Mitsubishi Stuka and Thunderbolt

[Jumoschwanz]

The 1943 versions of the P-47 and Stuka both fall apart really easily don't they?

When I shoot a P-47 while flying the FW190 the tail section seems to break off like it is made of paper mache quite often. All I have read for decades about the P-47 was it's legendary ability to take a beating, not to mention the bushels of photos of it flying back home full of holes and missing all sorts of parts.

Rudel surely did not have a 4.12 Stuka to complete his over 2000 sorties either. On one mission he landed after several hits from 37mm P-39 rounds on top of many 20mm hits. He took many hits with Stukas and made it back home despite. The 4.12 Stuka flames like an early Zero when it is hit by anything and loses parts just as easily, big important parts.

I am sure these two aircraft should not be in the same league as an IL2 Sturmovik, but by reading accounts of their historical ability to absorb damage in combat it looks to me like the 4.12 versions of them would not have been able to cut it or create any legends.

If anything in WWII was put together to take abuse it would be any designated ground attack aircraft and the American aircraft that were built with limitless resources out of much better materials than were available to anyone else in the world.

While flying the 4.12 FW190A I have not noticed it breaking apart so easily as the above aircraft. Not invulnerable but I have made many trips home and landings with it after taking multiple 20mm and fifty caliber hits from other fighters and AA installations.

Has anyone else flew these 1943 versions and compared the 4.12 Thunderbolt and Stuka to historical accounts of survivable damage?

I did not fly these aircraft in WWII so all I have to go on are actual combat accounts and 12 years of flying this sim.

Thanks....