PDA

View Full Version : P-51 Damage Model



BigganD
05-24-2004, 04:07 PM
Well the damagemodel on a mustang,cobra,king cobra is still ****! it took once all my 2X151 gunpods ammo, the result was..fuel leak.The king cobra is worst, it can take some times 14 mk108s. Please do somthing about it !

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

BigganD
05-24-2004, 04:07 PM
Well the damagemodel on a mustang,cobra,king cobra is still ****! it took once all my 2X151 gunpods ammo, the result was..fuel leak.The king cobra is worst, it can take some times 14 mk108s. Please do somthing about it !

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

VW-IceFire
05-24-2004, 04:13 PM
Ummm....14 MK108s? Thats not even close to the truth mate.

The P-51 has a fairly strong structure yes...but it doesn't feel too out of place. A well aimed burst will do sufficient damage to take the 51 out of the fight, cause massive fuel leaks (the kind that run you try in less than a minute), or light the engine onfire. It doesn't snap apart as easily as some other aircraft but its still vulnerable. As with most of the other American in-line aircraft...a single hit to the engine will do it in but overall structural strength is above average.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

PzKpfw
05-24-2004, 04:47 PM
I been killin P-51D & P-63's with the G-10/G-14's Mk 108 with very little ammunition expenditure. Same when I fly my P-63 camp, Bf 109 & Fw 190 both go down fast. Never has any of the AC taken 14, 30mm rounds etc.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

BigganD
05-24-2004, 05:08 PM
i dont think that an mustang can take a mk108 hit with no damage, that often happen on the american birds, did the La7 had better armor then the mustang? because the La7 can survive one mk108 hit(with BIG holes) some times or die with one hit, and the most annoying is that i hit kingcobra so meny times and no effect often, still flyes as nothing. Have you seen the MK108 effect on a b-17? think how it would look like on a mustang..

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

RK_HH-Mainframe
05-24-2004, 05:23 PM
Seems strange to me that a plane can take that much hits from a mk108. Try to fly a ki84-c then fire a 30mm round into the stang and he dies....

BigganD
05-24-2004, 05:46 PM
Yes,thats true. I dont think that mustang or the cobra can survive 2 30mm hits from the german Mk108. And the 151cannons arent making a big effect on the american planes, while the russian planes suffer alot from it. I think the problem is in the 109s, becuase if you hit a p51 or a cobra with the Ta-152, using mk108s, the plane will suffer alot, only 2 hits and some times one hit and hes down. But if you do the same with a 109, he will survive meny hits, i think that this is very strange, and the damage problem is only on p51/p39/p63. http://pages.ykt.ru/il2/Hronika/photohronika/4fcafb00.jpg
heres a picture from a 30mm Mk108 hit on a b-17, How can a mustang take more then 2 hits and still fly, same thing with the cobras.
You should take a batter look at this please.
And here you can see a pictures on the Mk108 Shell. http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=home.att.net/~jv44/images/30mm_shells.jpg&imgrefurl=http://home.att.net/~jv44/mk108.htm&h=479&w=222&sz=9&tbnid=wqEREVtmCAkJ:&tbnh=125&tbnw=58&start=6&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMk108%2Bcannon%26hl%3Dsv%26lr%3D%26ie %3DUTF-8

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

VW-IceFire
05-24-2004, 06:07 PM
Yes its quite evident what a MK108 shell can do.

But its not a black and white kind of asssement. The shell can pass through leaving a hole and not exploding, the shell can explode and have its blast directed away from the plane, all sorts of things can happen and then there is the almighty lag and packetloss issue that can play havoc.

1 hit = 1 kill is not a correct assement. If you sweep a few 108's across a P-51 it will be dead...one way or another. I know this from both shooting them and being shot at with them.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

RK_HH-Mainframe
05-24-2004, 06:17 PM
Agree with you in the lag part. Had a P-63 on my 12 closer then 1 meter (yup close eh?) and pumped all my ammo into him.. i blew myself in it but he flew on. After that i took a look o his connection and he seemed to have a ping of 450+.

Hunde_3.JG51
05-24-2004, 08:22 PM
The P-51's damage model seems ok to me, but the P-63C is a complete disaster. It has an engine made of tinfoil, and a body/wings made of titanium. I have managed to knock of elevator a few times, but I have NEVER seen the P-63C lose a wing, or suffer structural failure. This is the only plane I can say that about and I can't believe it hasn't been fixed. In all of the QMB and times online, I have killed the P-63C by destroying the fragile engine 100% of the time.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BigganD
05-25-2004, 03:33 PM
well i was playing on a server that hosted pacific misson, i had a Zero came behind a mustang 1944NA, 3 hits on the wing and he went down. Later on red won the misson and the host changed to the Westen front, same Guy! i hunted with 109 and he had agian a mustang, he took 8 mk108 until hes controls went out....its somthing wrong with the german 109

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

RK_HH-Mainframe
05-25-2004, 05:38 PM
Not only 109 but also other 108 using planes like 190 versions. Think it's not on the stang. (Agree for 100% that p63 seems to be a disaster)
But i have been fighting a P-51 D 20 online in a FW190 A9. Took a shot on him when diving on him. Pretty fireworks but flew on. I looked in the console and saw that there were no registered hits. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif Realy dont get i mean even when they blow close to the plane it should have been killed by the ammount of shots.

Giganoni
05-25-2004, 06:14 PM
If you want to kill P-51Ds a lot I suggest a transfer to the wermacht and man an AA gun..then you'll take out more p-51s as they come on the deck.

Seriously though, I've disengrated P-51s with Zeros (It may have been a b version though) before the patch, I haven't tried since the patch. However, I never found the P-51 mustang too hard to kill. Especially if you can get engine hits. Plus pilot protection was never the best among other fighters of wwII.

RK_HH-Mainframe
05-26-2004, 03:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Seriously though, I've disengrated P-51s with Zeros <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With a zero it aint a problem but we were especialy talking about the mk108. And im not a mustang hater or something, but the fact is as soon you fly LW you will encounter big loads of mustangs so that's wwhy i kill em so much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nub_322Sqn
05-26-2004, 06:31 AM
Must be an online thing then.

Offline I did a few quick mission with the K4 against the P51 and every time I hit the P51 with the 30mm cannon it blew up instantly.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

VW-IceFire
05-26-2004, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T-ONub_322Sqn:
Must be an online thing then.

Offline I did a few quick mission with the K4 against the P51 and every time I hit the P51 with the 30mm cannon it blew up instantly.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah online you are going to experience packet loss, lag times, and all sorts of wacky things. That MK108 blast you hit the enemy with actually never hit and the other guy never saw you hit him.

With the P-51 I always aim for the engine. I don't use MK108's as much as I use MG151/20's but that has changed with the Ta-152H and I've hit and downed plenty of fighters with the MK108 but I don't count it as a one hit kill weapon and thats precisely what alot of people expect from it (and under ideal conditions it is, but FB has an amazing thing of modeling a variety of circumstances when a bullet hits a target).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Flash_ram
05-26-2004, 05:11 PM
With a good burst from Ki84 Ic the P-63 wing was byebye...

Hunde_3.JG51
05-26-2004, 05:15 PM
But try to take off wing or cause structural failure on P-63C without 30mm or higher cannon. It's engine is super-hyper-fragile though, but its structure is insane also IMO.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-26-2004, 08:26 PM
MG rounds wipe out the Mustangs controls at ranges beyond 600 meters with ease. And lets not forget about the magic bullet to the motor. Perhaps one could say that the airframe itself takes too much damage or perhaps not, Mustang was a tuff bird its liquid cooled engine was its downfall when it came to taken damage. (BTW it should be the same for all liquid cooled motors not just the Mustang). What Im saying is if you manage to get on a Mustangs six you should no problem getting a kill. Even more so at low alt because it certainly shouldnt out fly you if your in LW a/c. If it does...well then you just been beat by a better flyer or you just made a mistake.

=S=

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

PzKpfw
05-26-2004, 09:56 PM
The P-51B/D/K armor consisted of an armored plate firewall combination consisting of face hardened steel & a stainless steel section for the oil tank. Rear armor was 2 face hardened plates behind the cockpit. The armor was proof vs .30 fire from all angles, and vs .50 fire @ oblique angles. Covering arc was front to rear.

The forward flat section of the windsheild was bullet proof 5-ply piece laminated glass 1 & 1.5" thick slanted @ 31? from vertical.

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand. p.374

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

Giganoni
05-27-2004, 01:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
The P-51B/D/K armor consisted of an armored plate firewall combination consisting of face hardened steel & a stainless steel section for the oil tank. Rear armor was 2 face hardened plates behind the cockpit. The armor was proof vs .30 fire from all angles, and vs .50 fire @ oblique angles. Covering arc was front to rear.

The forward flat section of the windsheild was bullet proof 5-ply piece laminated glass 1 & 1.5" thick slanted @ 31? from vertical.

*See: Dean Francis H. _America's Hundred-Thousand._ p.374<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe certainly not the toughest bird in the sky. Compared to some axis late war fighters. but you mention something very important that few of us "Aviation experts" include when talking about damage models, the more perpendicular to the armor, the deeper the penetration.

BigganD
05-27-2004, 08:37 AM
well the only thing i can do now is to play LAN game so it doesnt lag, and then record mk108 hits from 109.

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

ajafoofoo
05-27-2004, 08:55 AM
I agree with anyone who says the p63 DM is at the least "weird".

Like a previous poster said, the engine is easy to kill. But the rest of the plane is a tank.

Cardinal25
05-27-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigganD:
Yes,thats true. I dont think that mustang or the cobra can survive 2 30mm hits from the german Mk108. And the 151cannons arent making a big effect on the american planes, while the russian planes suffer alot from it. I think the problem is in the 109s, becuase if you hit a p51 or a cobra with the Ta-152, using mk108s, the plane will suffer alot, only 2 hits and some times one hit and hes down. But if you do the same with a 109, he will survive meny hits, i think that this is very strange, and the damage problem is only on p51/p39/p63. http://pages.ykt.ru/il2/Hronika/photohronika/4fcafb00.jpg
heres a picture from a 30mm Mk108 hit on a b-17, How can a mustang take more then 2 hits and still fly, same thing with the cobras.
You should take a batter look at this please.
And here you can see a pictures on the Mk108 Shell. http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=home.att.net/~jv44/images/30mm_shells.jpg&imgrefurl=http://home.att.net/~jv44/mk108.htm&h=479&w=222&sz=9&tbnid=wqEREVtmCAkJ:&tbnh=125&tbnw=58&start=6&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMk108%2Bcannon%26hl%3Dsv%26lr%3D%26ie %3DUTF-8

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not a 108 hit.

CWoS. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)
VMF-92 and The 92nd Fighter Group (http://www.92ndfg.com)
7./JG77 (http://www.7jg77.com)

BigganD
05-27-2004, 04:24 PM
it is.. i can show you the site, and read

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

PzKpfw
05-27-2004, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
Hehe certainly not the toughest bird in the sky. Compared to some axis late war fighters. but you mention something very important that few of us "Aviation experts" include when talking about damage models, the more perpendicular to the armor, the deeper the penetration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well Giganoni lets look at the armor, for example, on the standard Fw 190A-8 Fighter:

Oil cooler - 6.5mm
Oil tank - 5mm
Windscreen - 50mm
Seat - 8mm
Back plate - 5mm
Panels on Bulkhead - 5mm x 5 panels
Head protection 12mm

Theirs an 137.8kg (303.75lbs) in armor plate alone. And no area except the 50mm & head protection is proof vs the .50 round & at the right angles the .50 will penetrate the HA as well.

Then the example of an Bf 109G-14 captured by the British in 1944 its armor consisted of "Pilots bullet-resisting glass screen. The cockpit cover was jettisoned before the crash and could not be recovered. No other armour is fitted to this aircraft". And its fuel tank was "non-self=sealing, being made of light alloy. It appeared to be protected only by a box of 7-ply wood".

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

Bastables
05-27-2004, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
Hehe certainly not the toughest bird in the sky. Compared to some axis late war fighters. but you mention something very important that few of us "Aviation experts" include when talking about damage models, the more perpendicular to the armor, the deeper the penetration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well Giganoni lets look at the armor, for example, on the standard Fw 190A-8 Fighter:

Oil cooler - 6.5mm
Oil tank - 5mm
Windscreen - 50mm
Seat - 8mm
Back plate - 5mm
Panels on Bulkhead - 5mm x 5 panels
Head protection 12mm

Theirs an 137.8kg (303.75lbs) in armor plate alone. And no area except the 50mm & head protection is proof vs the .50 round & at the right angles the .50 will penetrate the HA as well.

Then the example of an Bf 109G-14 captured by the British in 1944 its armor consisted of "Pilots bullet-resisting glass screen. The cockpit cover was jettisoned before the crash and could not be recovered. No other armour is fitted to this aircraft". And its fuel tank was "non-self=sealing, being made of light alloy. It appeared to be protected only by a box of 7-ply wood".

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The 5mm plates were spaced behind/in front of the 8 mm seat armour. The 6.5mm armour was all curved and had been fitted because OKL testing showed that this curved armour would deflect 50cal fire.

The anecdote of a single unarmoured G-14 when all the other plane were manufactured with armour is just that an anecdote.

PzKpfw
05-27-2004, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

The 5mm plates were spaced behind/in front of the 8 mm seat armour. The 6.5mm armour was all curved and had been fitted because OKL testing showed that this curved armour would deflect 50cal fire.

The anecdote of a single unarmoured G-14 when all the other plane were manufactured with armour is just that an anecdote.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bast, the plates could still be penetrated by the .50 it all depended on AOI. Regardless my point was the Fw 190 etc was not so armored it could not be brought down by the standard US fighter armanent.

As to the G-14 example this is not 'anecdotal' this is from the British report on examination Bf 109 G-14 W.Nr.413601 dated 5 August 1944 conducted @ Farnborough. As to how many examples were or were not, built with or w/o armor like 413601 we realy have no way of knowing.

If you remeber we had similar discussions to this on the CMBO/CMBB forums over the years on tank armor thickness not being uniform etc, in several reports Ie, Panther glacis thickness, BHN difrences from the British to US reports etc.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu May 27 2004 at 08:54 PM.]

Bastables
05-27-2004, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

The 5mm plates were spaced behind/in front of the 8 mm seat armour. The 6.5mm armour was all curved and had been fitted because OKL testing showed that this curved armour would deflect 50cal fire.

The anecdote of a single unarmoured G-14 when all the other plane were manufactured with armour is just that an anecdote.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bast, the plates could still be penetrated by the .50 it all depended on AOI. Regardless my point was the Fw 190 etc was not so armored it could not be brought down by the standard US fighter armanent.

As to the G-14 example this is not 'anecdotal' this is from the British report on examination Bf 109 G-14 W.Nr.413601 dated 5 August 1944 conducted @ Farnborough. As to how many examples were or were not, built with or w/o armor like 413601 we realy have no way of knowing.

If you remeber we had similar discussions to this on the CMBO/CMBB forums over the years on tank armor thickness not being uniform etc, in several reports Ie, Panther glacis thickness, BHN difrences from the British to US reports etc.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu May 27 2004 at 08:54 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really John?
One captured G14 example, of which we have neither history nor any other captured examples highlighting this as a major production variant. It could be any thing: An sqn lash up to combat mosquitoes, a personal lash up in increase memorability. In the end it is one example so is merely anecdotal.

You state that the 12 mm head armour was a ?proof? verses 50cal bullet, yet 5mm spaced in front of 8mm plate is less effective? This is an unusual view to hold as even ?wire? spaced plates on PIV deformed the much heavier 12,7mm anti tank rounds of the PTRD rifles enough to make it ineffective as an armour piercing projectile.

John don?t get sucked into the partisan world of Lugi and Buzzsaw where manipulations and misinterpretations of sources/info in order to prove some inane point is acceptable. We?ve spent too long reading the drivel that occurs on this board.

PzKpfw
05-27-2004, 11:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

John don?t get sucked into the partisan world of Lugi and Buzzsaw where manipulations and misinterpretations of sources/info in order to prove some inane point is acceptable. We?ve spent too long reading the drivel that occurs on this board.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Bast why dont you explain to me how a direct quote is a manipulation of the source?.

Your position is that the G-14 in the report was a fluke & does not represent the majority of Bf 109 production, if i'm reading that right & my posiition is, no one knows whether this example is an anomaly or isn't, we can speculate all we want on it.

Am I sugesting IL-2 model all G-14s etc this way etc, nope, I'm merely provideing and example of armor protection on a shot down 109.

IMHO The G-14 was produced the way it was from either material shortages Ie, no self sealing fuel tank & plywood around the tank, but the MW 50 tank was armored, or sabatage.

The Allies managed to CAP German AC production in 1944 because the dispersed factories relied on stocked material which allowed production to peak in 1944.

After the stock piled material dried up & the transportation net was continualy reduced production dropped accordingly. The German production goal in 1944 was IIRC 80,000 AC vs 39,807 of all types produced, and 7,540 AC produced as of April 1945.

Concerning the .50 my thoughts were AOI would effect the penetration vs the plates and could be penetrated by the .50 also my sources do not state it was spaced armor.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

Bastables
05-28-2004, 02:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
[

Well Bast why dont you explain to me how a direct quote is a manipulation of the source?.

Your position is that the G-14 in the report was a fluke & does not represent the majority of Bf 109 production, if i'm reading that right & my posiition is, no one knows whether this example is an anomaly or isn't, we can speculate all we want on it.

Am I sugesting IL-2 model all G-14s etc this way etc, nope, I'm merely provideing and example of armor protection on a shot down 109.

IMHO The G-14 was produced the way it was from either material shortages Ie, no self sealing fuel tank & plywood around the tank, but the MW 50 tank was armored, or sabatage.

The Allies managed to CAP German AC production in 1944 because the dispersed factories relied on stocked material which allowed production to peak in 1944.

After the stock piled material dried up & the transportation net was continualy reduced production dropped accordingly. The German production goal in 1944 was IIRC 80,000 AC vs 39,807 of all types produced, and 7,540 AC produced as of April 1945.

Concerning the .50 my thoughts were AOI would effect the penetration vs the plates and could be penetrated by the .50 also my sources do not state it was spaced armor.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So out 5000 + G14 manufactured you post a single and apparently outlier form of G-14 armour without stating that it is an anomaly. Not quite as bad as referencing tests of G-2 with underwing cannons to show how poor the G2 is at turning, but it is creeping to that zone. In this you pick the worst and isolated case to support your argument that German aircraft were not heavily armoured. This may not have been how you meant it but, it a very odd report to bring out.

Bastables
05-28-2004, 02:52 AM
John I'll send you a pic of the A-8 armour config, in it you can see that the 5mm armour is spaced to the seat armour and helps in ptotecting the pilot from 50 cal rounds from rear aspect attacks.

Message your current email and I'll get my scanner cracking

Bastables
05-28-2004, 02:59 AM
It's also of intrest that the IL2 armour protecting pilot and engine only ranged from 4mm to 12mm

PzKpfw
05-28-2004, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
So out 5000 + G14 manufactured you post a single and apparently outlier form of G-14 armour without stating that it is an anomaly. Not quite as bad as referencing tests of G-2 with underwing cannons to show how poor the G2 is at turning, but it is creeping to that zone. In this you pick the worst and isolated case to support your argument that German aircraft were not heavily armoured. This may not have been how you meant it but, it a very odd report to bring out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bast I did not 'pick' anything their may have been 5000 G-14 produced but their are very few Allied reports on late war Bf 109, in fact this the only one I have seen, and it's the first report to identify the G-14 as a new type Bf 109. I have no other reports to use to compare etc, to pick a 'worst' or 'isolated' or best case etc.

If you have a better Allied report on a G-14 etc, then post it. Also exactly when did I post anything on the G-2 with underwing cannon turn radius?.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

PBNA-Boosher
05-28-2004, 08:26 PM
The P-51 and P-63 are easy to down if you're a good shot. Aim for that weak engine. They may be good fighters, but once you're behind them, they suck.

Bastables
05-29-2004, 03:27 AM
G2+underwing cannons tested verus Mustang III is a oft used report and is used throught internet aircraft boards to ?prove? that the mustang could outturn all 109s, many times the bit about underwing cannons goes unstated.

I brought it up as it is similar to your report on the G-14 armour, and appreantlly used to the same effect.

Try this= Alles-Fernandez: 'Classics of the Air' (Exeter Books [USA], 1988; Bf 109 G-14 cutaway drawing (p. 232, 233)

PzKpfw
05-29-2004, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
G2+underwing cannons tested verus Mustang III is a oft used report and is used throught internet aircraft boards to ?prove? that the mustang could outturn all 109s, many times the bit about underwing cannons goes unstated.

I brought it up as it is similar to your report on the G-14 armour, and appreantlly used to the same effect.

Try this= Alles-Fernandez: 'Classics of the Air' (Exeter Books [USA], 1988; Bf 109 G-14 cutaway drawing (p. 232, 233)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Bast, I don't see the relevance of the G-2 turn tests, with the British report on the G-14 armor. You have misaread or confused my posts content, or are delibertly trying to twist the content. Which would be interesting in it's self, with you have accused me of here considering, you have come to me, for help on data etc, several times in the past.

Anyway it's apperent, you believe I'm trying to prove all G-14 had no armor etc, which I am not, as I have explained.

I also asked you to post another wartime report on the Bf 109G-14 etc so we could compare & you offer what appears to be an armor cut away drawing from a book, you did not state if this cut-away was an copyfrom US or British wartime reports.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

Bastables
05-29-2004, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
G2+underwing cannons tested verus Mustang III is a oft used report and is used throught internet aircraft boards to ?prove? that the mustang could outturn all 109s, many times the bit about underwing cannons goes unstated.

I brought it up as it is similar to your report on the G-14 armour, and appreantlly used to the same effect.

Try this= Alles-Fernandez: 'Classics of the Air' (Exeter Books [USA], 1988; Bf 109 G-14 cutaway drawing (p. 232, 233)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Bast, I don't see the relevance of the G-2 turn tests, with the British report on the G-14 armor. You have misaread or confused my posts content, or are delibertly trying to twist the content. Which would be interesting in it's self, with you have accused me of here considering, you have come to me, for help on data etc, several times in the past.

Anyway it's apperent, you believe I'm trying to prove all G-14 had no armor etc, which I am not, as I have explained.

I also asked you to post another wartime report on the Bf 109G-14 etc so we could compare & you offer what appears to be an armor cut away drawing from a book, you did not state if this cut-away was an copyfrom US or British wartime reports.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sigh.

The parallels are very simple: During disscussions of 109 turninsg circles people pick the worst case of bringing up reports of tests conducted with G2 and G6 with underwing cannons in order to prove that the 109 was an awful turning machine.

You, in discussions of luftwaffe planes late war armour do not mention that the seat armour was doubly protected due to spaced 5mm plates in 190A-8; and then bring up a single G-14 that may be field modified for any number of reasons as proof that German planes were not well armoured, or less well armoured than the P51. So you misinterprate the armour configuration of the A-8 and bring up a single outlier report. If the parallels with the underwing cannon tests are not apparent, then that is a problem with your ability to infer.

I?ve given you an opening, the book has a paper trail behind it, the draftman even has an email. You can either carry out reserch on the G series armour or continue to rely on a single british report. Really not my problem.

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2004, 11:29 PM
I seem to remember reading posts somewhere that those extra 5mm plates were
aluminum and soft to strip incendiary material from rounds coming through
than to actually stop them. Seat armor was hard steel.

You pour a load of shots into those aluminum plates and they are effectively
gone. The seat back is something else, but from close range I would expect
a good chance at penetration of 1/4" (6mm-6.5mm) armor by an AP round. It
depends on the angle of impact and was 190 seats tilted back how far?

What kind of armor was on the P-51 besides a fuel tank?


Neal

PzKpfw
05-30-2004, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
Sigh.

The parallels are very simple: During disscussions of 109 turninsg circles people pick the worst case of bringing up reports of tests conducted with G2 and G6 with underwing cannons in order to prove that the 109 was an awful turning machine.

You, in discussions of luftwaffe planes late war armour do not mention that the seat armour was doubly protected due to spaced 5mm plates in 190A-8; and then bring up a single G-14 that may be field modified for any number of reasons as proof that German planes were not well armoured, or less well armoured than the P51. So you misinterprate the armour configuration of the A-8 and bring up a single outlier report. If the parallels with the underwing cannon tests are not apparent, then that is a problem with your ability to infer.

I?ve given you an opening, the book has a paper trail behind it, the draftman even has an email. You can either carry out reserch on the G series armour or continue to rely on a single british report. Really not my problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You continue to infer that I am stateing that the G-14 in the report, represents all G-14. I never stated any such thing. Their are no parallels in your G-2 example as I never claimed all G-14 had no armor etc.


I used the British G-14 report because its an actual wartime report, not from a book that details factory specs. The assertion was German fighters were more heavily armored then the P-51 etc. I brought up the G-14 as an wartime example of Bf 109 armor or lack of in this instance. & to point out that neither US nor German fighters were so armored that they were any more imprevious to each others, standard armament.

I asked you to post a Allied report on a G-14 to compare to the British report. You gave me refrence title, with a cut away drawing of armor, I already have books with cutaway drawings showing the spec'd Bf 109G-6 etc armor & locations.

None of this explains why the G-14 in the report had no armor, nor do I, nor anyone else to date posting here, or anywhere else to my knowledge, has an explanation for this, or have an inkling, if or how many, other Bf 109 were or were not, produced that way etc.

One way to research it would, as I already sugested be to get several Allied reports on G-14s & compare the armor data. As to the Fw 190 seat armor, the Soviets found the US .50 cleanly penetrated Bf 109G rear seat armor at over 400m.


If you want to rely on your data & dismiss the British G-14 report offhand your entitled to. If you want to continue to follow this vein, of misreprsentation of my posts content, knock yourself out.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Sun May 30 2004 at 06:37 AM.]

Bastables
05-30-2004, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I seem to remember reading posts somewhere that those extra 5mm plates were
aluminum and soft to strip incendiary material from rounds coming through
than to actually stop them. Seat armor was hard steel.

You pour a load of shots into those aluminum plates and they are effectively
gone. The seat back is something else, but from close range I would expect
a good chance at penetration of 1/4" (6mm-6.5mm) armor by an AP round. It
depends on the angle of impact and was 190 seats tilted back how far?

What kind of armor was on the P-51 besides a fuel tank?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neal:
You?ll find that is reference to a soviet tactics hand book detailing the 109G2 armour configuration and refers to the 18mm aluminium sheeting behind the fuel tanks. The Fw190 5mm spaced plates were FH armour.


As to John, whatever you want to belive.