I know this because I've talked face to face with several vets from WWII, both Axis and Allied. They all have stories of Jugs taking hits, plowing through trees, and even taking direct hits from 88's at point blank range and still coming back.
You're making it sound as if this community doesn't have people who talked to WW2 vets before. If getting to know a vet or two is to be a basis for determining the credibility of one's claim, then people like Guppy35 or WW is still way more credible than you - and I'd rather believe what they say (despite quite frequently being at opposite ends of dicussion, now and then). So cut the
"I know because I've talk to vets" crap - noone is impressed.
Rather, put your mind to common logic concerning the reality of these military machines, and we'll be well on our way in determining the truth behind some of the skeptical material vets are known to say. It's what we call "embellishment in anecdotes".
For instance, someone with a sound mind would immediately realize a false claim for what it is - when he hears something like
"taking direct hits from 88's at point blank range and still coming back." The standard equipment for us aviations fans is
"a grain of salt", and we'd immediately translate the above claim as,
"I've seen a plane survive a very close flak burst", instead of taking the claim literally at face value.
I mean, do you even know how big a 88mm shell is, and what kind of damage it could do at "point blank"?
Even pilots of other Allied aircraft would attest to the strength and survivability of the Jug. Now tell me when a Pony brushes you and your tail comes all the way off and a Lanc shoots your engine with those high powered .303's and you lose your entire engine, that this game is modeled true to life.
In "true to life", dead men don't tell tales. For every one lucky pilot who survived thanks to his proud Jug holding together in times of despair, there are about 10 more who lie dead in the National Cemetery, rest their souls. And that goes to every plane known during the Second World War as being tough and robust. A plane is only as tough as it can be.
Just how "tough" do you think an aircraft of that era can be?
A large and robust construction naturally warrants a considerable amount of endurance, especially against damages that may potentially cause catastrophic structural failures. However, in the end, all of those planes were covered with merely thin foil of a metal, enlaced with inner structures and spars, and jammed pack full of sensitive machinery that may prove to be fatal when damaged... and WW2 weaponery were especially designed to destroy those.
Everytime a typical "50cal" debate comes to these threads and we have people saying a 50cal bullet can punch through an engine block in a firing range. Well, if that be true guess what a 12.7~13mm round can do to a Jug.
The Jug is indeed a tough plane, many of its internal components are at least somewhat protected, the fuel tanks are self-sealing, rear pilot armour is placed, and a huge engine block protects the pilot from attacks from the front. However, it's not as if the entire plane is covered with armour. A machine gun will punch through most - if not all - of the inner components, and a 20mm will rip apart entire surfaces from the plane. Those weapons were specifically designed to kill planes, and ultimately no amount of "protection" will ever protect a plane exposed to enemy fire for a long time.
A plane is only as tough as can be, and there is no such thing as an armor-clad fighter plane.
