Does the 109E have armor?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by zander

"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.

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.

[Kurfürst]

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?

[Kurfürst]

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.

[senseispcc]

.
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.

And it is never a perfect protection against a hit from nearly behind or from the front! stupid is it not?

[macro]

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

[senseispcc]

Originally Posted by macro

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.

[AKA Knut]

Originally Posted by notafinger!

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.

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

[vranac]

Look at 10.10

[notafinger!]

Originally Posted by AKA Knut

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

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

Tests by the RAF indicated that both the .303 and 7.92mm AP bullets had some problems penetrating the structure of the relatively small and light Blenheim bomber. Both guns were fired at a range of 200 yards (180m) through the rear fuselage at the 4 mm armour plate protecting the rear gunner, which was angled at 60º to the line of fire. The results were poor; only 33% of the .303" rounds reached the armour (the rest being deflected or absorbed by the structure) and 6% penetrated it. In contrast,only 23% of the 7.92 mm bullets reached the armour, and just 1% penetrated.

[AKA Knut]

Originally Posted by notafinger!

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