PDA

View Full Version : V-1s immune to gunfire



lbhskier37
07-16-2005, 11:02 AM
Shouldn't one be able to down a V-1 just by shooting at it? Right now the .50s just bounce off doing no damage. The only way to drop one seems to be flipping it, which I am not steady enough to do.

harryklein66
07-16-2005, 11:39 AM
I noticed that too, sometimes they explode at the first hit, but sometimes they can take the full ammunition of the P51C and still flying with no damage.
It sound like a bug.

FritzGryphon
07-16-2005, 04:16 PM
The same problems are present with the Bi-1 and Ohka. The rocket engine and fuel are invulnerable.

|CoB|_Spectre
07-16-2005, 04:47 PM
This must be something new because, when the V-1 was first added, one had to be careful to keep a safe distance when shooting at it. The explosion was quite large and would take the shooter out with it at ranges common to aircraft targets.

harryklein66
07-16-2005, 07:07 PM
it still make the big blast, but somtimes only,
the remainder of the time nothing happen when you hit the engine or the fuselage, but wing hit make it roll and dive

Covino
07-18-2005, 08:35 PM
BUMP

I've experienced these issues as well. Also, in the BI-1 campaign, in the original IL-2, you were warned in training to never attempt a gear up ditch, due to the extremely volatile rocket fuel. It used to be correct, in that a gear up ditch was impossible, but now it's one of the easiest planes to ditch with the gear up.

Kurfurst__
07-21-2005, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Shouldn't one be able to down a V-1 just by shooting at it? Right now the .50s just bounce off doing no damage. The only way to drop one seems to be flipping it, which I am not steady enough to do.

I think it`s right. V-1`s main body was made from rather thick STEEL... quite invulnerable to gunfire, perhaps cannons are effective. This was a problem in real life, and alternate methods of disabling the buzzbomb were developed, ie. kicking it off from flight path.

Try aiming for the jet unit on the top, that should be more vulnerable..

Atomic_Marten
07-21-2005, 02:18 PM
Well V-1s can still be destroyed by 'wingover'; but that requires a lot of patience.
Safest bet is accurate burst into Fieseler's engine.

harryklein66
07-21-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I think it`s right. V-1`s main body was made from rather thick STEEL... quite invulnerable to gunfire, perhaps cannons are effective. This was a problem in real life, and alternate methods of disabling the buzzbomb were developed, ie. kicking it off from flight path.

Try aiming for the jet unit on the top, that should be more vulnerable..

http://www.global-military.info/acpics/v1-3.jpg
I think that the alternate methods were developed because the BLAST of the V-1 can damage/destroy the fighter that shot the V-1 down.
More over with 830 kg explosive, 568 liters of fuel, and 2 compressed air tanks, hit in the
fuselage should make something...

Gibbage1
07-21-2005, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I think it`s right. V-1`s main body was made from rather thick STEEL... quite invulnerable to gunfire, perhaps cannons are effective. This was a problem in real life, and alternate methods of disabling the buzzbomb were developed, ie. kicking it off from flight path.

Try aiming for the jet unit on the top, that should be more vulnerable..

Ow wow. This goes with the "There is no B-35" level f BS. How thick was this steel Issy? Did it cover the entire aircraft? Do you have proof that it was invulnerable to gunfire?

"The body was a simple steel tube filled with fuel, a 2,000 lb warhead, and a primitive guidance system"

Sorry. A steel tube is NOT armor that "invulnerable" to gunfire.

Plenty of guncam footage will confirm that they were NOT inverlerable.

p1ngu666
07-21-2005, 06:26 PM
biggest problems with them was catching them, and then hittin the small target...

unless u was in a tempest, in which case u could overtake them in level flight, in a insolent display of supority http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

the low angle of the body would make rounds deflect, but it was certainly vunrable if hit, also the rudder and elivator and gyro pilot are all at the *** end, so damage any of that and itll go ofcourse. atleast one turned around 180degrees back to france http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gibbage1
07-21-2005, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

the low angle of the body would make rounds deflect, but it was certainly vunrable if hit, also the rudder and elivator and gyro pilot are all at the *** end, so damage any of that and itll go ofcourse. atleast one turned around 180degrees back to france http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ya, but it had a range of 250 miles. Unless they were half-way over the coast when it turned around, it would not make it all the way back. In all, the V1 was a very ineffective weapon. Only about 25% reached there target and the bulk of those were before the Allies set up a good defense. In the end, 98% were shot down before they got to the english coast by a TRUE Allied advance. The VT fused 5" shell. Luftwaffe only WISHED they could develop something like that.

lbhskier37
07-21-2005, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

the low angle of the body would make rounds deflect, but it was certainly vunrable if hit, also the rudder and elivator and gyro pilot are all at the *** end, so damage any of that and itll go ofcourse. atleast one turned around 180degrees back to france http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ya, but it had a range of 250 miles. Unless they were half-way over the coast when it turned around, it would not make it all the way back. In all, the V1 was a very ineffective weapon. Only about 25% reached there target and the bulk of those were before the Allies set up a good defense. In the end, 98% were shot down before they got to the english coast by a TRUE Allied advance. The VT fused 5" shell. Luftwaffe only WISHED they could develop something like that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its a good thing they didn't. With the number of flak guns the LW had around the big cities, imagine the numbers of bombers we would have lost with proximity shells http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Gibbage1
07-21-2005, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:

Its a good thing they didn't. With the number of flak guns the LW had around the big cities, imagine the numbers of bombers we would have lost with proximity shells http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

It would of stopped large formation bombing.

The first field test of VT fuse was in the Pacific. 3 shells were fired at a formation of 3 Betty bombers. 2 Betty's were shot down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Kurfurst__
07-21-2005, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ow wow. This goes with the "There is no B-35" level f BS. How thick was this steel Issy? Did it cover the entire aircraft? Do you have proof that it was invulnerable to gunfire?.

LOL, Garbage the Forum`s No1 idiot arrived. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If somebody does not know what hurt Garbage`s feelings, is that I throughly proven his P-38late he whined into the game is total fantasy and lack any connection with reality.
It also hurt Garbage that he made some funny claims... I proven him wrong, shown him as the fool he is... mapped the floor with his hide... twice. Look here : http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3351093733/p/22
He was unalbe to provide proof for the fantasy plane in 28 pages, full of his rantings!

You can imagine the level of inferiority complex he developed.




"The body was a simple steel tube filled with fuel, a 2,000 lb warhead, and a primitive guidance system"

Sorry. A steel tube is NOT armor that "invulnerable" to gunfire.

It is, if it comes in enough thickness, and the angle of hits is very unfavourable for the striking bullets.
The V-1 has enough thickness, and the angle of hits is very unfavourable for the striking bullets. Most bullets will simply bounce off from the skin at such angle, even if it was soft iron.



Plenty of guncam footage will confirm that they were NOT inverlerable.

Yep, when hit with powerful enough caliber, ie. 20mm.
The .50s are pea shooters, girlguns, fired from obsolate toy guns, utterly useless against strong steel casing of the V-1. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Kurfurst__
07-21-2005, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
It would of stopped large formation bombing.

The first field test of VT fuse was in the Pacific. 3 shells were fired at a formation of 3 Betty bombers. 2 Betty's were shot down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

... and then you woke up m8, looked all the mess on your clothes and said : I will never dring that much cheap beer ! It makes me telling my usual nationlistic fantasies to people! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

ImpStarDuece
07-21-2005, 09:18 PM
I have often encountered this bug myself, particularly attempting to set up some V1 intercepts with the +25lbs Mustang III to simulate some Operation Diver missions, the initial reason that the Merlin was boosted to such levels.

The V1 did not have a particularly strong construction.

Yes, it was made of steel instead of aluminium. But, it didn't have a "thick STEEL" construction. Instead, in the interests of preserving wartime materials, the V1 was made from a plywood frame with stamped sheet steel wrapped around it. Only the wings had steel spars. While this was still resilient to machine gun fire, it hardly made it invulnerable. Mustang III pilots were credited with 232 V1 kills (as compared with 303 Spitfire XIV claims, 428 Mosquito claims and 638 Tempest claims, plus other Typhoon and Spitifre IX claims) so the V1 was hardly immune to 12.7 mm fire.

The general rule of thumb with missiles is that weight degrades performance. So to armour something to withstand 12.7 API strikes, even a missile the size of the Feisler 103, would mean that it would be far to heavy to be effective. A US M2 API round fired from a (short) 45" barrel generally pierces 15mm (+/-2mm) RHA at 500m so you would proably need 7-8 mm of hard steel to be sure of stopping/deflecting the round. That much steel is going to weigh a LOT. It would be like trying to make the barrle of a cannon fly.

I'd say that .303 ammunition would be close to useless against a V1 unless it hit the pulse jet or was used at VERY close range >100m. 12.7 mm ammunition would stand a good chance of penetrating, particularly if fired from less than 400 meters. 20mm would be the prefered weapon because of its greater AP and Incidenary effects.

Gibbage1
07-21-2005, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Mustang III pilots were credited with 232 V1 kills (as compared with 303 Spitfire XIV claims, 428 Mosquito claims and 638 Tempest claims, plus other Typhoon and Spitifre IX claims) so the V1 was hardly immune to 12.7 mm fire.


Well according to Issy, V1's were armored with steel and imune to .50 cal fire! That must mean the Mustang III's were armored with 20MM Hispano?! QUICK! Someone contact Oleg! I think I found a bug!

Gibbage1
07-21-2005, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


... and then you woke up m8, looked all the mess on your clothes and said : I will never dring that much cheap beer ! It makes me telling my usual nationlistic fantasies to people! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://www.smecc.org/radio_proximity_fuzes.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/pics/shell2.jpg

You know Issy. You really cant learn about US weapons from Luftwaffe books. You should get a brauder education beyond your sci-fi books that claim the Luftwaffe won WWII.

The VT Radio fuse shell was real, did a real good job, and was used in both the Pacific and in Europ with GREAT success. More successfull then any other German super weapon.

"Success in destroying the V-1 rocket bombs by gunfire increased proportionally with the increase in the use of VT-fuzed projectiles. In the last month of the terrifying 80 days, 79 percent of the bombs engaged were destroyed as compared with the 24 percent destroyed during the first week of the attacks. On the last day of large-scale attacks only 4 Of 104 bombs succeeded in reaching their target. Some of the 100 destroyed are credited to the Royal Air Force and to the barrage balloons, but the majority of the V-1€s were victims of proximity-fuzed projectiles."

The VT fuse is a true technological advancement and wonder weapon, and it was NOT made by Germany. Lufties like you WISH they could sweap this kind of stuff under the carpet so you can contenue to claim that Germany was the cornerstone of all advanced weapons in WWII. You still think Germany invented the liquid fuel rocket. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BTW, the Buzzbomb was a rather small target. 100 our of 104. Nice kill ratio for a large 5" gun with a slow rate of fire. Just think of what the VT fuse would do to a pack of slow flying B-17's.

theco
07-22-2005, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

the low angle of the body would make rounds deflect, but it was certainly vunrable if hit, also the rudder and elivator and gyro pilot are all at the *** end, so damage any of that and itll go ofcourse. atleast one turned around 180degrees back to france http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ya, but it had a range of 250 miles. Unless they were half-way over the coast when it turned around, it would not make it all the way back. In all, the V1 was a very ineffective weapon. Only about 25% reached there target and the bulk of those were before the Allies set up a good defense. In the end, 98% were shot down before they got to the english coast by a TRUE Allied advance. The VT fused 5" shell. Luftwaffe only WISHED they could develop something like that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what made the V1 so much better than the V2. The V2 was ustoppable. The V1, on the other hand, used up allied resouces. (fast) Fighters had to be used up to counter them.

p1ngu666
07-22-2005, 06:41 AM
depends if the aim is to draw resources away, or todo damage.

they where good terror weapons, i dont think they where acurate enuff to hit a certain buliding or small area, but there good for a large area

Kurfurst__
07-22-2005, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You know Issy. You really cant learn about US weapons from Luftwaffe books. You should get a brauder education beyond your sci-fi books that claim the Luftwaffe won WWII.

It`s truely entertaining to attempt a discussion with you, on par with attempting a discussion with a 5 year old kid... But thanks for telling me the content of the stupid books you read... I have never read such ****, never even imagined somebody would write the LW won ww2... until you told me.



The VT Radio fuse shell was real, did a real good job, and was used in both the Pacific and in Europ with GREAT success. More successfull then any other German super weapon.

Of course Gibbage, Germans always inferior to the great Americans blahblahblah. You are so full of hatred and bias than nobody else in this board, that`s for sure. NOBODY here makes this stupid ranting all the time about either German/American stuff being superior to American/German stuff, JUST YOU. Nobody is such an idiot here, Gib, except you.

Just look at the reaction. Someone mentions the V-1 was made out of steel, and he gets a heart attack and starts his usual rantings about inferior Germans, superior Americans... if the latter are sooo superior btw... why do they have to tell it to themselves all the time?



The VT fuse is a true technological advancement and wonder weapon, and it was NOT made by Germany.

Excuse me, VT fuse a 'wonder weapon'? What`s a 'wonder weapon' anyways?
And as usual, you are wrong about Germany not developing VT fuses. It did Gibbage. Of course you hate Germans so much you won`t give any credit them even if it`s due...

There were many things/fields in which Germany was ahead and many things where the Allies, simple as that.




Lufties like you WISH they could sweap this kind of stuff under the carpet so you can contenue to claim that Germany was the cornerstone of all advanced weapons in WWII.

I think you are idiot, my friend, living in a black and white, paranoid world. I pity you.


You still think Germany invented the liquid fuel rocket. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

OH, I really do, or is it just an asshat with an inferiority complex making up new lies?



BTW, the Buzzbomb was a rather small target. 100 our of 104. Nice kill ratio for a large 5" gun with a slow rate of fire.

You can`t spell, and you have reading comprehension problems as well. Your source doesn`t even tell that 100 V-1s shot down by AAA alone, even less that they were shot down by 5" guns. Statistics show the aircraft and AAA shared on the kills ca 50/50, some felling to balloons.

I can imagine how many hundreds of tons of AA ammo was fired up in the air, just to bring down one.


Just think of what the VT fuse would do to a pack of slow flying B-17's.

Probably ugly things, but the flak already did very ugly things. Curiusly, the Germans who also developed proximity fuses were thinkning about using a contact fuse - fragments were not destructive enough, and direct hits would be preferred. Their solution to AAA was a bit more advanced than just upgrading the old guns with new fuses - guided SAM rockets, copied by Soviets for the 1st generation SAMs.

Tater-SW-
07-22-2005, 05:47 PM
VT was stunningly effective. It was a massive force multiplier in terms of AAA.

tater

Copperhead310th
07-22-2005, 11:37 PM
<span class="ev_code_RED">Post violoates Terms of Use. Member banned.</span>

Gibbage1
07-23-2005, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Excuse me, VT fuse a 'wonder weapon'? What`s a 'wonder weapon' anyways?
And as usual, you are wrong about Germany not developing VT fuses. It did Gibbage. Of course you hate Germans so much you won`t give any credit them even if it`s due...


Show me.

Monson74
07-25-2005, 04:15 AM
Is it just me or is the V-1 way too slow. I thought it was supposed to go 390 mph but it's rather like 380 km/h - mistake from dev team?

WOLFMondo
07-25-2005, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Shouldn't one be able to down a V-1 just by shooting at it? Right now the .50s just bounce off doing no damage. The only way to drop one seems to be flipping it, which I am not steady enough to do.

I think it`s right. V-1`s main body was made from rather thick STEEL... quite invulnerable to gunfire, perhaps cannons are effective. This was a problem in real life, and alternate methods of disabling the buzzbomb were developed, ie. kicking it off from flight path.

Try aiming for the jet unit on the top, that should be more vulnerable.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw an interview with a Tempest pilot regarding V1's. They had there guns set to 300 yards after some experimentation and would often just shoot them with there 20mm cannons from way back. They did loose several pilots to explosions when there guns where set to a smaller convergence. Theres allot of images of scarred and burnt Tempests which got to close when they blew up the V1's but made it back in 1 peice.

Interestingly he mentioned a couple of facts. As far as he is aware no Meteors where ever used to shoot down V1's, its was pure propaganda.

Also a Typhoon once shot down a V1 with its rockets. Returning from France with 2 rockets still attached the Tyhpoon was falling behind the V1 so the pilot raised the nose of the Typhoon and fire off the rockets in an arc in a desperate attempt to shoot the V1 down and the rockets hit the V1.

After this they experimented with rockets with different fuses but it never worked out. From what I gather shooting them down was actually the prefered method because it destroyed the warhead, there was always a chance in the wing over the V1 could land on a populated area...and the south east of the UK is very densly populated.

WOLFMondo
07-25-2005, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Monson74:
Is it just me or is the V-1 way too slow. I thought it was supposed to go 390 mph but it's rather like 380 km/h - mistake from dev team?

Its probably slow like that so the P51D in the default mission can catch it.

Kurfurst__
07-25-2005, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Interestingly he mentioned a couple of facts. As far as he is aware no Meteors where ever used to shoot down V1's, its was pure propaganda.

I am not sure... now you say it, I have never seen any data regarding the V-1 kills of Meteors, as opposed to pistonengind fighters. Somewhere I read though the Meteor had serious teething problems at that time (the first operational trials just started in July), one of the being the ever occuring jamming of it`s Hispanos. AFAIK this was attributed to faults in the spent case ejector, the cartridges piled up etc. So basically they had nothing to shoot with

I just found some good pictures on V-1s on the production line. Luckily the nose is not attached, and you can see the wall thickness, it looks very thick. I`d say easily more than an inch. After all, it`s a bomb, the body has to sustain the damage when it hits a structure, or punches through several levels of a building...And at such extreme angles the bullets hit it, almost anything would deflect the bullet. Tony Williams has accoutns of B17 gunners reporting bullets bouncing off the cowling of the Bf 109, even though there was no armor there, simply the angle was too steep! The RAF also applied a kind of 'armor' (not really) to Spitfires over the header fuel tank. It was simply a thicker piece of aluminium, but it was hoped it would deflect away rounds.

WOLFMondo
07-25-2005, 06:38 AM
I very much doubt the RAF would have put the Meteor up against the V1, teething problems aside its performance at that time was probably inferior to the Tempests except in a prolonged level flight at higher altitudes.

Also having a V1 explode 300 yards away and having the debris sucked into the very delicate and tempramental jet engines would have probably been near fatal. I don't think the Meteor was to nimble at first either so a wing over with delicate manouvers and throttle control would have been possible.

Zyzbot
07-25-2005, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I very much doubt the RAF would have put the Meteor up against the V1, teething problems aside its performance at that time was probably inferior to the Tempests except in a prolonged level flight at higher altitudes.

Also having a V1 explode 300 yards away and having the debris sucked into the very delicate and tempramental jet engines would have probably been near fatal. I don't think the Meteor was to nimble at first either so a wing over with delicate manouvers and throttle control would have been possible.

So...this is all made up?

"The first operational sorties were flown on 27 July, and on 4 August, near Tonbridge, Flying Officer Dean destroyed the first Vl fiying bomb to be claimed by a jet fighter, using the Meteor's wingtip to tip it over into a spin after the aircraft's four 20 mm cannon had jammed. On the same day, Flying Officer Roger shot down a second V1 near Tenterden."


From 616 Squadron history with Meteor jets:

4 August 1944 A big day for the squadron, so the following is a full extract of the reason why. "F/O Dean took off from Manston at 1545 to patrol inland area under Kingsley II (Biggin Hill) Control. At 1616 hours a Diver was sighted at 1000 ft near Tonbridge on course of 330?, at speed of 365 IAS. Dean dived down from 4500 ft at speed of 450 mph, and attacked from dead astern; his 4 x 20mm cannons failed to fire owing to a technical trouble now being investigated, so flying level alongside the bomb, Dean maneuvered his wing tip a few inches under the wing of the flying bomb and by pulling upwards sharply he sent the bomb diving to earth four miles South of Tonbridge.F/O J.K.Rodger sighted a Diver at 1640 hrs. near Tenterden on course of 318? at 3000 ft speed 340 mph. Attacking from astern Rodger fired 2 bursts of 2 seconds and saw the Diver crash and explode, 5 miles N.W. of Tenterden.The Squadron now thrilled at the first two kills are ready for more."
5 August 1944 2 more Meteors delivered.
7 August 1944 'Dixie' Dean gets another V1 near Horsham at 0620, using up all his ammo on it.
10 August 1944 Dean gets another V1 near Ashford.
15 August 1944 The last of the Spitfire VII goes, although the squadron seems to have kept at least one Spitfire V for ferrying pilots.F/Sgt D.A.Gregg killed trying to land at Great Chart airfield after abortive attempt to fly to High Halden.
16 August 1944 F/O McKenzie brings down a V1 (shot the wing off).F/O Mullender (Belgium) claims a V1.
17 August 1944 F/O Ritch, W/O Woodacre, and F/Sgt Easy each claim a V1.
19 August 1944 F/O Hobson and F/Sgt Watts each claim a V1.
28 August 1944 F/O Hobson and F/Sgt Epps share a V1 kill.
29 August 1944 F/O Miller destroys a V1 SW of Sittingbourne.W/Cdr McDowell crash landed 3 miles South of Manston. His a/c is badly damaged but McDowell escapes with a few cuts.


http://www.redtwo.demon.co.uk/616/jets.htm

WOLFMondo
07-25-2005, 09:11 AM
I was just going on what a Tempest pilot said in an interview. He stated it was all propaganda.

If theres evidence saying something to the contrary then that cannot be disputed.

FritzGryphon
07-25-2005, 08:16 PM
nt

OldMan____
07-27-2005, 06:08 AM
By using thompson and Krupps armor penetration formulae. It would need around 9 mm of armor to have any reasonable effect againt .50 gunfire (that at odd angles.. at flatter angles general rule of thumb says 1:1 relation between armor and caliber). So maybe a few times a V1 was saved rom .50 gunfire because of its steel cover. But this was probably not common.

But It would not be THTA hard to just remove lets say 40 kg from payload and ammo and put a cone armor at bakc capable of deflecting most .50 gunfire from dead 6. But germans did not made it.

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
By using thompson and Krupps armor penetration formulae. It would need around 9 mm of armor to have any reasonable effect againt .50 gunfire (that at odd angles..

How much woukd 10MM thick sheet steel weight per square foot? I dont even think 10MM could even be considerd "sheet". They made the V1 out of sheet steel.

Kurfurst__
07-27-2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
By using thompson and Krupps armor penetration formulae. It would need around 9 mm of armor to have any reasonable effect againt .50 gunfire (that at odd angles.. at flatter angles general rule of thumb says 1:1 relation between armor and caliber).

The problem with that most of the hits from behind on the V-1`s body would come in totally extreme angles... 70-80 at best case. There`s no way a relatively small shot would not deflect from any more serious material, simply the nose can`t dig in before ricochet happens. I`ve seen you know Nathan Okun`s work, it`s worth to read his experience with BATTLESHIP caliber shells at deflection (14-16" ones...). Even these monster shells were rejected by mild steel decks at 80 degrees hit and above. Remember the British used thin aluminium deflector plates on the Spit for this purpose. Either they were stupid or they knew hits can bounce of at high angles from even weak materials.

I also looked up some penetration curves for similiar caliber guns (MG 131. granted not as powerful as the M2, but I don`t have angle-vs-range-thickness tables for the latter). These are very telling about the effect of deflection:

at 100m, the gun penetrates :
17mm at 0degrees
10mm at 30 degrees
4.5mm at 60 degrees - this would equal a T-34`s front plate solution if hit from ahead, not very extreme.
I guess the 70-80 degrees we deal in the V-1 case would mean 2-3mm penetration...

100m of course is very close, unlikely to shoot at the V-1, blast etc.

at 300m/600m, the gun penetrates :
9/5.5mm at 0degrees
7/4.5mm at 30 degrees
3.5/2mm at 60 degrees - T-34`s front plate case, again.

Then there`s no data for 70-80 degrees, that` how you hit the V-1 from behind. but you can guess... insignificant. So hardly a chance to kill the body. ad1, the rounds would most likely deflect at the extreme angle. Even if not, their penetrative capability is marginal at such angles.

OldMan____
07-27-2005, 06:09 PM
You are right that at extremely odd angles it could possibly be deflected. But that would require exact 6 o clok position (and not hit the engine) and at a not very favorable convergence angle. When you make a burst of 2 seconds on a V1 you will probably hit something at an angle that can destroy it.


So it is possible that soem shots were deflected.. but is hardly possible that any P51 ever left a V1 pursuit because it felt unable to damage it with all its ammo.

BTW generally above bullet bite angle (about 60-65 degress for most AP bullets) we usually do not consider any chance on penetration on quality stell > 1/4 of bullet diameter. But that for true armor steel... not simple construction steel.

Gibbage1
07-27-2005, 06:24 PM
Well from dead 6, you wont hit much of the body. You would be hitting the tail cone. The tail cone is tapered. If your hitting the body, then it was from the dive the pilots went into, again its giving a better penetration angle. But P-51's shot down V1's and thats proof that its not "invulnerable" to .50 cal.

Kurfurst__
07-27-2005, 06:29 PM
"So it is possible that soem shots were deflected.. but is hardly possible that any P51 ever left a V1 pursuit because it felt unable to damage it with all its ammo."

I totally agree with you. it`s all about angles, at good angles the rounds should be able to pass through without difficulties. Also while I feel the fuselage is not so vulnerable from dead six, the control surfaces and the engine ARE.. as I pointed out in my first post.

Now as for contruction steel vs. armored steel, the point is taken. As you probably know, deflection is basically a race between the bullet biting it`s head into the material, and the bullet nose being deflected away from the material. The quality should be a factor in this, but i think it would only effect the critical angle.In case of a 13mm bullet, the critical 1/4 thicknesss is about 3-4mm.
- think again on the thickened aluminium plates (hardly armored steel quality..) used by the brits above the spitty`s fuel tank as deflection armor. Could work, at good angles. True armor? By no means!

OldMan____
07-28-2005, 06:32 AM
I am glad we are all getting into a mutual conlusion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

About spitfire armor. Of course if english kept using it during war it was because it was somehow effective. But this armor is inside armor (inside another layer of something). That helps alot in a way few people realise.


An xample: The Bismark BB had a much tinner armor than Yamato, and it was theoreticaly less protected than american BB either (although US BB were made to fight at distance while Bismark was made to close combat). But it used a smart trick to have absolute imunity on side belt armor (the main armor in close combat where hits are horizontal):

When a bullet goes trough any armor without breaking, it tends to change its course. In the same way that light is refracted when hits water. The exit angle (angle between bullet flight path and armor plate after it crossed the plate) is going to be near the NORMAL vector of the armor surface. That means that by using a n average piece of armor that will pe penetrated most of time, the engineers may be sure of exactly (or almost exactly) the flight path of bullet after it crossed the armor. After that you just need to place a second layer of armor at 60 degrees after the first one. So you will be sure second layer will be hit at an extremely unfavorable angle... deflecting the bullet no matter how huge it is. In Bismark case the bullet went directly UP cutting trought decks..but it would not hit any machinery. Unfortunately (for germans) this type of protection could not be used in main castle and turrets, exactly the points where Bismark was struck with deadly force. But a horizontal hit at main armor belt could deflect even the Yamato guns at point blank range!!!


Usually inside angled armor is used to acomplish this effect, and I beleive spit(and many planes) armor do the same.

ImpStarDuece
07-28-2005, 07:10 AM
What OldMan is talking about is the phenomenon of 'projectile yaw' and spaced armours.

Projectile yaw is a fact of armour penetration that has been known for around 80 years. It was the British and Germans who did the pioneering work on the subject, mostly because of their large surface battle fleets. It is also one of the reasons why a lot of modern tanks have 'vertical' surfaces. Check out a lot of the earlier versions of the Leopard 2 for an example.

While vertical armour offers less protection against standard AP shot, it may offer increased protection against sabot projectiles. Unfortunatley that comes with the trade off against deflection angles, but armour protection is always a serise of trade offs.

The West Germans apparently did tests with Soviet sabot ammo during the 1970s. They concluded that the lenght and shape of the penetrator was such that vertical armour would significantly increase the yaw of the projectile and either break or disturb the penetration enough to stop the penetrator, or force it to strike the secondary and spaced armours at unfavourable angles. The length of the Soviet long-rod sabots was limited by the autoloader that all the T-xx serise after the T-64 possed. Current generation Soviet tanks (T-90, T-80UB) have a larger autoloader carosel with accordingly much beter lenght/thickness ratios for their sabots.

Of course the Lepoard also used spaced, laminated and ceramic armours in its construction, so it had a bet both ways. But during the late 70's and early 80's the Germans were quite confident that the vertical armour on the frontal arc of their tanks was more effective than sloped armour against the penetrators of the period. It seems counter intuitive until you look at the mechanics of projectil yaw, something that I tried to understand while doing university and never *quite* got.

More recently the armour upgrades to the Leopard have gone back towards sloped armour, probably as a response to increased sabot lengths (M-829b/c from a 120mm NATO standard Rhienmetall will probably pierce anything frontally at combat ranges though).

A lot of WW2 aircraft armour was deemed to be sufficient becasue of the unfavourable angles of striking that firing from 6 O'Clock produced. I will did up some of the Blenheim tests that I have on my HDD. They were very interesting, showing the relevant performance of .303, .50, 20mm and maybe some German calibres (7.92?)

OldMan____
07-28-2005, 07:45 AM
Unfortunatelly in case of batteships this type of armor uses too much space. Since the bullets are huge.. the spacing is not just a few centimeters. That creates an area that can be flooded and prejudice floating reserves.


On airplans space was not a problem (specially behind the pilot). The main issue was weight. So this type of armor was a good choice.


If you have any data on armor vs bullet on WW2 planes (or anything else like tanks or BB) I would appreciate any information you could spare. This may be usefull in my curretn game engine projet focused in realistic damage modeling and armor penetration.

BTW.. there is no current generation of SOVIET tanks :P Think russians deserve their own adjective http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
07-28-2005, 08:34 AM
Ah, got me there. Sorry, I spend too much time at Tank-net and they have a lot of old and crusty "Cold Warriors" ( as well as some more modern equavilents ) who still expect the Chinese, Russians, Islamicists, Yougoslavians or the French to come charging over some rise on a battle field in central Germany, tanks and APCs at the ready.

Still, most of the current Russian tank deployment and development is based of Soviet-era project. Even the Chiorney Oriel and T-95 projects are hangovers from the 80's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't have the reports on the Blenheim armour that I thought I did. They must be in Japan on a DVD. I get back in a week so I'll see if I can find them.

Rings P.R.O site has some good ADFU and RAF documents though

Try this link, it has some good pages on Allied and Axis aircraft. Public Records Office Documents (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/)

ImpStarDuece
07-28-2005, 08:36 AM
Check the Axis plames section as well as the Weapnos section. There are some good tests on the .303 and the 20mm Hispano as well as the Mg151/20