kg with MW50 and 78kg without)

11 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

And in game right now, a dead 6 shot against a 190 or a 109 is in no way a guaranteed PK.

that is my impression,too. One must not forget that in game we are doing much higher deflection shots than were common (and possible) than in real life as this is still a game and we are still able to make high deflection shot while doing high gs/tight turns and have our head glued behind the reticle.

This might also render armour less effective than it was since our bullets tend to enter the cockpit from side angles were no armour protection was given.

 

[Kurfurst]

For what it worth, results of Soviet trials upon the inspection of a 109G-2 captured at Stalingrand.

 

 

БРОНИРОВАНИЕ

Система броневой защиты летчика состоит из:
1. броневого надголовника толщиной 10 мм, 
2. броневого заголовника толщиной 10 мм (На некоторых выпусках в заголовник для улучшения 
обзора назад вставлена прозрачная броня). 
3. бронеспинки, состоящей из трех плит — верхней плиты толщиной 8 мм, средней плиты
толщиной 4 мм и нижней плиты (загнутой под сиденье летчика) толщиной 4 мм. 
4. бронестекла толщиной 60 мм, установленного спереди в неподвижной части фонаря. 
Бензиновый бак защищен сзади дуралевой броней толщиной 20 мм, собранной из 27 листов по 0,8 
мм каждый.
Вся остальная броня — гомогенная. Она обладает следующей пулестойкостью при обстреле
бронебойно-зажигательными пулями (Б-32) калибра 7,62 мм:
плита 10 мм удерживает пулю с дистанции 400 м по нормали
« 8 мм ««« 100 м под < 25-30°
« 4 мм ««« 100 м под < 65° 

 

Углы броневой защиты в вертикальной плоскости: сзади вверх 45° (встречаются самолеты с
другим надголовником, при котором за счет его укорочения угол защиты уменьшается до 30°), сзади
вниз до 35°; в горизонтальной плоскости влево и вправо по 10°.

 

 

Protection

The pilot's armor protection system consists of:
1. armored headrest thickness of 10 mm, 
2. 10mm thick armor headrest (On some releases in the headrest for improvement 
Back view inserted transparent armor). 
3. armored back, consisting of three plates - the upper plate with a thickness of 8 mm, the middle plate
4 mm thick and 4 mm thick lower plate (bent under the pilot's seat). 
4. Armored glass 60 mm thick, installed in front in the fixed part of the lamp. 
The gasoline tank is protected at the rear by a 20 mm thick dural armor assembled from 27 sheets of 0.8 
mm each.
All other armor is homogeneous.

 

It has the following bullet resistance when fired at by 7.62 mm armour-piercing incendiary bullets (B-32):

10 mm plate holds the bullet from a distance of 400 m normally
« 8 mm ««« 100 m under < 25-30°
« 4 mm ««« 100 m under < 65° 

 

Angles of armor protection in the vertical plane: rear up to 45 ° (there are aircraft with another headrest, in which, due to its shortening, the angle of protection is reduced to 30 °), at the rear down to 35°; in the horizontal plane to the left and right at 10 °.

 

 

On 11/18/2022 at 10:16 PM, 357th_KW said:

The Vickers AP rounds were rated for 70% penetrations of 15 or 18mm's at 100 yards, and the British Browning .5" AP round had a muzzle velocity of only 2500 fps.  The US M2 AP round had a muzzle velocity of 2835 fps from an AN/M2 and was rated to defeat 24mm of face hardened armor at 100 yards.  Note that even the much weaker AP round used in this test could consistently defeat the Bf109 head plate.

 

The US face hardened plates were quite inferior and, in any case, one test result cannot be directly compared to foreign plates and ballistic testing methods and requirements.  Direct impact penetrations are also not to be taken at face value after penetrating multiple plates resulting in unstable rounds and reduced penetrations.

 

On 11/18/2022 at 10:16 PM, 357th_KW said:

Another point to note - this document provides some follow up on that test, and notes that subsequent testing showed the the US M1 Incendiary (not an AP round) could defeat the dural plate and pierce the fuel tank.  This also add some evidence that the British definitely weren't using US ammo in their testing (and maybe not even a .5" Browning), as their incendiary round couldn't defeat the dural plate.

 

It isn't a 'subsequent' test but simply a poor transcription of the very same British tests, and the major transciption error is that the bullet penetrates the pilot armor even if it goes through the fuel. In the British original, it did not, however it could penetrate in 30% of the cases where it went through above the fuel line.

[the_emperor]

On 11/18/2022 at 10:16 PM, 357th_KW said:

The US M2 AP round had a muzzle velocity of 2835 fps from an AN/M2 and was rated to defeat 24mm of face hardened armor at 100 yards

This also was the german tests report. 
but testing with Duraluminium (3mm at 20 degrees) “Vorsatz”   that is reduced to 10,5mm at 100m hitting the armour at 90 degrees

 

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Direct impact penetrations are also not to be taken at face value after penetrating multiple plates resulting in unstable rounds and reduced penetrations.

 Thus far I have only seen german charts/manuals with extensive tests and details for Ap perfomance with “Vorsatz” taking the duralminium skin/layers an different angles into account

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

4 hours ago, the_emperor said:

This also was the german tests report. 
but testing with Duraluminium (3mm at 20 degrees) “Vorsatz”   that is reduced to 10,5mm at 100m hitting the armour at 90 degrees

 

Is there a table or chart for the allied rounds penetration results?

[the_emperor]

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

Is there a table or chart for the allied rounds penetration results?

 

no unfortunately not. that would be awesome. just the report on air to air AP rounds development and the favourable performance of shorter homogeneous projectiles compared to traditionally core projectiles (german and allied projectiles alike), when engaging air targets with aluminium skin.

 

 

you can see that the 15mm H-Pzgr. M151 (though a very crass example for a core AP round) is experiencing a considerable loss of AP-performance with "Vorsatz"

and very interesting: though the 13mm is on paper considerable weaker than the .50 cal, it seems very much (maybe even better) performing against armour of air targets (but just air targets, typical german way to specialize everything and complicate logistics...)

Edited November 21, 2022 by the_emperor

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

16 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

 

no unfortunately not. that would be awesome. just the report on air to air AP rounds development and the favourable performance of shorter homogeneous projectiles compared to traditionally core projectiles (german and allied projectiles alike), when engaging air targets with aluminium skin.

 

 

you can see that the 15mm H-Pzgr. M151 (though a very crass example for a core AP round) is experiencing a considerable loss of AP-performance with "Vorsatz"

and very interesting: though the 13mm is on paper considerable weaker than the .50 cal, it seems very much (maybe even better) performing against armour of air targets (but just air targets, typical german way to specialize everything and complicate logistics...)

I think the H-Pzgr for the 15mm is not that comparable to the AP in the 12.7mm machine guns. Because it's more of an APCR round, which fare really badly against angles, at least the WW2 designs of these types of round.  We can see in this second chart of penetration vs angle of impact, the 15mm, 30mm and 37mm H-Pzgr have really steep slopes quickly decreasing penetration capability as impact angle decreases.

The 7.9mm SmK round has a jacketed higher caliber penetrator with a sharper nose (relative to the full round) like the .50 and 12.7mm AP designs and has a similar slope vs angle to the other full caliber AP rounds in both charts, so it doesn't suffer as much as angle increases and after penetrating the aluminum sheet as the APCR  H-Pzgr.

From left to right, the 15mm H-Pzgr, the 7.92mm SmK and the 12.7mm Soviet B-32 API, which is rather similar to the .50 M8 round, and the M2 just with lead filling the space taken by the incendiary filler (not to scale).



That being said there is a nice penetration chart of the US .50 cal M2 AP at different angles, it's just that it's formatted differently than the German chart, if converted to the same layout we could see how the slope would be vs impact angle for that particular round.

[the_emperor]

13 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

The 7.9mm SmK round has a jacketed higher caliber penetrator with a sharper nose (relative to the full round) like the .50 and 12.7mm AP designs and has a similar slope vs angle to the other full caliber AP rounds in both charts, so it doesn't suffer as much as angle increases and after penetrating the aluminum sheet as the APCR  H-Pzgr.

Probably, yes as the 7.9mm SmK-v is also closer in velocity. And penetration loss is from 12mm to 4mm with aluminium

So the .50 cal loss from 24mm to 10.5mm matches.

and the British 20mm Hispano system is still the the best AP killer being able to even penetrate 23mm after duraluminium "Vorsatz"

Edited November 22, 2022 by the_emperor

[Hitcher]

So after being presented with all this evidence are we still gonna get another thread in a months time from some salty germain about getting pilot killed by 100ish rounds per second with the first comment being about getting dog piled by all the freedumbs?

 

The armour on the 109 isnt going to stop all those rounds, period.

 

Hitting below the waterline on the fuel tank was enough to reduce the rounds energy but there is a huge area around the pilots back/head that is just 2 plates of armour and that's it, not to mention rounds that are going to be hitting from an angle and wont have to go through armour/fuel/armourTM, there are too many variables.

 

Also for the ZG.69420 guys the 110/410 are flying greenhouses with a single armour plate behind the pilot, how is 6-8 HMGs gonna care about that? 

 

Finally by just looking at the server stats you can see pilot kills havnt increased significantly after the AP buff.

This is a simple matter of remembering what you want to remember.

 

C'mon, stop with the cognitive dissonance, I beg you to finally make peace with it.

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Hitcher

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

On 11/22/2022 at 4:56 PM, Hitcher said:

The armour on the 109 isnt going to stop all those rounds, period.

 

Hitting below the waterline on the fuel tank was enough to reduce the rounds energy but there is a huge area around the pilots back/head that is just 2 plates of armour and that's it, not to mention rounds that are going to be hitting from an angle and wont have to go through armour/fuel/armourTM, there are too many variables.

In my first post i´ve refence to Bf-109F4 because it was easy to me, to found a document about pilot´s protection, but we suffered the same easy pilot killing in al types.
As everyone know, Bf-109 G6 and onward, had a MW-50 (water-Methanol) tank behind the pilot, even a armored glass headrest, but it seem that theses protections are not working in game.
 

On 11/22/2022 at 4:56 PM, Hitcher said:

Finally by just looking at the server stats you can see pilot kills havnt increased significantly after the AP buff.

This is a simple matter of remembering what you want to remember.

 

C'mon, stop with the cognitive dissonance, I beg you to finally make peace with it.

I have open this thread in the forum because all pilots in my squad, and some virtual pilots from friendly squads are telling my in voice chat, that almost all sorties they are killed easily, with single  cal.50 shoots, not because i liked to write bullshit here.
I want to request opinions and solutions only.
By the way, i´ve download a new patch now, ... I´ve tell you tomorrow if the problem was fixed.
 

Edited December 21, 2022 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[FTC_Zero]

Got recently pilot sniped with 50cal from the six in Hs129, which should have a huge armored fuel tank and an armored pilot seat. I think the game do not simulate a tumbling rounds after penetration. Also the bubble canopy of the FW190d9 which supposenly has additional sloped armor behind the headrest doest make much of a difference. Not saying that it is impossible, but having no protective properties at all? I do not know..

Edited February 9, 2023 by FTC_Zero

[LukeFF]

Track files...

[Kurfurst]

On 11/21/2022 at 6:59 PM, the_emperor said:

you can see that the 15mm H-Pzgr. M151 (though a very crass example for a core AP round) is experiencing a considerable loss of AP-performance with "Vorsatz"

and very interesting: though the 13mm is on paper considerable weaker than the .50 cal, it seems very much (maybe even better) performing against armour of air targets (but just air targets, typical german way to specialize everything and complicate logistics...)

 

 

Indeed that was the case. 

 

From the following German trials of various AP ammunition types (DE/US/UK/SU), it is clear that while the .50 cal AP had very good penetration capabilities when directly hitting the armor plate, its penetration performance was considerably reduced when penetrating into a typical aircraft structure. The same is true to the Berezhin 12,7mm AP rounds. 

 

Penetrative performance 

 

MG 131, Browning M2, Berezhin AP projectile with direct hit on plate, at 100m, at 90 degree angle (ideal conditions):

 

13mm MG 131, APT: 17mm

12,7mm Browning M2, AP: 24mm

12,7mm Berezin BS, APIT*: 23mm

12,7mm Berezin BS, API*: 25mm

 

It's clear that the MG 131 penetrative capabilities are fairly modest when hitting the armor plate directly, under ideal conditions. However...

 

MG 131, Browning M2, Berezhin AP projectile's  with indirect hit on armor plate, at 100m, after penetrating a 3 mm dural plate set at 20 degree angle (i.e. aircraft skin), and travelling 2 meter distance before hitting the armor itself set at an 90 degree angle: 

 

13mm MG 131, APT: 15mm

12,7mm Browning M2, AP: 10.5 mm

12,7mm Berezin BS, APIT*: 7.5 mm

12,7mm Berezin BS, API*: 8.5 mm

 

* I believe this is basically the same round late war US .50 cal API was copied from.

 

Armor plate properties in test: 150 kg/mm2 tensile strength.

 

In contrast, the 13mm MG 131 APT retained most of its penetrative performance when hitting Armor plates within a typical aircraft structure, resulting that it was in fact more effective in actual air-to-air conditions than either the otherwise ballistically more powerful Berezin or the Browning M2.
This is probably down to the solid penetrator design and rather blunt projectile head of the MG 131 rounds (against the composite lead - steel nose with pointed penetrator head on the US and SU 12,7mm which were far more sensitive to projectile thumbling after entering the structure. The same effect is even more noticable for the hyper velocity 15mm MG 151 APCR rounds. It is clear that the rounds for the MG 131 were clearly optimized for indirect hits on Armor plates within aircraft structure. 

 

Given real world trials, its seems very dubious that either the Berezin or Browning M2 rounds could have been effective in penetrating the 8mm angled pilot armor on the Bf 109, after going through the structure, given there was still some additional 25-30 mm dural sandwhich plate behind the fuel tank (or a large MW 50 tank filled with water) and the fuel in the tank tank, which all slowed down the projectiles even more, and given that trials have shown that their penetrative capability was optimized for direct hits but was much reduced (to 8.5mm and 10.5mm at 100m distance, with dead-on 90 degree hits, respectively) after going through the simulated aircraft structure (3mm dural plate set at 20 degrees), such as the fuselage of an aircraft hit from behind.

 

CONCLUSION: The penetrative power of rounds in simultion should be reviewed and must take into account the relative reduction in penetrative power post-pentration of aircraft structure. 

 

Edited February 11, 2023 by VO101Kurfurst

[the_emperor]

@VO101Kurfurst Great table. do you happen to have the table for the 20mm projectiles at hand?

Edited February 11, 2023 by the_emperor

[6./ZG26_Custard]

12 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

CONCLUSION: The penetrative power of rounds in simultion should be reviewed and must take into account the relative reduction in penetrative power post-pentration of aircraft structure. 

Thank you excellent chart and conclusions. However, there are a large group on here that will constantly tell us that the .50 is a wonder round regardless of what is put in front of them. I would also like to see much more comprehensive ballistic effects modeled as well as a re-look at ammunition penetration values.   

[LukeFF]

15 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Thank you excellent chart and conclusions. However, there are a large group on here that will constantly tell us that the .50 is a wonder round regardless of what is put in front of them. I would also like to see much more comprehensive ballistic effects modeled as well as a re-look at ammunition penetration values.   

 

Not helpful at all

[86th_Buzzi]

The chart Kurfurst presented is great data. I'd hope it'll get looked at and if needed, corrections made.

 

But I'd like to point out that so far in this thread nobody has shown any evidence that the dural, fuel tank, and pilot armor AREN'T stopping bullets in-game. You've simply been claiming that because pilot kills are happening (in your opinion, too often), armor isn't working. I'd be curious to know what percentage of pilot kills are happening with <5 degree off dead-astern shots.

[Kurfurst]

16 hours ago, the_emperor said:

@VO101Kurfurst Great table. do you happen to have the table for the 20mm projectiles at hand?

 

The full table covers 7,7mm to 30mm projectiles, HE, Incendinary, Mineshell and AP.

 

The original is a huge file, here's a more 'forum friendly' version.

 

Note that all rounds are the same scale, except the 30mm rounds, which are 1:2.

[the_emperor]

@VO101Kurfurst fantastic,

this is also the first time I have seen the amount(in grams for HE & I individually) of weight for the load for the British HE-I round,

 

many thanks

 

[6./ZG26_Loke]

44 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

The original is a huge file, here's a more 'forum friendly' version. 

Is there a chance that I could get a copy of the original file? 

[Kurfurst]

6 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

Is there a chance that I could get a copy of the original file? 

 

That is basically it, I can send you the full resultion version if you fetch me an email addie.

[6./ZG26_Loke]

3 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

That is basically it, I can send you the full resultion version if you fetch me an email addie.

Did try to pm you, but it said you could not receive message. 

 

Send plz to jens(a)balbo-net.org 

[the_emperor]

I finally found the report I was quoting earlier and it nicely accompanies @VO101Kurfurst Table

 

 

 

This might be the British 20mm AP round the report is revering to :

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by the_emperor

[ACG_Cass]

As @LukeFF quite rightly points out, none of this gets solved without tracks.

 

We did some pretty extensive testing on armour penetration during the beta and although I agree it's not a perfect solution, it's far from being inaccurate. The main discrepancies lie in the medium bombers, which don't appear to have enough objects modelled in the tail. Bullets aren't going through full fuel or MW50 tanks. 

 

@VO101Kurfurst I know you have a huge library of sources so will never question something you put forward, but those test results seem quite odd - is this in relation to the Me262?

 

On 2/11/2023 at 10:36 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

13mm MG 131, APT: 17mm

12,7mm Browning M2, AP: 24mm

12,7mm Berezin BS, APIT*: 23mm

12,7mm Berezin BS, API*: 25mm

These are approaching the performance levels of M2 against face hardened armour rather than a dural plate seen in most Luftwaffe aircraft. 

 

On 2/11/2023 at 10:36 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

after penetrating a 3 mm dural plate set at 20 degree angle (i.e. aircraft skin), and travelling 2 meter distance before hitting the armor itself set at an 90 degree angle:

3mm is far too thick for Bf109 skin, which would have likely been well under 1mm. I understand the 262 had much thicker skin in certain area's hence my assumption it's regarding that. Also 2m is an huge amount of distance and would mean the round has entered close to the rear of the tail 

 

The RAF did similar test using early war .50 that is didn't have the penetration power of the later M2. Even having travelled through a mock fuselage the rounds could still penetrate up to 13mm of homogenous armour at an impact angle of 10 degrees, which is only roughly 1mm lower than without the fuselage. 

 

 

 

All of this is a moot point though as I would wager a fortune that the vast majority of pilot kills we get in sim are when some kind of manoeuvring is happening. You can see that you don't need an enormous angle to remove the rear plate from the equation and leave the pilot with nothing that will stop a .50 cal. Even outside of that, flying straight and level, the volume of fire a 6 or 8 gun battery will put into a non-manoeuvring target means there's a chance something is getting through at some angle. 

 

 

The disparity we see between the sim and real life in terms of pilot kills have far more to do with factors that either aren't representable or haven't been - prop torque, fatigue, adrenaline, wake, turbulence, the pilot bailing out because he doesn't want to die like all of his friends have... it's a long list. 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2023 by ACG_Cass

[gimpy117]

16 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

3mm is far too thick for Bf109 skin, which would have likely been well under 1mm.

 

way to thick. .040" (1.024mm) and .032" (.813mm) are what I've seen a lot in light aircraft. anything more than that is heavy structural areas 

Edited February 19, 2023 by gimpy117

[Roland_HUNter]

On 2/18/2023 at 4:44 AM, ACG_Cass said:

As @LukeFF quite rightly points out, none of this gets solved without tracks.

 

We did some pretty extensive testing on armour penetration during the beta and although I agree it's not a perfect solution, it's far from being inaccurate. The main discrepancies lie in the medium bombers, which don't appear to have enough objects modelled in the tail. Bullets aren't going through full fuel or MW50 tanks. 

 

@VO101Kurfurst I know you have a huge library of sources so will never question something you put forward, but those test results seem quite odd - is this in relation to the Me262?

 

These are approaching the performance levels of M2 against face hardened armour rather than a dural plate seen in most Luftwaffe aircraft. 

 

3mm is far too thick for Bf109 skin, which would have likely been well under 1mm. I understand the 262 had much thicker skin in certain area's hence my assumption it's regarding that. Also 2m is an huge amount of distance and would mean the round has entered close to the rear of the tail 

 

The RAF did similar test using early war .50 that is didn't have the penetration power of the later M2. Even having travelled through a mock fuselage the rounds could still penetrate up to 13mm of homogenous armour at an impact angle of 10 degrees, which is only roughly 1mm lower than without the fuselage. 

 

 

 

All of this is a moot point though as I would wager a fortune that the vast majority of pilot kills we get in sim are when some kind of manoeuvring is happening. You can see that you don't need an enormous angle to remove the rear plate from the equation and leave the pilot with nothing that will stop a .50 cal. Even outside of that, flying straight and level, the volume of fire a 6 or 8 gun battery will put into a non-manoeuvring target means there's a chance something is getting through at some angle. 

 

 

The disparity we see between the sim and real life in terms of pilot kills have far more to do with factors that either aren't representable or haven't been - prop torque, fatigue, adrenaline, wake, turbulence, the pilot bailing out because he doesn't want to die like all of his friends have... it's a long list. 

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Wardog5711
Removed profanity

[Roland_HUNter]

On 2/18/2023 at 11:44 AM, ACG_Cass said:

3mm is far too thick for Bf109 skin

In this thread, I saw that you also commented Cass.

So why didn't you notice this?

 

 

 

And:

https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/4/172

(heritage source: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/4/172/s1)
It says 0.5 mm to 3mm for the E-7.

 

[357th_KW]

This is a ridiculous straw man argument.  What @ACG_Cassis pointing out is that hitting 3mm of skin (meaning a joint or rib), followed by 2 meters of dead space, and then striking the dural armor or fuel tank, and then the pilot armor is an absolute best case scenario for stopping the incoming round.  Essentially a dead six strike, traveling through the entire aircraft.  If you try that in game, it’s not producing PKs at any appreciable rate.  But if you offset the guns just slightly, they can bypass most of that and hit the pilot.  And we’re talking about banks of 4-8 machine guns, firing in a dynamic situation, so that happens fairly often.  
 

IL2 Stats now records pilot snipes, parsed put by the type of guns causing them, and if we look at the 109s, they’re running around a 10% lower rate of pilot snipes as compared to the 190As over hundreds of engagements.  The extra armor and components in the fuselage of the 109 are clearly having an effect.  By comparison the poor Spitfire Mk IX might as well have no armor, as the pilot snipe rate for most types of guns it faces are around 75-80% - nearly 30% higher then the 109.

 

Finally, the data on that German chart is for an older M1 AP variant - we know this because of the projectile weight and lower velocity - 750 grains vs the later ammo at 708 grains.  Hardly surprising, as it’s dated spring of 1943, and would have been made using captured ammunition.  Given the time required to capture, test and compile, plus the lead time for the ammo to have gotten from the US to British or Russian forces, it’s likely that ammo was made pretty early in the war.  The testing that Cass posted showed that even with the various types of M1 tested by the British in 1941, the higher velocity ammo types had better penetration relative to the slower variety. The later M2 AP (what we have in game) and M8 API (what we should have for the late war fighters) had significant improvements in velocity and penetration capability.

[Roland_HUNter]

5 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

This is a ridiculous straw man argument.  What @ACG_Cassis pointing out is that hitting 3mm of skin (meaning a joint or rib), followed by 2 meters of dead space, and then striking the dural armor or fuel tank, and then the pilot armor is an absolute best case scenario for stopping the incoming round.  Essentially a dead six strike, traveling through the entire aircraft.  If you try that in game, it’s not producing PKs at any appreciable rate.  But if you offset the guns just slightly, they can bypass most of that and hit the pilot.  And we’re talking about banks of 4-8 machine guns, firing in a dynamic situation, so that happens fairly often.  
 

IL2 Stats now records pilot snipes, parsed put by the type of guns causing them, and if we look at the 109s, they’re running around a 10% lower rate of pilot snipes as compared to the 190As over hundreds of engagements.  The extra armor and components in the fuselage of the 109 are clearly having an effect.  By comparison the poor Spitfire Mk IX might as well have no armor, as the pilot snipe rate for most types of guns it faces are around 75-80% - nearly 30% higher then the 109.

 

Finally, the data on that German chart is for an older M1 AP variant - we know this because of the projectile weight and lower velocity - 750 grains vs the later ammo at 708 grains.  Hardly surprising, as it’s dated spring of 1943, and would have been made using captured ammunition.  Given the time required to capture, test and compile, plus the lead time for the ammo to have gotten from the US to British or Russian forces, it’s likely that ammo was made pretty early in the war.  The testing that Cass posted showed that even with the various types of M1 tested by the British in 1941, the higher velocity ammo types had better penetration relative to the slower variety. The later M2 AP (what we have in game) and M8 API (what we should have for the late war fighters) had significant improvements in velocity and penetration capability.

By guessing things, you don't gonna have facts. And  I'm sick and tired of everyone on this forum trying to explain everything based on "assumptions".

[6./ZG26_Custard]

41 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

By guessing things, you don't gonna have facts. And  I'm sick and tired of everyone on this forum trying to explain everything based on "assumptions".

The penetration values,ballistics, the damage modelling particularly on larger aircraft , the cardboard wing on the 109, the laser beam pilot kills and a whole host of other completely unrealistic issues need sorting. Unfortunately, as long as the vocal majority can kid themselves that they are flying in an "historical" way  as they racking up those 30+ online air kills in an evening of play and bragging about it as they show us the stats pages, I have little faith that not much of anything is going to change.