I've wrote an extent post on this subject, but due to the unfortunate course of events concerning the BBS wipe-out of recent, it was lost. Therefore, I am compelled to provide a
shorter, yet more
cynical version of the previous text.
I feel that the Jug is fragile in this game, and I am most likely not alone. For example, last night, a P-51D shot my wing off with just a few shots from D600 when I was in a P-47D-11. I had been untouched previously. I'm asking for an increase in armor, something to the B-25C's standard.
There is no such thing as
armour on any of WWII-era planes. The only real armour plating was usually set up behind the pilot's seat, however the rest of the surface area is basically a thin layer of metal(in some cases even wood or canvas), a hollow shell filled with components vital for flight and control of the plane. There seems to have been some chance that small, rifle calibre bullets under 7.9mm might have bounced off, or deflected, according to the striking angle, but once the calibre reaches the realm of heavy machine guns, over .50 cal or 13mm, when it hits, it punctures through. And when it punctures through, it hits something inside.
If it merely tumbles without hitting anything vital, the plane is fine. If it damages a critical component, then the plane's normal function is disabled. Basically, it boils down to luck, because ultimately, one cannot expect a plane to be hit by bullets and actually "withstand" the impact. After all, that's why the warring countries equipped their planes with such guns in the first place.
The notion of "armour" on a plane, is entirely false.
1. The P&W R2800, an engine known for the ability to absorb massive punishement and continue to turn, seems to go dead from machine-gun fire more than any other engine in the game, including the in-lines like the Merlin. (Same thing could be said for the BMW radials.)
"More often" is a statement to be debated. Is their actual data that proves the P-47 engine is indeed, more fragile than others?
Besides, the problem with engine damages is a problem belonging to the general characteristics of how the damage system in this game is handled. It's all or nothing. Specific damages to engine components which may or may not seize the engine completely, is not modelled in the game. If this is indeed a problem for the P-47, then it's a problem for all other planes and plane components in the game as well.
2. In both planes, the pilot was heavily defended with cockpit armor. Yet in both planes seem to get more than their fair share of pilot wounds, especially the Hog. Hog pilots have to deal with a PLATE blocking their rearward vision, yet still get PWed more often? Baloney. Since this armor is part of what made the real aircraft heavier and actually incurs something of a visibility penalty in both aircraft, pilots should get some benefit from that iron they are lugging around.
Again, unsubstantiated opinions on the frequency of the pilot wounds.
I could say the same thing about the Ki-84s which I fly a lot. I feel a lot more pilot wounds happening on my 109s or Ki-84s. Except, when you think about it, I usually fly these planes more than others. So, do I feel more pilot wounds happening because it really does happen more often, or simply because I fly a lot more of those planes? There can many reasons to why you "feel" that way. So unless you have some objective data to prove it, it's basically a faulty basis to begin an argument that
'there's a problem with pilot armour'.
3. Planes equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks should be very difficult to set on fire, but aren't. Especially the Jug. I've set both planes on fire with brief snapshots from .50s. Ridiculous. Once again, since the self-sealing tanks are part of the weight penalty for the aircraft, pilots of them should reap some benefit.
Again, "feelings".
It could take only one round of bullet penetrating a fuel tank to set it on fire. Usually fire is caught by an incendiary round setting ablaze leaking fuel, on a plane that has its fuel tank punctured and leaking. Therefore, self-sealing fuel tanks may considerably lower a chance of an fire - but really, it's not as if it's an automatic extinguishing system. Besides, it's designed to stop clandestine few rounds that may damage the fuel tank. If an enemy shoots and lands multiple rounds on the fuel tank it may always fail.
So, how do you know your "brief snapshots" may not have been extremely good shots? Besides, I've seen guncam footages of planes being set on fire with brief few hits as it passes by, and these planes are also equipped with "self-sealing" fuel tanks as well.
All in all, it seems to me that the Jugs and Hogs, planes know for their ruggedness, currently do not enjoy much advantage in toughness over say, the P-51D, a plane known for being less bullet-proof than its radial-powered stablemates.
Being "rugged" is not the same thing as being "bullet proof". When a plane is hit, it will be damaged in some way, be it insignificant or fatal.
The "ruggedness" of Hogs and Jugs are usually attributed to their P&W engines, famously reliable under battle damage. When you think about it, when you fly around with a cow-sized engine block in front of you, it may act as a shield against enemy fire from the front. This is especially important for planes usually engaged in ground attacks, having to face considerable amount of AA fire - a role both the Corsairs and P-47s were allocated to after air superiority was already won in each theater of its operations. There can be many things damaged on a plane, but the most vital components which may almost immediately render a plane useless, is the fuel systems, engines, and the pilot. Under these circumstances, having a tough engine block is a direct advantage that attributes to the general survival rate of the plane and its pilot.
However, fat lot of good a tough engine will do when you are shot from the rear. Pilot seat armour has its limits - it doesn't cover the entire cockpit. Besides, they were also in many cases penetrated.
People who have survived may praise a plane for being tough, but the countless more people who've died inside it, can't say anything to us. Is it any wonder there are only praises and hardly any criticism?
IIRC, lots of jugs flew home missing a cylinder/cylinders. The R-2800 in this game is just another POS engine with nothing strong about it.
Also, as BnZ stated, most of the weight in a jug is the armor and self sealing fuel tanks. I dont feel that we are rewarded with what we fly the jug for: survivability.
How much of those 15 thousand pounds, do you think, was "armour" - as in, "armoured plate/coat of steel or any bullte-resistant material" ?
Less than 5% I believe.
You're talking about .50cal Browning API rounds. These bullets can cut through 1/2 an inch of SOLID STEEL ARMOR at a mile downrange.
Krust makes a very ironic observation.
People are complaining about some planes "feeling" to fragile, and then, in the very same thread the same people admit and praise the .50s for its power.
Like Krusty mentions, many times in .50 discussions people would bring up the fact that a .50 round can penetrate metal engine blocks, trucks, even many milimeters of armoured plating according to striking angle. Look up any discussion concerning "tank armour" in these boards and someone always comes up with the same stuff about how .50s are such potent rounds.
However, very peculiarly, people seem to think there's some sort of a problem when their non-armoured, stress-skinned airplane is on the receiving end of a .50.
How so?
Besides, the 12.7mm 50cal round was certainly an excellent weapon, but the German MG131 13mm HMG wasn't exactly a slouch either. Not to mention that Soviet Universal-Berezin 12.7mm machine gun is considered probably the best 12.7mm~13mm HMG of WWII - a perfect combination of firing speed, power, and accuracy.
Why's it so strange to see one's pilot getting wounded when being hit by such potent guns?
It's not as if one's flying with a P&W mounted behind the pilot seat or something, no?
