Ju88 damage endurance

[Charge]

I got a thought of this topic in Dawn of Battle thread discussing bombers and their effectiveness in the event.

It was claimed that Ju88 carried a bit more ordnance than a B17 even if it was a dive bomber, ok thats pretty well done for a two engined dive bomber, but what I found peculiar was that looking at Brooke's screenshots from the event I found it rather strange that in most cases a Ju88 loses its entire wing when shot at.

Considering its load carrying ability and that it was actually a dive bomber made to endure considerable stresses I'd think that the wing spar would be practically indestructible. Yet it seems to be the same to any other two engined bomber in AH?

Same for FW190. Small wing and a solid spar running under the fuselage so how the heck can you shoot an entire wing off? Looking at the amount of rivets in its wing it seems that big part of its weight comes from the wing structure. The outer wing is another matter since it is attached to the main spar construction with bolts so it can come off due to joint in the structure but the entire wing?

Maybe the damage model done so that there is only a few standard models which are applied to all planes making it impossible to make any variations in damage model of some particular plane?

-C+

[frank3]

I don't know much about the damage model, but do note that the Ju-88 wasn't a dive bomber, but a bomber that was able to dive-bomb.
Although it could only do so in a shallow dive, and couldn't handle the excessive forces during a steep pull-out, which the Ju-87 would experience.

It's merely a bomber with dive-flaps, with maybe a few modifications for its role as 'dive'-bomber.

[moot]

The damage model is probably simplified as it is (wingtip damage) to account for the lack of intermediate damage that in reality would make a plane unable to maneuver competitively with extensive damage, even though the wingspar itself remained.

[Die Hard]

There isn't a single part in the Ju 88 structure you can't make a hole in with .303. The only question is how many .303s are needed before a part fails. At convergence eight .303 macineguns were very effective in "sawing" off parts of an airplane. Not at convergence, or if spread all over the structure they were not very effective.

[Anaxogoras]

With the damage model we have, you are obliged to take the whole wing off to bring down a bomber because there are not other things that can do it.  With the damage model of another game you're going to start a lot more fires, sever control cables, and kill the crew members more frequently.

[Krusty]

Frank, you're inaccurate in describing the Ju88 being limited to "shallow dives" -- in discussion regarding dive bombing capabilities many many references were brought up describing tactics used en masse in the battle of britain where Ju88s made high speed dives or attacked via dive bombing, and pulled out. It allowed them to evade attacking RAF planes better.


EDIT: The Ju88s are an early plane. The earlier models are not the most bug-free. Look at titanium-armored Lancs, B-26s that take multiple 30mms with no damage.


As for wing spars, well the entire system is only as strong as long as the entire system is intact. There is combat footage of 190s having their wings blown off. While the spar may be structuraly sound, it's not a solid chunk of metal. On top of that, as soon as a few dozen armor piercing bullets rip chunks out of the stress-bearing load, cracks, fissures, and splits will rip out from there.

[Rino]

     I think you're forgetting that the 190's wing is chock full of explosive
cannon shells too..could be a factor in wing damage.

[CountD90]

     I think you're forgetting that the 190's wing is chock full of explosive
cannon shells too..could be a factor in wing damage.

And bombers are filled with thousands of pounds of bombs, doesn't make them any easier to shoot down.

[Rino]

And bombers are filled with thousands of pounds of bombs, doesn't make them any easier to shoot down.

Not many bombs are armed while still on the aircraft, also HTC doesn't model
explodable ordnance onboard bombers.  German nightfighters used to specifically
target the wings and their fuel tanks to avoid hitting bombloads.  Not a good
thing to be behind or below an exploding bomber.

[Krusty]

Rino, you're saying the FUSE isn't armed... Doesn't mean it's "safe"!

It's highly explosive material, and if any bullet penetrated the thin metal surrounding it (NOT armor-grade metal, mind you, NOT designed to be bullet proof) that could definitely blow the bomb.

Several cases of flak hits, night fighters with upward firing guns, setting off catastrophic explosions this way.

[Xasthur]

     I think you're forgetting that the 190's wing is chock full of explosive
cannon shells too..could be a factor in wing damage.

It is. There's lots of of gun-cam footage of P-51s and P-47s hitting the ammo bays in the wings. Boom. Off comes the wing.

[Charge]

"I don't know much about the damage model, but do note that the Ju-88 wasn't a dive bomber, but a bomber that was able to dive-bomb.
Although it could only do so in a shallow dive, and couldn't handle the excessive forces during a steep pull-out, which the Ju-87 would experience."

It was a heavy dive bomber and it was actually called "Big Stuka". The dive brakes were meant to be used for normal 60-80 deg dive angles as in Ju87 but later on it was noted the this stressed the wings too much and the dive brakes were removed and dive angle restricted to 45 deg. But the point is that it was well able to endure a vertical dive angle and hard pull-outs from these dives. How many other two engined bombers could do the same?

They tried to make the He177 able to dive bomb even if there was not much sense with the idea. But I bet it resulted in a durable airfame too.

The point in 190's wingspar is that is solid from the root and there is no joints except outside the outer gun/attachment point. If the footage of 190 losing its entire wing are plenty it should not be a problem to provide links to those films. Also note that the gun bay door is huge and there is at least one instance when the gun exploded and the door flew away but the aircraft managed to land without issues. That means that the gun bay structure does not allow room for pressure build-up.

-C+

[Die Hard]

Time code 1:20 and 2:29

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDsLRwmkhaQ

[Krusty]

The wing spar is meant to be strong IN THE VERTICAL.... That said, you go ripping holes in it IN THE HORIZONTAL, and it's going to fail. Period.

Also, there's some discussion about the spar being "solid" -- it was not solid forged, but it was a single piece solidly built out of other parts. I read a discussion thread in a modeling forum somewhere a long time ago that supplied pictures and it's not a single lump of steel that was forged in place. Rather it's a single "part" made up of multiple pieces.

Very stong, but still nothing on any airplane ever built can withstand air combat. Guns have always been stronger than steel.

[Charge]

"Time code 1:20 and 2:29"

The only FW190 I saw losing its wing was at 0:26, and even that was not from the root of the wing. It looked like the outer gun bay had exploded.

"The wing spar is meant to be strong IN THE VERTICAL.... That said, you go ripping holes in it IN THE HORIZONTAL, and it's going to fail. Period."

Not really. The point is the location of joints. There are no joints at the root of the wing of FW190. In e.g. 109 the wing-spars were bolted to the fuselage from the root which was the most common technique. Notice that this does no necessarily make it worse as e.g. in Ju88 the wing-spars are also bolted to fuselage but you need to do it more carefully and the construction will weight more to achieve the same as with a solid spar. If you hit the attachment joint or the bolt itself the wing will fly off.

"Also, there's some discussion about the spar being "solid" -- it was not solid forged, but it was a single piece solidly built out of other parts."

Of course, but I guess it is still good to point this out. AFAIK there were no "steel" spars in FW190 -only the Spitfire has a tubular steel spars which are bolted to fuselage. It is also worth noting that the endurance of solid spar construction makes it possible for aircraft to withstand very high G loadings in maneuvers, which was something the FW190 was appreciated for. In Spitfire the tubular square section tube spar will bend but it will not break. If the wing would fail it would fail from the wing root joint or approximately from gun bay where the spar ends.

-C+