PDA

View Full Version : Armor placement



HeinzBar
11-10-2005, 10:43 AM
S!,
Well, there's somewhat of a heated discussion of the FW190s engine durability vs the p47s engine durability. Some have explained that the reason the FWs engine is so much tougher than the p47's is due in part to the placement of armor on the FW and the lack there of on the p47. While I find both radials to be about the same when it comes to the amount of damage each one can sustain (4.02m), I have seen various inlines take shots that would have crippled the radials.

So, can anyone defend why the inlines in this game seem to withstand far more damage than the historically robust radials of ww2? I've seen diagrams of both the fw190 (with the armor placement) and the p-47. IIRC, the cooling system to the following planes was the Achillie's heel. Yet, this doesn't seem to be a factor for those planes. Of all the cutaways for Spitfires, p-51s, and p-38s I've seen, I can't recall any mention of engine armor or armor to protect the critical radiators. AFAIK, the only armor placed on those planes were back armor....perhaps, the firewall was armored?

Does anyone have data concerning this matter? Perhaps, someone w/ cutaways which will detail the armor placement of the inlines will post them?

Sincerely,
HB

kubanloewe
11-10-2005, 11:29 AM
the only Variants of 190´s which had a "Panzerring" (armored ring) in front of the cylinders and oilradiator where the Fighterbomberversions F and G. Also the heavy armored "Pulkzerst¶rer" flown by the "Sturmstaffeln" with MK108 and additional armored glass on the cockpit sides did have this armored ring in front of the engine.

faustnik
11-10-2005, 11:39 AM
All Fw190s had the cowl ring armor.

kubanloewe
11-10-2005, 12:35 PM
right but as i know there must be a difference between the normal Fighterprotection and the Fighterbombervariant F modell not only in stronger undercarriage and wings but also for the engine protection.

The Rammj¤ger modell did have this too.

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 01:03 PM
AFAIK the only in-line powered plane with cooling system protected in the game is Il-2.

For in-line cooling system is: the engine itself, coolant tank(s), piping to radiator, radiator, piping back to engine. No way to give it all armour protection, unless in a plane designed specifically to protect it all, as Il-2. And in fact leaving any part of the cooling system un-armoured would make armouring any other part of it close to sensless, so AFAIK no such thing was done. I think durability of in-lines in this game in a major fault, as there should be quantum leap in durability in favour of radials.

faustnik
11-10-2005, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by kubanloewe:
right but as i know there must be a difference between the normal Fighterprotection and the Fighterbombervariant F modell not only in stronger undercarriage and wings but also for the engine protection.

The Rammj¤ger modell did have this too.

Here is a link to an Fw190 armor chart, it has the standard A8 fighter, the A8 with BMW801TS and uparmored ring, and the sturm version:

Fw190A8 Armor (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/190-armor-1.jpg)

All BMW801D power eggs had the armored ring.

Some F versions had additional armor under the engine:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Fw190A4%20Armor.jpg

HeinzBar
11-10-2005, 05:49 PM
S!,
Well, I find it somewhat disappointing that no Spit, p-51, p-38, or any other inline engine fan couldn't dig up a little data concerning the durability/armor of these planes. I know I'm jumping the gun, but it does appear that the relative DM of inline vs radial seems to be way off in this game. Perhaps, the inlines need to be investigated in more depth rather than trying to understand the differences of the bmw 801 vs the PR 2800?

http://jagdverband44.com/Photos/p-51%20armor.jpg

I did manage to find a small diagram showing the armor placement on the p-51. One can instantly see how undefended that plane truely is when compared to the radials. Look at all of that unprotected space surrounding the Merlin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Visually, it appears to offer a greater target to engine damage than any radial we have in the game. I guess the same could be said about the spits, and doubly, the p38?

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 06:18 PM
Seems to me thats diagram of armour AND firewall behind engine. That bulkhead is not armourhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
11-10-2005, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Seems to me thats diagram of armour AND firewall behind engine. That bulkhead is not armourhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yes it was. The P-51's firewall was armor and was made of face-hardened and stainless steel.

SkyChimp
11-10-2005, 06:28 PM
Here is an interesting chart from the book "Victory Roll." It's self explanatory. Several conclusions can be drawn, I suppose. But the overriding conclusion must be that the P-47 was least likely of the 3 major VIII FC planes to be lost if hit. Doubtless the tough R-2800 radial played a major role.

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/loss.jpg

I don't have anything similar on German aircraft, but I'd guess the Fw-190 was better able to take punishment than the Bf-109.

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Seems to me thats diagram of armour AND firewall behind engine. That bulkhead is not armourhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yes it was. The P-51's firewall was armor and was made of face-hardened and stainless steel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Rgrt. Of thickness? And what would it stop, what wouldnt be stopped by engine itself? I mean it didt actually serve as armour the way the plate behind pilot did.

SkyChimp
11-10-2005, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:

Rgrt. Of thickness? And what would it stop, what wouldnt be stopped by engine itself? I mean it didt actually serve as armour the way the plate behind pilot did.


I don't know the thickness, I'll have to look thru several books before I can find it. But it was true armor designed to stop up to .50 caliber rounds.

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:

Rgrt. Of thickness? And what would it stop, what wouldnt be stopped by engine itself? I mean it didt actually serve as armour the way the plate behind pilot did.




I don't know the thickness, I'll have to look thru several books before I can find it. But it was true armor designed to stop up to .50 caliber rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgrt!

SkyChimp
11-10-2005, 06:58 PM
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/armor.jpg

Still looking for thickness, but IIRC it was something like 8-10mm.

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 07:07 PM
And 10mm would be enough to stop most of ~12,7mm projectiles indeed.

LeadSpitter_
11-10-2005, 09:22 PM
im just wondering what makes you assume inlines take more damage then radials in this game? It made me laugh when reading it.

As for armor placement it does not matter if there is front and rear armor plates I dont even think its modeled in game.

Any hits the to wings will always project hits into the sides of the engine everytime with arcademode on to see projectiles, the majority of the time it will cease the engine from first burst for inlines.

Im not sure about now in 4.02 but awhile back we tested extensively engine strenght with the b25s top turrent 2 .50s and with the bettys rear 20mm shooting directly at propellar hub and the 190A enginewas strongest in game taking multiple hits to cease. every other inline and radial died from one burst except the 190 when hitting the propeller hub at .20 range.

The La5 7 engine immediately dies and looses all power but it does not freeze like the others right away but has no power.

Armor placement really dont matter in this game becuase of the way hits spread in arcade, in reality a explosive shell traveling at its rof will make fragments project forward not like a flak burst.

Also the pilots armor plating in the p47 and fw190s only can prevent .303 rounds from a far distance and some japanese mgs thats about it and panzer glass is even weaker then that.

Dont go by online play the netcode is not exact, so many times you see someone get shot when they really did not even get hit.

On comms you im sure you seen a buddy get shot but really he didnt even get hit once.

HeinzBar
11-10-2005, 10:12 PM
S!,
Nice diagram SC. Does the Spitfire have a similar setup in armor? I know the fuel tank is directly ahead of the pilot, and I would assume that the firewall is also armored? What about the allisons on the p-38, or the inline on the p-63. I know you have alot of material on USAAF birds SC, so hopefully, you can shed some light on the inline's ability to be as tough, if not tougher, than the radials we have in this game.

HB

Xiolablu3
11-11-2005, 03:14 AM
Its so much harder in game to bring down a FW190 attacking a rear gunner than a 109 or Spit.

One hit to the engine of a Spit from a 7.92mm from 110 rear gunner and it usually stops or revs really high and then splutters.

nakamura_kenji
11-11-2005, 03:25 AM
ki-61 HA-40 much weak 1 bullet normal enough cover canopy oil maybe unluck it kill engine also p_q

WOLFMondo
11-11-2005, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
Nice diagram SC. Does the Spitfire have a similar setup in armor? I know the fuel tank is directly ahead of the pilot, and I would assume that the firewall is also armored? What about the allisons on the p-38, or the inline on the p-63. I know you have alot of material on USAAF birds SC, so hopefully, you can shed some light on the inline's ability to be as tough, if not tougher, than the radials we have in this game.

HB

On the V's and earlier versions there is no nose fuel tank. On the IX its clearly visible as the armour plate above the tank isn't flush with the fuselage but on the VIII's and later redesigned Spitfires it is flush with the fuselage. I'm not sure if the PR Spitfires has this armour, since there were literally 1000's of modifications its really hard to tell.

whiteladder
11-11-2005, 05:43 AM
And 10mm would be enough to stop most of ~12,7mm projectiles indeed.

I`m reading a book at the moment about automatic weapons and read the chapter that dealt with Luftwaffe weapons and their performance against armour plate( or lack of it), and why this lead to the developemet of the m-geschoss rounds. I`ll check what it said exactly when I get home from work.

panther3485
11-11-2005, 07:36 AM
Hi there, WOLFMondo

Quote:
Originally posted by HeinzBar:
S!,
Nice diagram SC. Does the Spitfire have a similar setup in armor? I know the fuel tank is directly ahead of the pilot, and I would assume that the firewall is also armored? What about the allisons on the p-38, or the inline on the p-63. I know you have alot of material on USAAF birds SC, so hopefully, you can shed some light on the inline's ability to be as tough, if not tougher, than the radials we have in this game.

HB


On the V's and earlier versions there is no nose fuel tank. On the IX its clearly visible as the armour plate above the tank isn't flush with the fuselage but on the VIII's and later redesigned Spitfires it is flush with the fuselage. I'm not sure if the PR Spitfires has this armour, since there were literally 1000's of modifications its really hard to tell.


In one of my books, I'm looking at a detailed cut-away diagram of a Spitfire Mk.I, as per Battle of Britain. Between the engine and the cockpit are the following 'nose fuel tanks':

(a) Upper (main) fuel tank, capacity 48 Imp. gal/218 litres
(b) Lower fuel tank, capacity 37 Imp. gal/168 litres
Total capacity - 85 Imp. gal/386 litres

There was no other internal fuel tankage and this was the same for the Mk. II and Mk. V, except that in the latter there was provision for a small additional rear fuselage tank of 29 Imp. gal, which carried through to early Mk IX.
Later production Mk IX and XVI had the 'nose tankage' increased up to 126 Imp. gal, with rear fuselage tankage up to 118 Imp. gal.

During the course of Spitfire development, wing tankage was introduced, in the leading edges. These had been tried in the Mk. IV (only two built), were a standard fit for Mks VII and VIII and were fitted to some later Mks IX and XVI.

The 'nose tankage' remained as a basic fuel load for all major variants, I believe.

Most of the numerous and varied recon versions had the additional rear fuselage tank and/or 'leading edge' wing tanks (usually 66.5 Imp. gal per wing).

AFAIK, in the earlier marks at least, armour was for the pilot only but this was steadily improved.

Sources:
'The Battle of Britain' - Richard Townshend Bickers
'Spitfire' - Stewart Wilson


Best regards,
panther3485

HeinzBar
11-11-2005, 08:09 AM
S!,
Since my material concerning the spit is extremely limited, I went to the net and did some digging. Well, I know sometimes the net isn't the best place to find honest material, but this is the only thing I found which shows a spitfire IX cutaway:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/angels_eight/421spit.html

As one can see, the only mention of any armor on this spitfire is the pilot's seat armor. Again, showing another inline w/ little to no protection for the engine, yet in this game, the inlines seem equal or superior in the DM department.

HB

stathem
11-11-2005, 08:27 AM
ALthough I absolutley agree with the assement that radial engines were, and should be in game, tougher than inlines,

just for the sake of argument;

One of the reasons some manufacturers favoured inline was because of their lower frontal area, which meant less drag. Incindentally, it also lowered the probabilty that a round coming from the 6 or 12 position would hit the engine. A round passing through a radial engined a/c would almost certainly hit the radial, therefore it needed more armour.

And they're ugly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kocur_
11-11-2005, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:

Armor placement really dont matter in this game becuase of the way hits spread in arcade, in reality a explosive shell traveling at its rof will make fragments project forward not like a flak burst.



Fragments from HE projectile travel "obliquely", i.e. their trajectory is resultant of projectile velocity in the moment of explosion and fragment's own velocity.

P.S. English in not my mothers tongue, so most probably that: "explosive shell traveling at its rof" means something elese than "explosive shell traveling at its rate of fire"? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

whiteladder
11-11-2005, 08:42 AM
Incindentally, it also lowered the probabilty that a round coming from the 6 or 12 position would hit the engine. A round passing through a radial engined a/c would almost certainly hit the radial, therefore it needed more armour.


True, but in the inline the vunerablity is offset to the cooling system, which is much harder to armour. Plus any saving in drag is lost by having to have a radiator.

WOLFMondo
11-11-2005, 08:43 AM
panther3485, I stand corrected.

stathem
11-11-2005, 08:53 AM
And another thing.. (warming to the task http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Inline engine block and head €" big solid lump of metal.

Radial cylinder head €" fancy-finned cast heat sink.

Round strike inline, stops.

Round strikes radial, radial cylinder shatters.

And, what happens if Mr. API round takes out your Master Rod? Radial might be able to run with a couple of articulating rods missing but what happens if that one gets shot off?

Kocur_
11-11-2005, 09:10 AM
Im definately not an egnines specialist, but from what I read: any rod or cylinder damaged in in-line - death! Any rod but master one damaged in radial- np, but master rod damged - death!

horseback
11-11-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
And another thing.. (warming to the task http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Inline engine block and head €" big solid lump of metal.

Radial cylinder head €" fancy-finned cast heat sink.

Round strike inline, stops.

Round strikes radial, radial cylinder shatters.

And, what happens if Mr. API round takes out your Master Rod? Radial might be able to run with a couple of articulating rods missing but what happens if that one gets shot off?

...and yet, the historical record shows that aircraft with radial engines survived much better in combat conditions than aircraft with inline engines of similar power.

The fact is that hits in the engine compartment of an inline was much more likely to cause catastrophic damage; there's no empty space, and the need for a liquid coolant system gave you one more major group of components to hit. An inline's engine block is a big piece of metal, very susceptible to kinetic energy damage from HMG and cannon rounds. Inline engines are built to very precise tolerances; knock them the least bit out of alignment, and Bad Things Will Happen Quickly.

On the other hand, a radial's engine compartment has a lot of empty space; that was it's cooling system, and it couldn't be shot out. Radials are also more forgiving, tolerance wise, allowing them to take a lot more abuse. The key non redundant parts are all in a small, well protected (by all those cylinders) package, by definition much harder to hit.

That is where the radial Damage Model falls down; hits to the engine compartment are scored in the same way as hits to the engine compartment of an inline, ignoring the greater likelihood of a miss or minor damage, while penalizing them for the greater space required (bigger target), and ignoring the inlines' need for a vulnerable liquid cooling system.

cheers

horseback

73GIAP_Milan
11-11-2005, 10:52 AM
For comparison:
P-47
http://members.chello.nl/j.wisseborn2/47APP.gif
found this pic years ago on zenoswarbirdvideo's i guess it was.

hope it helps out

OldMan___
11-11-2005, 11:20 AM
Put the armor and bulelt and I can give if it penetrates. I have quite lot material on it deu to project I am on right now, including a terminal ballistics simmualtor I am developing.

Things sometimes are very different from our imagination. Example? At > 60 degrees even a 3 mm homogeneus armor can deflect a .50 bullet at 100 meters!!!!

HeinzBar
11-11-2005, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by OldMan___:
Put the armor and bulelt and I can give if it penetrates. I have quite lot material on it deu to project I am on right now, including a terminal ballistics simmualtor I am developing.

Things sometimes are very different from our imagination. Example? At > 60 degrees even a 3 mm homogeneus armor can deflect a .50 bullet at 100 meters!!!!

S! Oldman,
Using the chart provided by Faustnik, can you build a chart of the FW's armor vs .50 and Hispano 20mm? BTW, the results would be based on 90 deg or various angles of attack?

Faustnik's chart:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/190-armor-1.jpg

JV44 has a webpage w/ various munitions with listed energy outputs. I hope this helps.

http://www.jagdverband44.com/Gunnery.html

HB

OldMan___
11-11-2005, 02:16 PM
I will make soemthing for that during weekend.

Kocur_
11-11-2005, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by OldMan___:
Put the armor and bulelt and I can give if it penetrates. I have quite lot material on it deu to project I am on right now, including a terminal ballistics simmualtor I am developing.


Impressive task! Are you using anything newer than Jacob deMarre equation, i.e. best estimation of whats going on in there I know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif?

stathem
11-11-2005, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
And another thing.. (warming to the task http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Inline engine block and head €" big solid lump of metal.

Radial cylinder head €" fancy-finned cast heat sink.

Round strike inline, stops.

Round strikes radial, radial cylinder shatters.

And, what happens if Mr. API round takes out your Master Rod? Radial might be able to run with a couple of articulating rods missing but what happens if that one gets shot off?

...and yet, the historical record shows that aircraft with radial engines survived much better in combat conditions than aircraft with inline engines of similar power.

The fact is that hits in the engine compartment of an inline was much more likely to cause catastrophic damage; there's no empty space, and the need for a liquid coolant system gave you one more major group of components to hit. An inline's engine block is a big piece of metal, very susceptible to kinetic energy damage from HMG and cannon rounds. Inline engines are built to very precise tolerances; knock them the least bit out of alignment, and Bad Things Will Happen Quickly.

On the other hand, a radial's engine compartment has a lot of empty space; that was it's cooling system, and it couldn't be shot out. Radials are also more forgiving, tolerance wise, allowing them to take a lot more abuse. The key non redundant parts are all in a small, well protected (by all those cylinders) package, by definition much harder to hit.

That is where the radial Damage Model falls down; hits to the engine compartment are scored in the same way as hits to the engine compartment of an inline, ignoring the greater likelihood of a miss or minor damage, while penalizing them for the greater space required (bigger target), and ignoring the inlines' need for a vulnerable liquid cooling system.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but that just tells us that the surviveability of radial engined fighters which recieved hits was greater...it says nothing about the inlines that made it home who where just missed by a round which would have otherwise hit if they were a bigger target...

Look I'm just messing about.

Y'all looked like a bunch who were itching for a fight and no-one to jump. I thought I'd oblige, like a true Spit pilot. I know, we all know, the current game engine is flawed in this regard (the coolant issue). We also know it's too late to fix, but that it will be fixed (hopefully along with a swage of other good stuff like hydralics, electrics and ammo storage) in the new BoB engine.

Huzzah! I'm looking forward to it as much as anyone, since I'll be flying 8-gun fighters, which are currently about as dangerous as toast.