Jaakariliike

Fw-190 Armor (some documentation)

I've finally found some decent sources for Fw-190 armor, so I thought I'd post them here for people to reference in discussions and also to discuss them in this thread.

First, two pages from a series of RAF tests against an Fw-190A (not sure which variant). I managed to get this through cached images online. They come from this old page (waybackmachine version): https://web.archive.org/web/20050209172517/http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/. Unfortunately, the original site was not cached and was taken down. Anyway, first image:

 

YFCzRjE.jpg

 

This shows the possible effects from a hit to an area and details the percentage chance of a hit to the area being effective. Note that a hit from the .303 MG and the .50 BMG both have a essentially zero percent chance of doing any damage to the engine and the pilot (or anything, really). I'm trying to find the original document so that I can get better details about the test (angle that the 190 was fired at, distance, etc).

 

The second page:

 

xIaRRxT.jpg

 

I believe this is discussing an attack from directly behind the 190. This likely means the first chart is also about attacking the 190 from behind. This would mean that even with HE-SAPI 20mm rounds, the Fw-190 should have a very low chance of being downed by less than a dozen hits. And an essentially zero percent chance of being shot down by US .50 cals (I'm guessing they needed to get a different angle to take one down).

 

 

Next up, from Dmitriy Khazanov's 'La-5/7 vs Fw-190: Eastern Front 1942-1945'.

 

From pg 26:

 

8lz5E8G.png

 

From pg 18:

 

RXXLs7f.png

 

From pg 56:

 

NHLH8TF.png

 

 

And from pg 59:

 

lUb45Yd.png

 

 

From these documents, it seems to me that the 190s are missing their very clear RL armor advantage in WT. Even the early 190s had a large amount of armor, which the A-5/U3 and on only seemed to increase upon. These 190s were very resistant to damage from behind and from the front. From behind their combination of armor and the angle would make their wings, guns, fuel and controls difficult to hit; while from the front, the extreme amount of armor plating in front of the engine, around the engine and surrounding the pilot (including the 50mm armor glass in front of the pilot) would resist many 20mms and would deflect most .50s, and stop any that aren't deflected (front-on, this would mean direct hits to the front of the engine, but the large amount of armor in front of the pistons would stop these hits too).

 

The 190 A-8 has a more powerful engine than the A-5, yet has similar performance. This is because of the increased armor, adding weight. The F-8 has worse performance by a long way, because of the huge amount of armor on it. Yet both the A-8 and F-8 will easily be shot down (engine destroyed, armored fuel tanks penetrated, pilot killed) by .50 cal gunners who IRL would have needed hundreds of hits to down an A-8 (let alone an F-8!). So really, the A-8 is just an A-5 with 2 outer 151/20s instead of MG FFs; whereas IRL it was also heavily armored (even compared to the already-well-armored A-5) for the purpose of hunting B-17s and B-24s, and not getting shot down instantly by their gunners.

 

Does anyone have any documentation to add? Any gameplay videos/pictures that show whether or not the armor on the 190s is doing anything? Any other comments?

  • Upvote 29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The armor only really protected the pilot, as it already does in game, otherwise pilot knock-outs would happen a lot more often. Wings, tail, and control surfaces can't really be armored effectively

 

The engine was very heavily armored in the A-8 and extremely heavily armored in the F-8. Aside from being an already-damage-resistant radial engine, this additional armor should make it rare (and requiring dozens - maybe hundreds - of hits) for .50s to destroy a 190 A-8 or F-8's engine.

 

The guns in the wings were also armored, as stated and the fuel tanks were armored. It was a very heavily armored plane series (especially the later-war ones).

  • Upvote 21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality read. I have nothing to add other than that our 190s are fragile, except for the A-8 which can take a bit more of a pounding from my experience. The F-8 is also fragile however last I tested it, which makes no sense.

 

Mind that same A-8 I mention here used to go "fire, dead" or "explosion, dead" a while ago from a single hit to the engine, even if it was done with a .303, while all three A-5s (German A-5, A-5/U2 and Jap. A-5) always were and still are very delicate and fragile birds really.

 

I have not tried the A-1 and can not comment on that one.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0zPRiXh.jpg
That what mine says :3 and this is for a a-8 for the nose only.
And by what your saying it sound like it should take more then a P-47... The FW-190 was rugged but it was never known to eat whole magazines of americja Russian or British planes unless they just aren't told(which would seem to out of place with bias etc.) not saying your wrong but you sound like your saying the FW-90 should be best tank in game Edited by woodman_victory
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality read. I have nothing to add other than that our 190s are fragile, except for the A-8 which can take a bit more of a pounding from my experience. The F-8 is also fragile however last I tested it, which makes no sense.

 

Mind that same A-8 I mention here used to go "fire, dead" or "explosion, dead" a while ago from a single hit to the engine, even if it was done with a .303, while all three A-5s (German A-5, A-5/U2 and japan. A-5) always were and still are very delicate and fragile birds really.

 

Thanks  :)s

 

I didn't know that the A-8 had been fixed(ish). I flew it a handful of times back in maybe 1.37; every game I was against a team full of B-17s and a single hit from them (literally a single hit) set me on fire twice (in two games), killed my engine instantly once and another time it made my engine dark red, turning black and dead in about 1 minute. I haven't played it since, so I didn't realise it didn't do this any more.

 

 

That what mine says :3 and this is for a a-8 for the nose only

 

Thanks for the addition woodsman  :)s . So the A-8 had a 6.5mm thick armor ring in front of the engine, plus the 5.5mm thick oil tank armor. By the looks of the positioning of the oil tank (no. 42) and the oil tank armor (no. 48), this oil tank armor is a 5.5 mm thick ring - for a total armor thickness in front of the engine of 12 mm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks :)s

I didn't know that the A-8 had been fixed(ish). I flew it a handful of times back in maybe 1.37; every game I was against a team full of B-17s and a single hit from them (literally a single hit) set me on fire twice (in two games), killed my engine instantly once and another time it made my engine dark red, turning black and dead in about 1 minute. I haven't played it since, so I didn't realise it didn't do this any more.



Thanks for the addition woodsman :)s . So the A-8 had a 6.5mm thick armor ring in front of the engine, plus the 5.5mm thick oil tank armor. By the looks of the positioning of the oil tank (no. 42) and the oil tank armor (no. 48), this oil tank armor is a 5.5 mm thick ring - for a total armor thickness in front of the engine of 12 mm.

ill get the other page in a sec. :3
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that explains why the dual mount 7.7 mm guns on a British bomber killed my pilot and destroy my plane when I flew behind him.

 

Oh wait... no it doesn't.

 

Either way I've known for a long time that the armor protection from the front and rear feels very lackluster, most late war German fighters have very good pilot protection from .50 cals from behind. It makes sense, seeing as that was the main weapon they were fighting against, for the armor that protects the pilot to be able to stand up to it. It doesn't always feel like that in game though.

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks  :)s

 

I didn't know that the A-8 had been fixed(ish). I flew it a handful of times back in maybe 1.37; every game I was against a team full of B-17s and a single hit from them (literally a single hit) set me on fire twice (in two games), killed my engine instantly once and another time it made my engine dark red, turning black and dead in about 1 minute. I haven't played it since, so I didn't realise it didn't do this any more.

 

 

 

Thanks for the addition woodsman  :)s . So the A-8 had a 6.5mm thick armor ring in front of the engine, plus the 5.5mm thick oil tank armor. By the looks of the positioning of the oil tank (no. 42) and the oil tank armor (no. 48), this oil tank armor is a 5.5 mm thick ring - for a total armor thickness in front of the engine of 12 mm. 

The A-8 was actually capable of taking damage in .37.

 

It was only the insta-kill-by-a-hit-to-the-engine which was broken on it. (Gimping it in its original role, anti-bomber. It's gimped in the same role right now as well, but for unrelated reasons.)

 

If your engine didn't get hit you could even tank the odd Hispano hits, and the Instructor on the A-8 is actually - or was last time I checked - good enough to not have slight / pink wing damage equal rendering you absolutely combat-ineffective, unlike on the A-5s and F-8.

 

Unfortunately the latter two still fare bad in both areas. The A-8 doesn't seem to be quite what it should be, armor-wise either, but you can certainly say that it is harder to take down than most other fighters when it comes to being a damage sponge. It's tankiness can out-class the Jug on a good day even.

Edited by MEGABLASTA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by what your saying it sound like it should take more then a P-47... The FW-190 was rugged but it was never known to eat whole magazines of americja Russian or British planes unless they just aren't told(which would seem to out of place with bias etc.) not saying your wrong but you sound like your saying the FW-90 should be best tank in game

 

I don't know how much armor the P-47 had, but I've seen quite a few reports where it has tanked a lot of rounds. I'm not saying the 190 should tank 20mm rounds from all angles - I'm saying that from directly behind and directly in front, the later 190s really should be deflecting most .50 hits and tanking most of the rest. These later 190s were specifically armored to keep them alive under fire from B-17 gunners. They were vulnerable to escort fighters because escort fighters could get much more favorable angles on them (in the book I referenced there's a Russian Captain's letter which says that you should aim for the right side of the Fw-190, near the cockpit, because the 20mms should be able to hit the electronics and set the fuel on fire from this). They were certainly vulnerable; but they were specifically armored at the front to protect them against frontal .50 cal fire.

Even if we ignore the RAF testing and the pilot accounts that attest to the armor's effectiveness, just consider this: why would the Germans massively weigh down their bomber-killers with all this armor if it did very little? If the armor did not allow you to take some hits (there are many pilot accounts in the book I cited which state that it was guaranteed that you'd get hit), why sacrifice so much performance for it? What else was the armor designed to protect against, if not the US .50s (the weakest allied .50s - the Russian .50s were better penetrators)? 

Again; this armor was added specifically for hunting US bombers with .50s. It was guaranteed that they'd be hit, so they needed to be able to tank the hits. The US .50s were the weakest guns still in use by the allied aircraft (well, except for the occasional Lancaster). What was this armor there for if it couldn't even protect the bomber killers against the weapons it was specifically designed to protect them from?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-8 was actually capable of taking damage in .37.

 

It was only the insta-kill-by-a-hit-to-the-engine which was broken on it. (Gimping it in its original role, anti-bomber. It's gimped in the same role right now as well, but for unrelated reasons.)

 

If your engine didn't get hit you could even tank the odd Hispano hits, and the Instructor on the A-8 is actually - or was last time I checked - good enough to not have slight / pink wing damage equal rendering you absolutely combat-ineffective, unlike on the A-5s and F-8.

 

Unfortunately the latter two still fare bad in both areas. The A-8 doesn't seem to be quite what it should be, armor-wise either, but you can certainly say that it is harder to take down than most other fighters when it comes to being a damage sponge. It's tankiness can out-class the Jug on a good day even.

 

Yeah, as I said, my only games were against B-17s, and all of them resulted in a quick engine-shot death, so that's tainted my experience with them  :(s

 

I'll have to take the A-8 out again and see how it goes. I'll try the P-47 again too. Haven't flown either in quite a while (though I've flown the F-8 and it still dies very quickly to B-17 gunners).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was this armor there for if it couldn't even protect the bomber killers against the weapons it was specifically designed to protect them from?

As it is in the game: To detract from your aircraft's performance. The A-8 and F-8 are the worst performers of all the 190s.

As it was in reality: Like you said. Common sense applies here.

 

 

I'll have to take the A-8 out again and see how it goes. I'll try the P-47 again too. Haven't flown either in quite a while (though I've flown the F-8 and it still dies very quickly to B-17 gunners).

I advise against it since you're setting yourself up for pain and suffering, I'm sorry to say.

P-47 is still very good however. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how much armor the P-47 had, but I've seen quite a few reports where it has tanked a lot of rounds. I'm not saying the 190 should tank 20mm rounds from all angles - I'm saying that from directly behind and directly in front, the later 190s really should be deflecting most .50 hits and tanking most of the rest. These later 190s were specifically armored to keep them alive under fire from B-17 gunners. They were vulnerable to escort fighters because escort fighters could get much more favorable angles on them (in the book I referenced there's a Russian Captain's letter which says that you should aim for the right side of the Fw-190, near the cockpit, because the 20mms should be able to hit the electronics and set the fuel on fire from this). They were certainly vulnerable; but they were specifically armored at the front to protect them against frontal .50 cal fire.
Even if we ignore the RAF testing and the pilot accounts that attest to the armor's effectiveness, just consider this: why would the Germans massively weigh down their bomber-killers with all this armor if it did very little? If the armor did not allow you to take some hits (there are many pilot accounts in the book I cited which state that it was guaranteed that you'd get hit), why sacrifice so much performance for it? What else was the armor designed to protect against, if not the US .50s (the weakest allied .50s - the Russian .50s were better penetrators)?
Again; this armor was added specifically for hunting US bombers with .50s. It was guaranteed that they'd be hit, so they needed to be able to tank the hits. The US .50s were the weakest guns still in use by the allied aircraft (well, except for the occasional Lancaster). What was this armor there for if it couldn't even protect the bomber killers against the weapons it was specifically designed to protect them from?

it makes sense just sound daunting lol impenetrable. Fighter it don't know how big of a issue since well atleast. For me deflection shooting is a big thing rendering the armor much less effective. I forget where I read but it said m2's could pen 50mm of concrete not steel but anyway just that lol.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html
21mm @ 500m I would think 90degrees Edited by woodman_victory
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added to the index.

 

 

Good read, they need to fix it imo.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I advise against it since you're setting yourself up for pain and suffering, I'm sorry to say.

P-47 is still very good however. :)

 

Damn, ok, I'll hold off for a little bit.

 

it makes sense just sound daunting lol impenetrable. Fighter it don't know how big of a issue since well atleast. For me deflection shooting is a big thing rendering the armor much less effective. I forget where I read but it said m2's could pen 50mm of concrete not steel but anyway just that lol.

 

From what I can tell, deflection shots (down onto the 190) would also work well. They were by no means unbeatable, especially by fighters. Fighters could out-maneuver the bomber-killer 190 variants, allowing them to get the deflection shots they needed. It's just the B-17 gunners that would have difficulty. There was a pilot account in the book which said that you were still vulnerable against a box formation of B-17s, because any B-17 above you or to your right had a reasonable chance at taking you down. But the poor gunner directly in front of you had very little chance.

 

The M2 .50s were designed in WW1 for taking out pillboxes - so penetrating concrete. They were certainly quite good at it. They were also good armor penetrators (though not as much as modern tests would suggest - modern rounds using tungsten penetrators rather than simple steel cores), but even the later-war M20 rounds (with a hardened steel penetrator) aren't going to have much luck against large amounts of armor designed specifically to stop it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, ok, I'll hold off for a little bit.


From what I can tell, deflection shots (down onto the 190) would also work well. They were by no means unbeatable, especially by fighters. Fighters could out-maneuver the bomber-killer 190 variants, allowing them to get the deflection shots they needed. It's just the B-17 gunners that would have difficulty. There was a pilot account in the book which said that you were still vulnerable against a box formation of B-17s, because any B-17 above you or to your right had a reasonable chance at taking you down. But the poor gunner directly in front of you had very little chance.

The M2 .50s were designed in WW1 for taking out pillboxes - so penetrating concrete. They were certainly quite good at it. They were also good armor penetrators (though not as much as modern tests would suggest - modern rounds using tungsten penetrators rather than simple steel cores), but even the later-war M20 rounds (with a hardened steel penetrator) aren't going to have much luck against large amounts of armor designed specifically to stop it.

well ofcourse the FW-190 became bomber killers relying in the 109's to cover them. The FW-190 had to mainly survived gunners and they did VERY well when they could attack. And what about t-48 round I can't find anything about. All I know is it's a incindiary that was very good at igniting the low grade fuels of late war German planes. I can't find anything
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about t-48 round I can't find anything about.

 

The T-48 round was in limited use from the end of 44. It was standardized in May 1945 as the M23 incendiary.

 

You're probably not finding anything because T-48 = M23.

Edited by MEGABLASTA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about t-48 round I can't find anything about. All I know is it's a incindiary that was very good at igniting the low grade fuels of late war German planes. I can't find anything

 

All I could find was that it was later designated as the M23 round and was sometimes called the "Des Moines" round. Also, this:

 

http://www.pt103.com/Browning_50_Cal_M2_History.html

 

 

 

The Des Moines Ordnance Plant produced the most satisfactory model, a 500-grain bullet containing 90 grains of an incendiary mixture composed of 50 percent magnesium aluminum alloy, 40 percent barium nitrate and 10 percent potassium perchlorate. A single-base powder was used that was found to be superior to double-base powder for firing extended bursts. Quantities of the Des Moines cartridge, listed as the T48, were shipped to the theatres in the winter of 1944-45 and proved so effective that in May 1945 the T48 bullet was standardized as the .50-caliber M23 and the round as incendiary cartridge M23.

 

It had 90 grains of incendiary (~5 grams), which probably means it didn't have an AP penetrator. Still, it's possible that it could hit a 190's fuel tanks from some angles, and I'm sure it could set fire to 109s and some of the less-armored 190s.

Edit: people here (http://iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13445) seem to be saying it was designed for use against German jets, because their fuel was apparently hard to ignite.

 

 

Also, I was wondering if anyone had any information on the armor of the Doras? I can't find much information about it. DCS just released an early (alpha?) version of the manual (not the plane, don't get your hopes up) for the D9 which shows the armor locations (though doesn't show any on the engine), but doesn't give the thickness.

Edited by Jaakariliike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The T-48 round was in limited use from the end of 44. It was standardized in May 1945 as the M23 incendiary.

You're probably not finding anything because T-48 = M23.

thanks. I was reading about them when reading about the p-47m's
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well reading this  it look they talking about attacks from the rear

                                                                                    xIaRRxT.jpg

 

                                                               and I think it's the A3 and I think it saying the aircraft skin can deflected shots away when at a angle

 

                                                        I think there an report some were about attacks on bomber

 

                                                        saying shots can be deflected by the aircraft skin

Edited by thedab
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about other peoples experiences, but if I am behind a 190 and shooting 50's into his tail, the only way he'll go down is if a wing gets cut off or if the control surfaces get too shredded to function. I think the armor may already be modeled, there's a huge difference between a flying tank and a well armored aircraft.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I was wondering if anyone had any information on the armor of the Doras? I can't find much information about it. DCS just released an early (alpha?) version of the manual (not the plane, don't get your hopes up) for the D9 which shows the armor locations (though doesn't show any on the engine), but doesn't give the thickness.

 

There's not that much material available about Doras. Which variant?

 

D-9s were based from the A-8, the armor layout I know for sure was different far as the area around the engine is concerned, but I don't have any numbers here. There was more armor around the engine for certain. It's worth nothing that you're not very likely to find much if any material on this for all the other D-series aircraft, as not only were the prototypes usually built based on or out of A-8s, but they all had different roles in mind.

 

Take the D-11 for example:

Jumo 123 F-1 engine and MW-50, some built out of A-8s. Some extra armor was supposed to be there on all of them but wasn't, some had two 131s in the cowling and one 108 as Motorkanone, two 151/20s in the wing. Total number built differs depending on source. As little as 7 with 5 being based on A-8s and the rest built as D-11s from the ground up to as much as 11 with 7 based on A-8s. Planned armament included an extra pair of 108s in the wings - which may have been even realized on one or two of them - and they were all supposed to be "up-armored", but this machine did not enter serial production. It was supposed to be something of a tougher and harder Dora, much in the sense of the A-8 being a tougher and harder A-series.

 

D-12, 13 and 14 didn't have any extra armor by D-series standards and were meant to be high altitude fighters in comparison.

 

D-15 wasn't meant to be a high altitude fighter - sources differ on what this one was meant to be - so assuming it was meant to be a fighter-bomber the conclusion is near that it would've been up-armored. But if not, then they'd hardly have put any extra armor on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about other peoples experiences, but if I am behind a 190 and shooting 50's into his tail, the only way he'll go down is if a wing gets cut off or if the control surfaces get too shredded to function. I think the armor may already be modeled, there's a huge difference between a flying tank and a well armored aircraft.

 

I fight them often in my Bearcat and the M3s usually make short work of it (though they make short work of most things, usually; including my ammunition pool...). Often it's a wing cut or a tail crit, but I've had fires start from directly behind. I rarely get pilot kills on anything anymore (I'm guessing pilot health is as buffed as gunners, thanks to everyone whining about pilot kills).

 

I'm not saying it should be a flying tank; but consider that it's a given that even the lightest of tanks can withstand .50s (despite what some US fans insist about P-47s skipping .50s under tanks to kill them) and 20mms. My main point is about front-on protection. From behind, the British seem to have thought that .50s were essentially useless against the 190. From the front, the later 190s were designed to tank .50s from B-17s (again, they were still vulnerable from the front). 6.5 + 5.5 mms of armor is quite a lot of armor and the air gap between the plates can cause rounds to tumble (depending on the type of steel, the type of round, impact angle and velocity, of course) so that the second plate is just deflecting a tumbled round. Then there's the radial engine, which is renowned for its durability (I looked up the P-47D and I can't see anything to suggest that it has armor in front of the engine - and it doesn't look like their is in pictures either, yet the P-47D was known to take many rounds to the engine and come back). 

I'm not trying to take this to the extreme and say the 190s should be impervious to .50 cals; but I am saying that it's also not the other extreme, where a short burst of .50s to the engine will kill it, set it on fire or at the very least make it start to die. US .50 BMG rounds just weren't the super-rounds that some people seem to think they were. By late war, no aircraft were still using .30 cals, so any armor added was there to protect against at least the next weakest gun - and that gun was the US M2 .50.

 

There's not that much material available about Doras. Which variant?

 

The D-9 was the main one I was interested in (I admit I have little interest in the other Doras, given their very limited use). I had only just seen the manual posted on the DCS forum, and it got me interested in knowing how the Doras were armored. I wasn't expecting it to be as much as the A models, but it sounds like it was. I guess the armor really did work then (why give anti-bomber armor to something that would have a dead inline engine after a few hits, if the armor didn't work?). I'll see if I can find more specifics on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.