Aircraft Armour

[Avanti]

I noticed in the new patch that vehicles now have a page showing where the armour is and it's thickness

Could we also have this for aircraft??

Avanti

[gyrene81]

You want a display of armor thickness for aircraft?         

[SmokinLoon]

I dont think there is anything funny about his post.  I think it is a legit request actually.  The only real armor on aircraft of going to be around the pilot, surrounding the engine (engine cowl), and perhaps near the fuel tanks.  Each aircraft is different, and some have different thickness of armor as well.  IIRC, the P47's went through multiple changes in armor and armor thickness. 

There is more than one aircraft armor chart available out there.  I saw detailed pictures for the 190's and the difference between the earlier models and say the 190F-8 is quite a bit.  It might just help certain players decide which aircraft to take for certain missions.  Anyone else notice the 190F-8 is one of the toughest planes in the game and can absorb a bit more damage that most other aircraft especially while taking hits in the front???

I'm willing to bet if and when HTC ever is able to add a chart of figures for us players to access they will be accessible in the hanger much like the tank armor. 

[MachFly]

I'd love to see a list of armor for the zero, 1mm  .

Jokes aside it's a good idea, 

[gyrene81]

Don't forget the bullet proof glass.

So, having aircraft armor information would stop you from flying a specific airplane if it didn't look like it could take a bullet? Would that information make you fly the plane differently? Would it stop you from using a specific airplane to take out the radar on a base?

The point is that information makes little to no difference in an airplane. Doesn't matter how thick pilot armor is, if the wings get shot off it's not going to fly. It's not going to stop the engine from getting shot out, it's not going to stop you from pulling a 4g turn to shoot down a plane with heavy armor around the engine or cockpit, especially in a video game. The most important information for each airplane is already in the game.

[bagrat]

whoa whoa whoa hold the phone! we are missing the even more important problem at hand....why are there 2 ways to spell armor and they both mean the same thing?

[Enker]

Even moreso, where do you find this "listing of vehicle armour"?!

Edit: Cool, thanks Gyrene!

[gyrene81]

It's just the tanks Enker, in tower, new menu option when you right click.

[StokesAk]

A6M:

Pilot=0
Wing=.5
Fuel Tank=.000001

The value of 1 is the amount of damage a rock thrown by a 3 month old causes.

[AWwrgwy]

whoa whoa whoa hold the phone! we are missing the even more important problem at hand....why are there 2 ways to spell armor and they both mean the same thing?

In the early 18th century, English spelling was not standardised. Differences became noticeable after the publishing of influential dictionaries. Current British English spellings follow, for the most part, those of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755), whereas many American English spellings follow Noah Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language of 1828.[1]

Webster was a strong proponent of spelling reform for reasons both philological and nationalistic.

Noah Webster...

As a spelling reformer, Webster believed that English spelling rules were unnecessarily complex, so his dictionary introduced American English spellings, replacing "colour" with "color", substituting "wagon" for "waggon", and printing "center" instead of "centre".

Webster's 1828 dictionary featured only -or and is generally given much of the credit for the adoption of this form in the United States. By contrast, Dr Johnson's 1755 dictionary used the -our spelling for all words still so spelled in Britain, as well as for emperour, errour, governour, horrour, tenour, terrour, and tremour, where the u has since been dropped. Johnson, unlike Webster, was not an advocate of spelling reform, but selected the version best-derived, as he saw it, from among the variations in his sources: he favoured French over Latin spellings because, as he put it, "the French generally supplied us".

-our vs. -or

Most words ending in an unstressed -our in British English (e.g., colour, flavour, honour, neighbour, rumour, labour) end in -or in American English (e.g., color, flavor, honor, neighbor, rumor, labor). Wherever the vowel is unreduced in pronunciation, this does not occur: contour, velour, paramour, troubadour, are spelt thus the same everywhere. Most words of this category derive from Latin non-agent nouns having nominative -or; the first such borrowings into English were from early Old French and the ending was -or or -ur.  After the Norman Conquest, the termination became -our in Anglo-French in an attempt to represent the Old French pronunciation of words ending in -or, though color has been used occasionally in English since the fifteenth century. The -our ending was not only retained in English borrowings from Anglo-French, but also applied to earlier French borrowings.  After the Renaissance, some such borrowings from Latin were taken up with their original -or termination; many words once ending in -our (for example, chancellour and governour) now end in -or everywhere. Many words of the -our/-or group do not have a Latin counterpart; for example, armo(u)r, behavio(u)r, harbo(u)r, neighbo(u)r; also arbo(u)r meaning "shelter", though senses "tree" and "tool" are always arbor, a false cognate of the other word. Some 16th and early 17th century British scholars indeed insisted that -or be used for words of Latin origin (e.g. color) and -our for French loans; but in many cases the etymology was not completely clear, and therefore some scholars advocated -or only and others -our only.

 

wrongway

[Imowface]

so a p38 would have -1 armour? because the pilots practically wound them selves

[milesobrian]

Dont forget the new thing also allows you to see the weapon type and the round type and the muzzle velocity of that round.  I think that they should at least give a bit of info of the guns that are on each aircraft, the rounds used, whether its ap or he or whatever, and perhaps the order of the rounds in the guns.  It could also  list the exact engine the game uses for each specific plane, especially for lw aircraft where a 109g6  for instance could have had a high alt version engine. 

I think the players just want more information, definitive information, with out having to do guess work on the forum about what the hurricane 2d cannon fires or the round type of the IL2, it may not change someones preference but it will at least educate them on what the IN GAME settings are.

[Guppy35]

38 Armor protection including the glass

[Boozeman]

I don't see the merit of this whish. Yes, aircraft had armor, but just to proctect vital components, not the the whole structure itself. You simply dont need to know if your rounds can penetrate the pilot armor at a certain distance, its enouth to know they can remove an important part of the structure.   

[Avanti]

I don't see the merit of this whish. Yes, aircraft had armor, but just to proctect vital components, not the the whole structure itself. You simply dont need to know if your rounds can penetrate the pilot armor at a certain distance, its enouth to know they can remove an important part of the structure.   

I didn't jush make this wish for the pilot armour

I wish for the armour of the whole aircraft so when an enemy attacks a base I can up a aircraft with the armament to take it down with ease