Does the 109E have armor?
 

A recent thread on weights got me thinking about wheter our 109E has any armor plates modelled. My virtual pilot certainly dies a lot from .303 hits, but that is not very conclusive as the 109 had an armor bulkhead relative far aft in the fuselage, so it could be bypassed by deflection hits. OTOH, it offered good protection against small caliber hits.

The reason this keeps me thinking is that the early cutaways Oleg showed no armor plate whatsoever, which was noted but I am not sure if this was fixed for the final release. And maybe its the last time to correct...

If not it should have but tbh PK's on the 109 certainly used to be a novelty unless you got a shot in from 4 or 8 o'clock. High angle deflection from above into the canopy rarely bagged a PK, never understood why they did so little. All very strange when compared against the frequent PK's from the 2 .30cals on the 109 nose which occurred. I had expected the 8 guns to get lots of PK's so I'm actually pleased this seems to have changed.

From books that I have read in particular Fledging Eagles (Christopher Shores) the 109E didn't have pilot armor at the start of the war. But it was added during the battle of France in a similar manner to the RAF Hurricanes.
Both airforces as interim unauthorised field mods used armour taken from wrecked / disabled french fighters and the Luftwaffe did the same for the Ju87. Both sides had similar problems getting official permission but it was of course soon given and included in new production.
By th BOB it was standard to both German and British fighters

pilot plates! Pilot plates! Pilot plates! :-p

I see no evidence that CloD 109s have any armor plating. Certainly not behind the pilot & fuel tank. However, I do not think armor would defeat rifle caliber hits at very close range. Also, I believe that AP ammunition in game is far too effective. In reality AP ammo performed quity poorly in rifle caliber.

Salute

The Spitfires and Hurricanes are vulnerable to 7.92 rounds as well.

The fact is, unless the enemy aircraft is dead six behind, a bullet can easily sneak around the edges of the armour and hit the pilot.

In addition, multiple .303 hits on the same section of armour plate will penetrate, and when you have 8 guns firing, it doesn't take long.

According to the experts, the British fighters were equipped with weapons which were well suited for combat versus lightly built enemy fighters, but poorly equipped to take down the heavier built bombers. Vice Versa, the 109's were equipped poorly for taking down enemy fighters, in any kind of deflection shooting at fast maneuvering targets, the MG F/F with its low muzzle velocity is too inaccurate. Ironically the 109's armament was better suited to downing enemy bombers.

Both sides could have used the other's weapons to better purpose.

I expect both the 109's and the British aircraft are armoured.

"IF" you hit the the same spot twice - only that's not gonna happen irl, especially if you consider the firing window you have.
Conclusion:
If you can't penetrate the armor with your first bullet you never will.
Try to hit another weak spot and your golden.

Interesting thread. What I'd like to know is whether the armour penetrating qualities of 20 mm cannon rounds are actually modelled in the sim.

As I understand it, even 20 mm ball rounds should be able to defeat most of the armour plating installed in 1940 vintage fighter, if the range is kept relatively short. That's hardly surprising when you consider that, at this time, the head plate would more often than not be less than 10 mm thick and your average 20 mm 'AP round' would penetrate twice that thickness with ease.

I raise this issue because in my (admittedly limited experience), even concentrated strikes on the dead six position of an allied fighter from a cannon armed 109 is unlikely to result in a pilot kill.

Salute

On my Hurricane weight thread, Kurfust said:

So if the the 109 has no headrest, that would pretty obviously explain the pilot kills. Hard to miss those unprotected big German Square heads poking up in the cockpit.

Osprey....i suggest that you fly again more often and shoot again at 109s....now at least, a pilot kill is very easy and if you dont kill him directly, then the flames will do if he doesnt bail quick enough...:grin:

Anytime you hit a section of piece of steel with the force of a bullet, you are weakening the whole piece. The force of the bullet is transmitted through the entire structure, stretching and warping it. The next bullet which hits, strikes a weakened structure.

And to suggest only one bullet could hit a seat rear in a single burst is inaccurate, I have read a number of accounts of surviving pilots coming back with multiple hits on their armoured seat back and with it cracked and warped.

Well until you will have a NASTRAN level material engineering code in Il-2 this is rather theoretical (as it is in real life IMO) so we will have simplified model where the armor plate will be good as new any time it is hit... so can we just skip it and get back to the point?

Does the Il-2 Bf 109E armor modelled or not?

A few reports on shot down 109E inspected by the British on the ground.


A.I.2.(g) Report No. 4/53 ñ 1940

Me 109. Crashed 30.09.40 at 17.00 hours, at Queens Anne's Gate, Windsor Great Park. Markings: 9 painted on yellow engine cowling. Spinner white with black circle on tip. Old markings had been painted out, viz. PH + LV. Airframe built by Arado, 29.06.40,. No. 109.4851. Engine DB601. Following fighter action aircraft forced landed and turned over. There are a number of bullet strikes from astern.

Armament: x 2 MG 17 in wings and x 2 under engine cowling. Armour: Standard cross bulkhead and head protection for the pilot.


A.I.2.(g) Report No. 4/54 ñ 1940

Me 109. Crashed on 30.09.40 at 16.50 hours at Sydling St. Nicholas, near Cerne Abbas. Map ref:U0821.
Markings not decipherable. Engine DB601. Following fighter action aircraft dived into the ground and burnt out. Pilot baled out, but was killed owing to parachute failure. Armament: x 2 MG 17 in wings and two under engine cowling traced. Armour: Standard cross bulkhead was found only.


AIR 22/266

Me 109. Crashed on 31.08.40 at Jubilee Farm, Ulcombe. Identification markings 10 + I, black Gothic S on white shield. Fuselage built by ERLA Werke Nr. 62914. Cause of crash, fighter action, condition fair. Aircraft made good landing, wheels up. Armament: 20 mm shell guns in wings and x 2 MG 17 machine guns under engine cowling.
Armour usual bulkhead, pilots head protected by shield. Crew 1, prisoner. Camouflaged green upper surfaces, light blue underneath. In good condition, suitable for exhibition purposes.
The DB601 engine is reported to have had the number 11366/211002a.


Type: Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4 Werke/Nr. 1325

A.I 1(g) Report No. 3/67 states:

Crashed on 30.09.40 at Langney, near Eastbourne. Map ref: R.0820. Markings 13 + (figures in yellow). Orange nose, rudder and fin. Engine DB601A, No.63509, made by Daimler Benz at Genshagen, Toltow.
Armament: 2 x 20mm cannons and 2 MG 17. Armour: normal cross bulkhead, and panel behind pilots head. Following fighter action, aircraft forced landed. A few .303 strikes in cooling system and engine. Pilot prisoner.


A.I.2.(g) Report 1940

Me 109. Forced landed at Love's Farm, Marden, Kent on 05.09.40. Markings < + - black, outlines in white. Crest: Shield U-shaped, outlined in red, divided into 8 segments coloured black and white. Wing tip and rudder painted white, camouflage all blue, fuselage all blue. Spinner divided into alternate black and white sectors. Fitted with Bd601A engine made by Mercedes Benz Erke Nr.10598. Aircraft forced landed following fighter action. Condition reported to be very good. Standard armament x 2 20 mm cannon and x 2 MG 17 machine guns. No head armour.. Starboard wing shows many .303 strikes.

.
If you are all talking about this (see picture) then it was installed on some E4 but some pilots asked to remove it becaue it did restict their view.
http://s7.postimage.org/vy2b1rdon/Bf108_E.jpg
And it is never a perfect protection against a hit from nearly behind or from the front! stupid is it not?:evil:

I read once that the 109 did have pilot protection armour. Only reasoni do remember is that some pilots removed the head protection plate as it prevented rear view and that at later date thiswas changed to bullet proof glass behind the pilots head due to this reason

Very late in WWII Me 109 were fitted with plexiglass in the 1940 only the BF109 E4 even if some early version were retro fitted.

IRL .30 cal AP penetration is quite impressive, even .30 cal ball ammo easily penetrates pretty thick steel plate. I suspect for air-to-air, over penetration may have been a problem, unless something critical is hit like the pilot (or his "armored" back rest), engine block, control cables, etc. Otherwise rifle bullets are just punching neat little holes in the structure.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

Look at 10.10


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugBpA...ailpage#t=620s

What are you basing this on? American .30 is not the same as British .303. Problem is in reality armor plating is rarely the first thing the bullet hits. See the following from: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm

Based mostly on goofing around shooting M2 .30 cal ball (AKA .30-06) and .303 Brit, which have very similar (negligible differences?) ballistic characteristics.

Seems if true armor plate was used (vice improvised plate steel), and/or the bullet hits at an angle (vice 90 degrees), then I guess penetration would be limited. But when I think of aircraft construction, I think of aluminum, which I imagine any .30 rifle bullet would penetrate with little loss of energy. I find it notable that at 200 yards 6% of .303 AP penetrated the 60 degree angled armor. What percentage of the rounds reaching the armor were stopped by it? The report also doesn't address the ultimate fate of the AP rounds that where deflected by the aircraft structure and missed the target armor plate. I assume many continued on to penetrate other portions of the aircraft?

~S~

AKA Knutsac

Well these records are a pretty clear indication most 109E's during the BoB were equipped with armour although some may not have had the headrest.

Buddy, I have lots of guns and tried that - it only works with concrete where the material chips off.
If you where right you could penetrate a tank if you had the time - that may even work, only under lab conditions tho'.

Fire real bullets into real steel, then come back and report. ;)

loosely connected :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Very pleased to see this changed.

It was quite stupid before how the 2x 7.92 so easily killed pilots and the raf EIGHT high rpm .303 could barely ever kill a pilot. A lot more believable now.

This along with the bomber fuel tanks blowing off wings fix have made this patch a lot better than it could have been.

Kurfurst, just an observation but I notice that your 4 109's listed are all recovered late in the BOB, the earliest 31st August. Do you have any records from the start too? Or even Battle of France?

I think that's it, I have found these on http://aircrewremembrancesociety.com/luft1939/ site, there are many other such reports for Bf 110s, bombers etc. It's a good source.

I have the crash report for WNr. 4101 somewhere too (that's the only E-4/N crash report I know of ) which also confirms the armor plate. These reports were made in haste and were superfluous. Still they are invaluable.

It's difficult to find examples earlier, I am sure there are some other but I guess during most of August the air combat typically occured near the coastline, and those 109s that were hit and did not go straight down (and pancaked, so there was not much to report but aluminium ash pile..) probably tried to make it for France over the sea... either they did make it or did not, obviously no reports of those.

As for Battle of France, no, I have not too many French reports (relatively few 109s were lost anyways, and the French/British had other problems during retreat than inspecting them). I have the one 109E-3s which the French tested (and later handed over to the British, that's the long RAE or Morgan report), serial no 1304., which notes there were no armor fitted. But they captured that plane back in the late automn of 1939, so it does not tell you much about the BoF period's fitting.

However the 109E manual issued in december 1939 however notes that armor weight is not included in the loading weights, so its pretty clear armor was / was about to be introduced in the end of 1939 (right after the French captured WNr. 1304), given the reference.

Most secondary sources seem to note that it was the E-4 that introduced armor into serial production (and puts it May 1940), so pilot armor essentially went parallel with similar RAF upgrades.

I wonder about that JG26 example in the BOB museum at Duxford. They have it sat on display in a crashed state. I know that the starboard wing is original but I can't remember how much of it is or when it was forced down. I have some pictures at home, should be easy to see. It's a case of trust though, the example has the '100 octane' triangle on it in the museum but that isn't in the original photograph at the crash site.

This one? :)

Wnr. 1190, White 4 of II/JG 26. I believe this is the one famously set up as it was orginally. Pilot had an engine failure in a dogfight and made a nice belly landing IIRC.

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/fil...t1940b_DFC.jpg

Pics of the Duxford 109 here:
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/ma...orama_duxford/

Yes that's the one Uther, looks like it was also in September.

Galland in his book the first and the last mentions when his 109 got the armour plate installed, because he didn't like it when he saw it, but then was happy he got it when it was struck by a cannon shell soon after and saved his life. Not sure if his statement has a date to it, can't look it up at the moment.

It was during BoB I have the same book. He bumped his head and was very angry about it. But later the same day it saved his life.