PDA

View Full Version : TF probably have Bf 109 fires correct



Talisman
Apr-06-2014, 12:47
Quick 10 minute internet search:


F/S George Unwin, also of No. 19 Squadron, recalled his combat of 15 September:

Anyway I went into a tight turn and stayed in it and there, I don't know how many of these aircraft there were, I shot at several of them as they went through my sights but I actually shot two of them down. One of them strangely enough,

I fired at the first one, I got the first one, and he bailed out. And of course the Messerschmitt pilot unfortunately sat on his tank, did you know that? He sat on his petrol tank and it wasn't a very, if they got a bullet there - up it

went. This chap bailed out and I went to sight the next one, when suddenly the light - the reflector sight was an electric bulb lit up, and the bloody bulb failed. So I am without a sight but we did have this ammunition so the next one I

got, I was still in a tight turn all the time, I mean, that was what probably saved me, you kept on turning and turning. Because the Messerschmitt couldn't turn like a Spitfire and I kept on turning, I don't know how many aircraft there

were and the second I shot down without a sight. It was really wild and, you know, the fall off on the trace of a bullet and I got him exactly the same way, his tank went up but that frightened me I can tell you. I was all on my own in

the middle of, I don't know how many, how many Messerschmitts there were but fortunately, as I say, I got away with it. I didn't even get a hole in me that day and yet against the odd ones I have several times got holes in me, but that

day I got away with it. I must have had a guardian angel with me that day. 89


F/Lt J. W. Villa of No 72 Squadron recorded on his Combat Report for 15 September:

The ME 109 which I attacked half rolled as I opened fire and before he could dive away he caught fire and exploded. I was then attacked by five other ME 109. I did a steep turn to starboard and continued to turn until I out turned one ME

109 which was on my tail. I gave him two short bursts and he burst into flames. 90


F/Sgt William H. Franklin of No. 65 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 25 June 1940:

65 Squadron on offensive patrol North of Abbeville sighted about 12 ME.109 at about 15,000 feet. We attacked per section, I was Blue 2. An enemy aircraft circled on to my sections tail and I broke away to engage, but Blue 3 got there

before me. I was then attacked by 2 enemy aircraft, and turned sharply to get on the tail of one. I manoevured into position on his tail and fired a very short burst at about 200 yards. Enemy aircraft burst into flames and dived

vertically. I was now engaged by second enemy aircraft. I manoevured onto his tail, as 2 other enemy aircraft attacked me from the rear. I broke away and after considerable manoevuring we had lost height to 4000 feet. One Me.109 again

attacked from behind but I was able to turn slightly and get on his tail. I followed him as he turned and seeing me closing on him he half rolled. This brought the other two aircraft out of position for attack on me. I followed inside

the first enemy aircraft and fired two very short bursts at about 250 yards and I saw enemy aircraft dive into the ground. 77


F/O William Nelson D.F.C., an American in the R.C.A.F. and serving with No. 74 Squadron, recorded in his Combat Report for 11-8-40:

I was yellow 3 in No. 74 Squadron, on patrol over Dover at about 24,000 feet and sighted 8 M.E. 109s's to port. My leader suddenly dived on one ME 109, so I circled looking for any E/A coming down on our section. While climbing and

turning I saw 6 M.E. 109's at 28,000 feet who obviously did not see me, they were circling widely so I climbed onto the last E/A. I was sighted and they started turning steeply, I easily out-turned them. They all broke up and the last

E/A flich-rolled away from me, I closed rapidly and at the short range of 150 yards I opened fire with a 3 seconds burst dead astern, and he burst into flames. I immediately turned quickly away and saw the remainder E/A speeding for

home, well away. Not seeing any further E/A I pancaked Manston. The M.E. 109's were sky - blue beneath and ordinary camouflaged above with black crosses. 81


P/O George Bennions, of No 41 Squadron, demonstrated that the Spitfire was especially effective against the Me 109 when the turn was combined with a steep climb:

As Mitor Red 2 in line astern of Red 1 while acting as rear guard to blue and green sections, I noticed 2 ME 109's above and to the right diving to attack Red 1. I warned Red 1 and we turned right to evade them. We then turned left

behind them to engage them. Half way around the turn I noticed another ME 109 about 800 yards astern and to the left. I immediately went into a steep right hand climbing turn at full throttle. The ME 109 tried to follow but after about 2

turns he fell out of the turn completely stalled, and I turned down on his tail. He carried out a left hand climbing turn and he ded S.E. at full throttle. I immediately closed astern but slightly left and opened fire at approx 100

yards. After two very short bursts I observed coolant pouring from the radiator... 92
Leading Blue Section I was attacked by ME 109. After a steep right hand climbing turn the ME 109 with a Yellow nose fell out of the turn and I turned on to his tail. He rolled over and went vertically downwards and pulled out heading

south east as soon as he straightened up. I gave him three short bursts. He burst into flames and after knocking off his roof bailed out. 93


8878

Roblex
Apr-06-2014, 13:12
Nobody will listen to combat reports. You will be told they all lied or they were mistaken or you deliberately chose the few reports where 109s caught fire.

Continu0
Apr-06-2014, 13:22
Nobody will listen to combat reports. You will be told they all lied or they were mistaken or you deliberately chose the few reports where 109s caught fire.

Questioning or not relying on combat reports is pretty reasonable, given todays psychological research... And no, with that I don`t want to argue for one side, but I am happy that TF first takes into account what can be interpreted from technical reports, etc...

Vlerkies
Apr-06-2014, 16:28
Questioning or not relying on combat reports is pretty reasonable, given todays psychological research... And no, with that I don`t want to argue for one side, but I am happy that TF first takes into account what can be interpreted from technical reports, etc...

Well put Sir!
:salute:

trademe900
Apr-07-2014, 04:41
Well put Sir!
:salute:

Physics and data first, anecdotal evidence taken with a grain of salt. Love the methodology of these guys.

Wulf
Apr-07-2014, 06:25
Nobody will listen to combat reports. You will be told they all lied or they were mistaken or you deliberately chose the few reports where 109s caught fire.


I really don't see the point of this thread. Any WW 2 aircraft will burn.

ATAG_Endless
Apr-07-2014, 06:52
The question is not why are the 109's catching fire allot

but What position are you putting yourself into to make your 109 burst into flames

Archie
Apr-07-2014, 07:12
Basically, don't get shot.

Mattias
Apr-07-2014, 07:12
Basically, don't get shot.

+1
Works every time :thumbsup:

ATAG_Endless
Apr-07-2014, 07:24
Basically, don't get shot.

Hahaha don't get shot !! . In clod that's like saying go run in the rain but don't get wet

But in clod there are tricks to not get as wet

Wulf
Apr-07-2014, 08:16
+1
Works every time :thumbsup:


yes there's always that I suppose or, you could just fly a CloD Spitfire.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-07-2014, 08:36
yes there's always that I suppose or, you could just fly a CloD Spitfire.

sounds like a date.

You in a CloD spitfire. Hans Gruber in a 109.

Archie
Apr-07-2014, 08:38
sounds like a date.

You in a CloD spitfire. Hans Gruber in a 109.
:)

Wulf
Apr-07-2014, 08:53
sounds like a date.

You in a CloD spitfire. Hans Gruber in a 109.


Well, if you want to get a Spitfire to catch fire and burn, I'd say you'd be well advised to enlist the support of Mr G. I can't think of anyone else who can do it.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-07-2014, 09:14
Well, if you want to get a Spitfire to catch fire and burn, I'd say you'd be well advised to enlist the support of Mr G. I can't think of anyone else who can do it.

I thought you were saying that the only way to avoid getting shot was to fly a spit...certain looked that way based on the preceding conversation...

Wulf
Apr-07-2014, 09:51
I thought you were saying that the only way to avoid getting shot was to fly a spit...certain looked that way based on the preceding conversation...


No, not at all. I just think it's a bit rich telling 109 blokes that they wouldn't catch fire if they didn't put themselves in situations where they get themselves shot. That just seems a bit disingenuous coming from people who are in the privileged position of being able to fly an aircraft that, as currently modeled, wouldn't catch fire if you took to it with a box of fire starters and a blow torch.

Osprey
Apr-07-2014, 10:25
Your natural bias is now swinging into the realms of obsession Wulf. Next is fantasy and imagination, after that the men in white coats turn up. Try relaxing before you get all chewed up by it.

Wulf
Apr-07-2014, 10:32
Your natural bias is now swinging into the realms of obsession Wulf. Next is fantasy and imagination, after that the men in white coats turn up. Try relaxing before you get all chewed up by it.

Are you suggesting that 'sensitivity to fire' is correctly modeled in the Spitfire? Is that your position?

ATAG_Colander
Apr-07-2014, 10:35
Basically, don't get shot.

+1 Independently from the DM discussion....

If you get shot at, you did something wrong.
If you did something wrong, is not the plane's fault.

The real problem here is that since is just a game without consequences, one tends to be eager to get into a fight that in real life you would have ran away from.
One typical example is climbing towards an enemy plane. The proper way to handle this would be to climb away from it and gain altitude advantage before engaging. I know I've done this and I would say that most of the time, if the enemy saw me, I got shot to pieces.

Since is my mistake, I would not dare to blame the plane, DM, game, lag, cheater or INSERT_EXCUSE_HERE.

JG4_sKylon
Apr-07-2014, 10:42
No, not at all. I just think it's a bit rich telling 109 blokes that they wouldn't catch fire if they didn't put themselves in situations where they get themselves shot. That just seems a bit disingenuous coming from people who are in the privileged position of being able to fly an aircraft that, as currently modeled, wouldn't catch fire if you took to it with a box of fire starters and a blow torch.

+1

69th_Spiritus_Mortem
Apr-07-2014, 10:52
<herewegoagain

ATAG_Lolsav
Apr-07-2014, 10:53
<herewegoagain


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmdoP8wHUJw

:D

Mattias
Apr-07-2014, 10:54
<herewegoagain

Yep. I don't know whether to :popcorn2: or :getaway:

Cheers/m

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Apr-07-2014, 11:13
Fires are nice when the risk of fire is equal for all. By 1940 standards the Spitfire could be considered to be the least vulnerable of the 3 single engine fighters but again that is by early war standards. There is a big difference between less vulnerable and invincible. A few mm of armor plate is not going to matter against 20mm and the 109 Emil certainly did not have the reputation for fire like the Zeke. It's a bit hypocritical that this issue, introduced in 4.3 same as HE bug that led to so many pilot kills, is approached so differently. Why was the advise to red pilots not to simply avoid being shot? Instead a hotfix is rushed out to correct something that is obviously wrong. In my opinion this is something that is also obviously wrong. Let's hope TF adresses in due time.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-07-2014, 11:19
this issue, introduced in 4.3 .

Hmmmmm, possibly the first time someone has said that... (atleast that I can recall)

I was under the impression that;

1. Spitfires had always been much harder to set alight since the early days, and
2. 109s had previously been catching fire, it's just that the effects just weren't showing, or "activated" in some way - I think Mattias/ Kling know more about effects.

The above, I thought/ guessed, was why the fire issue was considered a DM thing, and thus still relatively inaccessible to the FM/DM team... I might be wrong about this though.

Incidentally, I've shot down around 10 109s since the hotfix, and am yet to see one burn. Not that this means much.. but maybe there is a little more parity now with the fuel tank armour thing that's ion the readme.

Osprey
Apr-07-2014, 11:27
Are you suggesting that 'sensitivity to fire' is correctly modeled in the Spitfire? Is that your position?

I've no idea mate, I don't fly the Spitfire.


Gruber, you have taken the position that a light hearted quip with a smiley on it is the official policy of TF? :D


I haven't flown much in the past 2 weeks so I've missed out on all this flaminero stuff, but it looks like it saved me from some PK's.

Wulf
Apr-07-2014, 11:34
+1 Independently from the DM discussion....

If you get shot at, you did something wrong.
If you did something wrong, is not the plane's fault.

The real problem here is that since is just a game without consequences, one tends to be eager to get into a fight that in real life you would have ran away from.
One typical example is climbing towards an enemy plane. The proper way to handle this would be to climb away from it and gain altitude advantage before engaging. I know I've done this and I would say that most of the time, if the enemy saw me, I got shot to pieces.

Since is my mistake, I would not dare to blame the plane, DM, game, lag, cheater or INSERT_EXCUSE_HERE.


This has nothing whatsoever to do with being shot down or doing something wrong and paying for it. Everyone gets shot down, no matter what you fly. However, there is a very significant disparity in the number of 109s that catch fire, and the number of Spits that catch fire. As far as I can tell, Spits don't catch fire at all - at least, not online they don't. Now, the problem with that situation, when it goes unacknowledged, is that it generates a perception that maybe other things are also not right. Historically, we know that Spits did burn and so one would imagine that they should do something similar in the game. But for whatever reason they don't and they haven't since day one. In fact, at one point we were actually being told that they do actually burn online, it's just that, we can't see the flames. Well I hate to go around quoting from classic Westerns but, as Fletcher said in Outlaw Jose Wales; "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Apr-07-2014, 11:44
Phil, how much was said about this topic in 4.0? Not a whole lot. Now with introduction of 4.3 you have several frag videos being posted of flaming 109s.

The hotfix release notes are quite vague about which aircraft had fuel tank armor strengthened but buzz said previously that the Emil has no armor at all. Our testing of 4.312 saw the 109 & Hurricane are about equally vulnerable when the correct spot was targeted, lighting within seconds. The Spitfire required 100's of rounds of continuous fire to flame.

edit: I am removing the video to protect the privacy of those involved. My apologies to them for posting without their permission.

Vlerkies
Apr-07-2014, 12:57
Interesting Gruber. Thanks for the vid, at least I know more or less where to (try) aim at.

If you are referring to the other post about this topic Buzz did not say the 109's did not have armor, he said they did not have self sealing tanks in this period. Unless there is another post somewhere else I could well of missed.
From Buzz

-None of the 109E's had self sealing tanks at the time of the battle, and none of the 109E's AFAIK came from the factory with the tanks. Retroactively, it is possible the E model was fitted with them in 1941-42. The F model was the first 109 to have self sealing tanks, but the first versions did not. As protection, 109E's had a laminated Aluminum 'armour' sheet behind the fuel tank to deflect rounds.

-Spit I and Hurri DH5-20 did not have self sealing tanks and had no protection over the tanks

-Early Spit IA and Hurri Rotol did not have self sealing tanks but did have thin aluminum sheet 'armour' fitted over the tanks. Beginning in mid September, self Sealing tanks were retro-actively fitted. The schedule for this work is not clear, the weight of these early self sealing tanks is not clear, and at the moment we don't have a 'late' versions of these aircraft with self sealing tanks in the game.

-Spitfire IIA's came from the factory with self sealing tanks.


http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9838&p=109727&viewfull=1#post109727

So maybe it's my bias coming through here or just logic, choose whichever one you wish, I think the 109 burns to easy all things considered, the Hurricane not, and the Spitfire well, the force is strong with that flying machine. :)
Fire in a 109 is pretty much a pk but a rare sight online for the RAF (my perception, or bias, call it what you will)
Anyway Dowding himself was very concerned at the rate pilots were getting burnt/killed as a result of fires and was the driving force behind the initial makeshift modifications of the tanks and wrapping them in fireproof materials.
A bit lazy to look it up now, but even the Spitfire, only one (lower) of the 2 front tanks was protected, the other (top) was completely exposed, the thought process being the top tank would empty itself on the way to the fight so to speak.

Its all interesting stuff, and if there was ever any doubt about these planes (amongst others later in the war) being susceptible to burning, just lookup the 'Guinea Pig Club' or 'East Grinstead the town that did not stare'.
Seriously sobering stuff and a firm kick in the pants back to reality about the discussion at hand. :(
So lets please try and at least conduct the discussion respectfully, thx.

Archie
Apr-07-2014, 13:32
I'll stick to my Hurricane thanks, and avoid getting shot. I like to pretend its a sim, not a game. Lots of lovely clouds to hide in these days.
:)

Bowsewr
Apr-07-2014, 18:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmdoP8wHUJw

:D


HAHAHA, this thread was starting to get too serious. Thankfully Lolsav is there to save the day lol. :thumbsup:

Wulf
Apr-07-2014, 18:35
Yeah, she's a goodie alright.

There's another song that comes to mind for some reason, but I just can't seem to remember the title.

"Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to talk with you again.....":D

69th_Spiritus_Mortem
Apr-07-2014, 18:41
The Sounds of Silence, Simon and Garfunkel!

Wulf
Apr-07-2014, 18:45
Yes, Spiritus, thanks. That's what I was thinking of ... "The Sound of Silence"

:devilish:

69th_Spiritus_Mortem
Apr-07-2014, 18:47
I personally am reminded of this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z13qnzUQwuI

YOUR WELCOME.

Mattias
Apr-07-2014, 19:06
I personally am reminded of this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z13qnzUQwuI

YOUR WELCOME.

roflmao

Otyg
Apr-07-2014, 21:11
So this thread died the video death? :(
Was a really good and interesting one.
Had potential.

ATAG_Lolsav
Apr-08-2014, 00:01
Its just letting the steam off. And the videos are funny. And dont touch my tralala!

jaydee
Apr-08-2014, 03:29
Its just letting the steam off. And the videos are funny. And dont touch my tralala!
Its great to see a bit of "Lively Discussion" ending in Laugh ! ~S~ to all

9./JG52 Ziegler
Apr-09-2014, 20:06
Fires are nice when the risk of fire is equal for all. By 1940 standards the Spitfire could be considered to be the least vulnerable of the 3 single engine fighters but again that is by early war standards. There is a big difference between less vulnerable and invincible. A few mm of armor plate is not going to matter against 20mm and the 109 Emil certainly did not have the reputation for fire like the Zeke. It's a bit hypocritical that this issue, introduced in 4.3 same as HE bug that led to so many pilot kills, is approached so differently. Why was the advise to red pilots not to simply avoid being shot? Instead a hotfix is rushed out to correct something that is obviously wrong. In my opinion this is something that is also obviously wrong. Let's hope TF adresses in due time.

+1

Little_D
Apr-10-2014, 01:51
Fires are nice when the risk of fire is equal for all. By 1940 standards the Spitfire could be considered to be the least vulnerable of the 3 single engine fighters but again that is by early war standards. There is a big difference between less vulnerable and invincible. A few mm of armor plate is not going to matter against 20mm and the 109 Emil certainly did not have the reputation for fire like the Zeke. It's a bit hypocritical that this issue, introduced in 4.3 same as HE bug that led to so many pilot kills, is approached so differently. Why was the advise to red pilots not to simply avoid being shot? Instead a hotfix is rushed out to correct something that is obviously wrong. In my opinion this is something that is also obviously wrong. Let's hope TF adresses in due time.

+1

regards

Little_D

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-10-2014, 02:47
Actually the Spitfires and Hurricane pilots are far more vulnerable to German aircraft fire than vice versa.

A pilot kill from the dead six o'clock position is far more likely with the weapons the 109's are equipped with than those which equip the British aircraft.

A 20mm round will penetrate all of the backseat protection the British pilots have with ease. This is not the case with the .303's.

The same applies to pilot kills from a deflection angle, any hit on the cockpit with 20mm HE will generally guarantee a kill. This is not the case with .303's.

109's can also shoot off the wings and tails of the British aircraft very easily, not the case with the .303's. Even acknowledging these weapons were clearly less effective, a bank of 8 harmonized .303's were capable of inflicting structural damage, and there are considerable historical accounts of both wings and tails being removed from 109's and 110's. Unfortunately at this moment, with the current state of development of the Weapons/damage model, it is almost impossible to achieve in CoD.

Engine fires on British aircraft are also more likely with 20mm hits than .303 hits, typically any 20mm hitting the engine will either disable it or set it on fire.

In regards to fuel tank fires, the 109 and Hurricane are about equally vulnerable, the Spitfire is less so, aligning with the fact its fuel tanks historically were far better protected than the 109's, which were located, without self sealing, behind the pilot and open to any attack from the rear. TF will freely admit to a bug in the game, which we have not solved, which reduces a chance of fire in the Spitfire fuel tank.

However this is clearly counterbalanced by the fact gunfire aimed at the Spitfire fuel tank, (which accurately is only effective on deflection angles) will almost always also either set the engine on fire or kill the pilot. The fuel tank is only two feet wide, a hit on either side will impact on the cockpit or engine. So the result is the same whether or not the Spitfire tank actually bursts into flames a few seconds later or not.

Here are a couple diagrams of the Spitfire and 109. It is very easy to see which fuel tank is more vulnerable.

http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz354/micksbike/Bf-109-0307-05-0-1_zpsfee67522.jpg

http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz354/micksbike/supermarinespitfiremkii_zps98bbfb8b.jpg

Quite simply it comes down to the fact that if a Blue side pilot is at all accurate in his shooting, he will fatally damage his Red side opponent in a much shorter period of time than the Red side might when the opportunity is reversed.

This agrees with the known patterns and lethality of the weapons used in these aircraft.

We do not claim to have created a perfect weapons/damage system, there are issues for both Blue and Red side weapons/damage which we would like to address in TF 5.0.

However, the issues which remain are not significant enough to affect the overall correct balance of the modeling, and anyone making claims of imbalance, or pointing to one particular element of the weapons/damage model as incorrect, is quite simply making excuses for his own failure in gameplay.

DUI
Apr-10-2014, 04:53
Interesting information, thanks!

Yesterday I flew a Lobby mission with a squadron mate to test some things. As those tests always end with at least one plane going down:
After a 20mm hit the engine of a Spitfire caught fire. We were wondering why even after some minutes of gliding the fire did no harm to the pilot and also did not spread.

Is this due to the "firewall" that is shown in your Spitfire's diagram?

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-10-2014, 05:42
In regards to fuel tank fires, the 109 and Hurricane are about equally vulnerable, the Spitfire is less so, aligning with the fact its fuel tanks historically were far better protected than the 109's, which were located, without self sealing, behind the pilot and open to any attack from the rear. TF will freely admit to a bug in the game, which we have not solved, which reduces a chance of fire in the Spitfire fuel tank.

The fuel tank on the 109 was not "open to any attack from the rear" - quite the contrary, it was protected by a 8 mm steel armored bulkhead that rendered any .303/7,92 attack from directly astern completely ineffective. Only deflection shots can hit the tank. It appars that Il-2 CLOD / TF does not model this armor on the 109E at all.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/109E-7Zmanual_zps657b11bd.png (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/109_stuff/109E-7Zmanual_zps657b11bd.png.html)

As to wether it was self sealing or not, I have yet to see any positive evidence for the mid-1940 109E fuel not being self sealing. Its odd, to say the least, when Heinkels, 110s were known to have SS tanks - why would the 109 be an exception..? Later 109s had a multi-layered aluminium sandwhich armor behind the fuel tank, which rendered incendinary ammo ineffective even if it penetrated that light alloy armor.

The fuel tank on the Spitfire was harder to reach, being situated behind the engine, but that's it. The protection it had was rather marginal, a very thin 4 (IIRC) mm armor plate in the upper front, and slightly thicker gauge U shaped alumium cover of about 3-3.5 mm thickness. The latter was, at best, a deflector plate from which hits at a steep angle might bounce off. But its not true armor at all - if it is, then the 109 had armored wing roots too, because they too were covered by dural sheets of similar thickness (and probably intended to be deflector plates for the radiators, apart from forming the 109s box-spar stucture). The Spitfire's upper tank was not self sealing at all (for the lack of space), and I am not quite sure if the lower tank can be considered self sealing in a true matter of sense. Linatex AFAIK is not a 'self sealing' material, its just a more rubber type more resistant to rupture, such as one resulting from a violent impact of a bullet and the consequent hydrostatic shock inside the tank.

Vlerkies
Apr-10-2014, 05:56
Interesting information, thanks!

Yesterday I flew a Lobby mission with a squadron mate to test some things. As those tests always end with at least one plane going down:
After a 20mm hit the engine of a Spitfire caught fire. We were wondering why even after some minutes of gliding the fire did no harm to the pilot and also did not spread.

Is this due to the "firewall" that is shown in your Spitfire's diagram?

No, you should have been a well done Eisbein in about 5-10 seconds. You are basically sitting in front of a flame thrower.
109s have a fire behind them with the slipstream pulling the heat and flames away from the pilot, and we fade to black in 5 seconds.

Vlerkies
Apr-10-2014, 06:00
As to wether it was self sealing or not, I have yet to see any positive evidence for the mid-1940 109E fuel not being self sealing. Its odd, to say the least, when Heinkels, 110s were known to have SS tanks - why would the 109 be an exception..? Later 109s had a multi-layered aluminium sandwhich armor behind the fuel tank, which rendered incendiary ammo ineffective even if it penetrated that light alloy armor.


I have read up quite a bit in the last week or so on this and dont nearly have the knowledge on it that you or Buzz have on this subject, but I am sure I read the 109 tanks in Bob were not self sealing. I will try and find reference to it.
I concur with you fully on the armor plate though.

Archie
Apr-10-2014, 06:31
Currently reading 'Hurricane Aces 1939-40' (Osprey) lots of pilot reports of 109's being shot down in flames there. I think it was a very real hazard for both sides.

Osprey
Apr-10-2014, 06:46
The fuel tank on the 109 was not "open to any attack from the rear" - quite the contrary, it was protected by a 8 mm steel armored bulkhead that rendered any .303/7,92 attack from directly astern completely ineffective. Only deflection shots can hit the tank. It appars that Il-2 CLOD / TF does not model this armor on the 109E at all.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/109E-7Zmanual_zps657b11bd.png (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/109_stuff/109E-7Zmanual_zps657b11bd.png.html)

As to wether it was self sealing or not, I have yet to see any positive evidence for the mid-1940 109E fuel not being self sealing. Its odd, to say the least, when Heinkels, 110s were known to have SS tanks - why would the 109 be an exception..? Later 109s had a multi-layered aluminium sandwhich armor behind the fuel tank, which rendered incendinary ammo ineffective even if it penetrated that light alloy armor.

The fuel tank on the Spitfire was harder to reach, being situated behind the engine, but that's it. The protection it had was rather marginal, a very thin 4 (IIRC) mm armor plate in the upper front, and slightly thicker gauge U shaped alumium cover of about 3-3.5 mm thickness. The latter was, at best, a deflector plate from which hits at a steep angle might bounce off. But its not true armor at all - if it is, then the 109 had armored wing roots too, because they too were covered by dural sheets of similar thickness (and probably intended to be deflector plates for the radiators, apart from forming the 109s box-spar stucture). The Spitfire's upper tank was not self sealing at all (for the lack of space), and I am not quite sure if the lower tank can be considered self sealing in a true matter of sense. Linatex AFAIK is not a 'self sealing' material, its just a more rubber type more resistant to rupture, such as one resulting from a violent impact of a bullet and the consequent hydrostatic shock inside the tank.

Nice picture but that is an E-7. I know you cited some examples of crash inspections, although they were typed, not referenced as wartime documents, but if you cast your mind back to the 100 octane discussion, you gave no ground at all and demanded evidence in the extreme, so provide it please. I can't understand how you could possibly cite zero mention of something as being evidence. Hawker don't mention rocket boosters and Chobham armour but this doesn't mean the Hurricane had any of this. Sorry K but that isn't convincing.

But I'm not that silly, I'm realistic and not interested in 'winning' but rather the facts of the matter. I'm convinced that Germany fitted armour on the fly in the field or as an upgrade rather like the British fitted an armoured glass front window so I would think that the best answer is that the armour plate is an option but it adds weight which affects performance and agility, and even COG, but difficult to get stats for this I imagine. Also, the British use AP rounds, one would need to know how effective they were at penetrating 8mm of plate (after entering the fuselage through a skin).

It's also a poor assumption that a manufacturer of bomber aircraft would do the same things as fighter aircraft and vice versa. Not only are they different companies but making aircraft for different roles - don't forget that these guys didn't even bother to put in the same radio crystals into fighters and bombers so that they could even talk to each other!

We are only talking about a chance of fire anyway, if a 109 is caught from behind with a squirt it's going to die whether the pilot bails, is killed or catches fire. You're a goner.

TF are on a break anyway so unless this is a provable game destroyer for one entire faction rather like the PK problem then I'm not convinced it'll get patched. You would need to make a strong case.

vranac
Apr-10-2014, 07:19
The fuel tank on the 109 was not "open to any attack from the rear" - quite the contrary, it was protected by a 8 mm steel armored bulkhead that rendered any .303/7,92 attack from directly astern completely ineffective. Only deflection shots can hit the tank. It appars that Il-2 CLOD / TF does not model this armor on the 109E at all.

That just shows that with Me 109E7 armored bulkhead became standard equipment. I have no doubts that before it was used as a field modification.
On both sides.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3K/Dk/w8HUjiL/no609-armour.jpg

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-10-2014, 07:52
That just shows that with Me 109E7 armored bulkhead became standard equipment. I have no doubts that before it was used as a field modification. On both sides.

According to secondary sources, the armored bulkhead became standard with the E-4 introduced in May 1940. Earlier models like the E-1 and E-3 were retrofitted. And of course subsequent versions like the E-7, E-7/N, E-7/Z also had them.

I wouldn't call it a field mod, because that would be something done locally, or unofficially, but this is something mentioned in the manual of the plane since the end of 1939...

Its just like the case as in the Spitfire, ie. stock Mark I planes and manuals did not have them or show them, only Mark II upwards. But that doesn't mean earlier Marks did not have them, or weren't retrofitted, they just did not have it from the start.

Vlerkies
Apr-10-2014, 09:00
Looking through UK national archives at least one of those crash docs is referenced there correctly but not available for viewing online.
I hardly think the man will just create this info for shits and giggles.


Just on the Spits here is clear reference to the retrofitting of their tanks/armour and the extra 74lb's it brought with it, which they say was 'compensated' for buy the 100oct and new prop, so at least no performance loss.
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9838&p=109846&viewfull=1#post109846

74lbs on a aircraft with a takeoff weight of over 5000lbs is hardly a lot of extra weight anyway.

varrattu
Apr-10-2014, 09:28
According to secondary sources, the armored bulkhead became standard with the E-4 introduced in May 1940. Earlier models like the E-1 and E-3 were retrofitted ... ...

The armored bulkhead which was intoduced in the Bf109E-4 is the so called Behälterschutzplatte (Leichtmetallpanzerung) and became standard in Bf109F and later models. "Behälterschutzplatte (Leichtmetallpanzerung)" stands for a laminated dural bulkhead placed behind the tank and may have had a weight of about 50 kg.

Beside the "Behälterschutzplatte (Leichtmetallpanzerung)" the Bf109F and later models were fitted with "Kopfschutzplatten" and "Rückenschutzplatten".

Regards ~V~

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-10-2014, 09:58
Interesting Varratu, what is the source for this?

Merrick IIRC states that weight of the bulkhead was 40 kg (or 42 - in any case, it seems about right, the later light alloy bulkhead of the F/G/K weighted 32 kg).

Robo.
Apr-10-2014, 10:02
Exactly - but this is all post BoB era equipment afik. Also, Behaelterschutzplatte (fuel tank protection plate) was located in the fuselage in a slightly different place than the E-7/Z schematics shown above. It was a two-piece light metal plate protecting the fuel tank, in the fuselage cut out it was located directly underneath the antenna mast and not as far back as the drawing with the HAHA Geraet installation shows. I am not convinced that this is what the British described in the examination documents quoted above, that's all. I might be a bit diff but I always read this 'standard bulkhead' simply as standard bulkhead between cockpit section and the rest of the fuselage as opposed some extra armour or head protection etc.

I am curious if there is any direct or indirect evidence. By anecdotal I meant any mention in LW pilot's diaries, e.g. ''Wunderbar, I got my new plane today, it has got armour plate installed to protect the fuel tank, I now feel much safer on ATAG.'' The reason I mention the Slovak Bf 109Es is that they were all refurbished BoB era E-4s and the notes said specifically that they had no fuel tank protection installed unlike the newer versions. Indirect evidence I know, they might have been not fitted because they were just for 'export' - fair enough. Also, all modifications are mentioned somewhere, although not necessarily in the manuals (e.g. coolant valve allowing to close one half of the cooling circuit, also standard for Friedrich and retrofitted to some Emils, also marginal, but you will find some evidence about this modification, there are even drawings available. But there is absolutely nothing on fitting Behaelterschutzplatten into all BoB Emils. That's why I am skeptical. Which of course doesn't mean I am right ;) I am simply curious for more evidence to back up what you're saying.

trademe900
Apr-10-2014, 10:15
Currently reading 'Hurricane Aces 1939-40' (Osprey) lots of pilot reports of 109's being shot down in flames there. I think it was a very real hazard for both sides.

I was just about to say. Of all the combat reports I've read over the years, there's actually a large proportion reporting german planes going up in flames. I figure it must just be the extreme rate of fire from the 8 guns putting hits at all angles, reaching past the 8mm bulkhead. Last night I was reading my great grandfather's 73 squadron hurricanes and also 85 squadron's combat reports- the amount of 109s bursting into flames is quite alarming, considering the armored bulkhead in the rear fuselage. And especially those 110s- accounts of both engines lighting up in flames!

varrattu
Apr-10-2014, 10:24
... But there is absolutely nothing on fitting Behaelterschutzplatten into all BoB Emils ...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

~V~

Falco
Apr-10-2014, 10:48
8921

This is from an E3, it may be a Swiss export

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-10-2014, 10:50
Well it would be nice to see the sources of Varratu and Robo qouted and posted.

It seems Varratu is looking at the 109F "Rumpfwerk" manual, and it is his conclusion that it

a) it was the same as on the Emil (nope, it was light alloy vs the earlier steel plate - British reports are clear on this, this was something new in the 109F for them and some wild guessing was made why it is now made of light alloy)
b) only became standard with the 109F (a logical flaw that if its present in the F manual, its cannot be present in any earlier which he did not see however)

Osprey
Apr-10-2014, 11:04
I was just about to say. Of all the combat reports I've read over the years, there's actually a large proportion reporting german planes going up in flames. I figure it must just be the extreme rate of fire from the 8 guns putting hits at all angles, reaching past the 8mm bulkhead. Last night I was reading my great grandfather's 73 squadron hurricanes and also 85 squadron's combat reports- the amount of 109s bursting into flames is quite alarming, considering the armored bulkhead in the rear fuselage. And especially those 110s- accounts of both engines lighting up in flames!


But nobody has provided any evidence of this for BoB era aircraft. A "bulkhead" does not have to be armoured to be a bulkhead, and I find Robo's point interesting because yes, stating "standard bulkhead" does seem to imply that, if anything, there was no armour and this was standard out of the factory. In common english it is normal to specify something as 'standard' or 'stock' if it has no modification since the factory. The reason it is mentioned is perhaps because the British may well have found examples of armour on some Emil's or had intelligence that it was the case thus asked for inspections to include this check, who knows? We don't. Now, I am guessing, but Robo's argument is quite convincing and supported by other items which also show no armour, I certainly don't see those reports as evidence at all unless we know exactly what the inspectors meant by the word 'standard'.

Pilot armour was retrofitted, you can see this type on some Emil's as a curved plate behind the pilots head.

Talisman
Apr-10-2014, 11:06
With no protection to the lower part of the Bf 109 fuel tank under the seat, even if there was some protection to the back of the seat, it would appear to be beyond reasonable doubt that shots on target from the low rear, the most common attack profile, from a Spit or Hurry with 8 machine guns firing at 160 rounds per second (yes I know they will not all hit) should have a good chance of damaging the fuel tank and causing a fire.
Correctly it would appear, this is the only firing position from which I find I am able to inflict such damage in CloD, but not every time as gunnery is difficult. But if I am lucky enough to bounce a 109 low to the rear in level flight, or catch him in a climb during a dogfight in the same low rear position, then I can have some success, but it is by no means guaranteed. I find that fires will only happen if I am on target for long enough (not having tracer in my guns helps with this as there is no warning of my attack) or if I can manage several bites of the cherry from the same attack position during an extended dogfight (not very easy to do).
The rate of fire from a 109 on a Spitfire from the same common low rear attack position is less, but as I understand it, the weight of fire is more (I stand to be corrected if wrong on this point) if hits are on target. So it would appear reasonable that the Spit is more vulnerable to overall catastrophic damage to 109 shots on target in this instance, and that it is more likely to be all over for the Spitfire before the lesser chance of a fuel tank catching fire anyway.
The Bf 109 fuel tank fires in this instance appear entirely reasonable to me, and tally with pilot combat reports of the day. I think the latest TF patch is giving it to us in a much more real way than before.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Vlerkies
Apr-10-2014, 11:11
Nope I think your wrong there, and I am wrong as well.
We need to distinguish between the various armour.
Head
Rear seat
Rear fusealage tank

I think this is where it is getting messy.
Reading the crash reports I now interpret it as mentions of the top 2, not the rear tank.
I found a book that indicates the E4 had it all, the E1 and E3 were fitted during 1940 with the head and rear seat armor.
I will dig it up when I get home and post, maybe it offers more clarity, one way or another.

Vlerkies
Apr-10-2014, 12:24
re above, From the book by Tony Holmes Spit vs BF109: BoB

http://i.imgur.com/Yto2odi.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OjwqhuE.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/U06AYBO.jpg

Robo.
Apr-10-2014, 13:48
Nope I think your wrong there, and I am wrong as well.
We need to distinguish between the various armour.
Head
Rear seat
Rear fusealage tank

Reading the crash reports I now interpret it as mentions of the top 2, not the rear tank.


Vlerkies you're saying exactly what I was saying before - the Brits did not mean the fuel tank protection but the standard bulkhead between the cockpit and the fuel tank. This was fitted into all E-4s and most of the E-3s in the factory and all E-1s have been upgraded after the BoF campaign. This is well known and well documented fact and there is no disagreement about that - pictures, manuals, even relics from WWII crash sites and restoration projects are good evidence. The head armour was also the same case (standard on E-4s), although some pilots didn't like it, it was installed on SOME Emils according to the photographs. I remember many instances where pilots didn't like the limited visibility and also many instances where they survived the attack because the plate stopped the .303 bullet effectively.

As for CloD, I believe the armour behind the seat is modeled (I am not sure though, same with RAF armoured seats), but unfortunately we're completely missing the option of having the head armour on or off. Would be cool imho.

However, none of these has anything to do with fuel tank protection.

The fuel tank armour is something I am skeptical about, I did not see any evidence of this being standard equipment in BoB era, I know for sure this was something installed in all Friedrichs and post BoB Emils like e.g. buletproof windshields or droptanks. What Kurfurst is saying sounds as unlikely to me as if he was saying that these extra windshields were already standard equipment in the summer of 1940, hence my curiosity.

The bulkhead protecting the fuel tank is exactly what varrattu mentions and was placed (in Friedrichs and all later models) directly behind the fuel tank, was made of some kind of light metal (Leichtmetall-panzerung). It was placed in different place than the diagram of E-7/Z posted above and it is not something the British reports would primarily mention, because as I said before, it's not really obvious and it's certainly not the 'standard bulkhead'.

Hope that's clearer, I honestly don't care if I am wrong if I learn something new, I find this subject fascinating (don't we all lol?), I am just saying that more information is needed. The fuel tank location was a problem recognised very quickly, quick improvements and modifications were being made on both sides, but my money would be on the 109 monographies claiming the fuel tank protection came after the BoB.

trademe900
Apr-10-2014, 13:54
you're saying exactly what I was saying before - the Brits did not mean the fuel tank protection but the standard bulkhead between the cockpit and the fuel tank. .

Very good point Robo and Osprey, didn't expect it could be seen that way. Cool find there Vlerkies. Could have been an E4 only thing perhaps. One thing that comes to mind here- if this wasn't the case and indeed E1s and E3s all had the retrofitted 8mm plate, then how were this many reported 109s getting lit up in flames back then?

This is an interesting discussion guys!

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-10-2014, 14:36
Tony Holmes book is not a very reliable source, I have seen it is has many technical inaccuracies, ie. E-1/E-3 production started not in late 1939, but in the end of 1938 etc.

The following relate to the introduction of armor plating into the Bf 109E from December 1939.

From L.Dv.228/3_Entwurf_Bf109E3StarreSchuBwaffe, promulgated 17 November 1939. No armor plating is yet mentioned in the Ladeplan.

E-1

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/LDv228-3_Entwurf_Bf109E1_StarreSchuBwaffe_1939-11-17_noPanzerplatte_zps72600f62.png (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/LDv228-3_Entwurf_Bf109E1_StarreSchuBwaffe_1939-11-17_noPanzerplatte_zps72600f62.png.html)

E-3

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/LDv228-3_Entwurf_Bf109E3_StarreSchuBwaffe_1939-11-17_noPanzerplatte_zps3edf2e70.png (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/LDv228-3_Entwurf_Bf109E3_StarreSchuBwaffe_1939-11-17_noPanzerplatte_zps3edf2e70.png.html)



The Ladeplan was revised a month later in December 1939. The next two pages are from L.Dv. 556/3, Bf109E Flugzeughandbuch (Entwurf), promulgated 16 December 1939.

- it notes that the Weights and Loadings are only valid for fully equipped aircraft without armor plates. At this point armor plates were being introduced, but the Loading sheet was not yet updated.

E-1

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/LDv556-3_Bf109E_Flugzeughandbuch_Entwurf_E-1_Ladeplan_1939-12-16_Noteforarmorplates_zpsd5316202.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/LDv556-3_Bf109E_Flugzeughandbuch_Entwurf_E-1_Ladeplan_1939-12-16_Noteforarmorplates_zpsd5316202.jpg.html)

E-3

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/LDv556-3_Bf109E_Flugzeughandbuch_Entwurf_E-3_Ladeplan_1939-12-16_Noteforarmorplates_zpseb36eaca.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/LDv556-3_Bf109E_Flugzeughandbuch_Entwurf_E-3_Ladeplan_1939-12-16_Noteforarmorplates_zpseb36eaca.jpg.html)



Crashed aircraft report of E-1 from October 1940. Armor is mentioned as fuselage cross bulkhead and head protection.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/ai0028g0029-uffz-zimmermann_zps0c522f85.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/ai0028g0029-uffz-zimmermann_zps0c522f85.jpg.html)


RAF Combat experience report from March 1941, summarizing type vulnerabilities from experieance over Britain and Norther France, 1940/41. Confirms presence of armored bulkhead again.

"...owing to the position of armor, which is some 50 inches astern of his seat".

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/PROAIR16_35042A1_zps9ee49474.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/PROAIR16_35042A1_zps9ee49474.jpg.html)
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/PROAIR16_35042A2_zps309203c7.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/PROAIR16_35042A2_zps309203c7.jpg.html)

E-7/Z manual showing the position of the armored bulkhead:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E-7Zmanual_zpse1b82fb5.png (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E-7Zmanual_zpse1b82fb5.png.html)


British 1942 firing trials using a 109E as a stand-in for the 109F. Again the armored bulkhead of the 109E is mentioned - for trials it was removed and replaced with a dural plate, as in the 109F (and it would make no sense to test it this way, if it would be the same dural bulkhead...) It is also hinted that the 109F armor is different from 109E, consisting of both pilot back and underseat plate, head armor in addition to the (now dural) bulkhead.

"The laminated dural bulkhead is a recent feature of the 109F"

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E_replica_Vulenrability_trials1942_mentioningof armoredbulkheadof109E_zps2250ae92.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E_replica_Vulenrability_trials1942_mentioningof armoredbulkheadof109E_zps2250ae92.jpg.html)

End of story on my part.

Vlerkies
Apr-10-2014, 17:01
Very good point Robo and Osprey, didn't expect it could be seen that way. Cool find there Vlerkies. Could have been an E4 only thing perhaps. One thing that comes to mind here- if this wasn't the case and indeed E1s and E3s all had the retrofitted 8mm plate, then how were this many reported 109s getting lit up in flames back then?

This is an interesting discussion guys!

Interesting indeed. The point is though, I have read, frikkin somewhere, that this sort of armour was all retrofitted before Bob to existing air-frames. So its about investigating and trying to find the truth that matters, nothing else really.
E1-3-4 were all around at the same time. The devil is in the detail and more digging is required, at least just to satisfy my own curiosity.




British 1942 firing trials using a 109E as a stand-in for the 109F. Again the armored bulkhead of the 109E is mentioned - for trials it was removed and replaced with a dural plate, as in the 109F (and it would make no sense to test it this way, if it would be the same dural bulkhead...) It is also hinted that the 109F armor is different from 109E, consisting of both pilot back and underseat plate, head armor in addition to the (now dural) bulkhead.

"The laminated dural bulkhead is a recent feature of the 109F"

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E_replica_Vulenrability_trials1942_mentioningof armoredbulkheadof109E_zps2250ae92.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E_replica_Vulenrability_trials1942_mentioningof armoredbulkheadof109E_zps2250ae92.jpg.html)

End of story on my part.

Fig1 pg 5 would be a real gem Kurfurst. :thumbsup:

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-10-2014, 17:50
Fig1 pg 5 would be a real gem Kurfurst. :thumbsup:

It just shows how the 109E fuselage was converted to be a replica 109F armor installation, ie. the usual backplate + leichtmetallpanzerung combo, and not the original 109E armor scheme. I am pretty sure you have seen how it looks on the 109F, its just another drawing of the same thing.

8927

Mattias
Apr-10-2014, 18:01
This is an interesting discussion guys!

+1 :thumbsup:
I'm love to read this kind of civil discussions and the sharing of historical documents is truly great :thumbsup:

TF is well aware that some parts, like armour plates, are missing from some models. We intend to make corrections in line with historical documentation for TF5.0.
In the meanwhile we are happy for all input :thumbsup:

Cheers/m

Robo.
Apr-10-2014, 18:16
Excellent post Kurfurst, that makes it all clear. My apologies for being skeptical :thumbsup:

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-10-2014, 23:10
I have been busy with real life so haven't been able to respond to the various posts.

I am well aware of the various aspects of protection installed in the 109's.

The laminated aluminum sheet bulkhead installed behind the fuel tank in the 109's to deflect rounds was not a part of the vanilla game. There was nothing protecting the fuel tank.

We were unable to redo the entire set of hitboxes and 3D models for the 109's, (or add the bulkhead) for TF 4.0 or 4.312. We expect to do this for TF 5.0. As a temporary measure, I have added a functional representation of this bulkhead in the Team Fusion mod, by simply increasing the thickness of the actual fuel tank itself. This actually provides better protection than the historical bulkhead, since it is not just resistant to rounds from the rear, but also from the side and underneath.

Regarding self sealing tanks: There is nothing I have seen to indicate the 109E's had self sealing tanks in 1940. The first 109 to have self sealing tanks was the 109F, but it appears that even that aircraft's early models did not have this as a standard installation and that only in 1941 did it become standard.

It is unclear as to whether the 109E's were retro-fitted in 1941 with self sealing tanks. Since the Luftwaffe had a practice of upgrading older models which remained in service, with new equipment, I think it is very likely this happened. (the 109E remained in service through 1942 as a Jabo aircraft) I believe, but this needs more research, the fuel tank dimensions were similar for both the E and F models, so this would be a logical installation.

Regarding the pilot armour... as others have mentioned, it was installed in the 109E-4 to start, and later added to other earlier versions.

trademe900
Apr-11-2014, 02:40
I
The laminated aluminum sheet bulkhead installed behind the fuel tank in the 109's to deflect rounds was not a part of the vanilla game. There was nothing protecting the fuel tank.

We were unable to redo the entire set of hitboxes and 3D models for the 109's, (or add the bulkhead) for TF 4.0 or 4.312. We expect to do this for TF 5.0. As a temporary measure, I have added a functional representation of this bulkhead in the Team Fusion mod, by simply increasing the thickness of the actual fuel tank itself. This actually provides better protection than the historical bulkhead, since it is not just resistant to rounds from the rear, but also from the side and underneath.
.
Man this is cool. Every post of yours I read, buzz. I love hearing about the astounding level of detail and mechanics that have gone on for these fixes. Nice substitute fix.

One question though: 'laminated aluminium sheet bulkhead', this implying you don't think it was the 8mm fuselage cross sectional steel plate in the e versions?

LuseKofte
Apr-11-2014, 03:10
Did I get it wrong, I always believed the dangerous fuel tanks on the fighter was Hurricane right in front of the cockpit = many many pilots with severe burns.
109 Right behind the cockpit and no particular danger to pilot but occasional a pyrotechnical problem that was common for all ac without self sealed fuel tanks.

If we look at the historical win loose rate I think this game get it pretty right, that is one of the points keeping me flying it. I really never seen a Spit burn in this game, but I have seen countless falling from the sky, so I have problems seeing the purpose on this discussion

trademe900
Apr-11-2014, 03:28
Did I get it wrong, I always believed the dangerous fuel tanks on the fighter was Hurricane right in front of the cockpit = many many pilots with severe burns.
109 Right behind the cockpit and no particular danger to pilot but occasional a pyrotechnical problem that was common for all ac without self sealed fuel tanks.

If we look at the historical win loose rate I think this game get it pretty right, that is one of the points keeping me flying it. I really never seen a Spit burn in this game, but I have seen countless falling from the sky, so I have problems seeing the purpose on this discussion

Spitfire has a far bigger tank right there in front of cockpit panel, 48 gallons. Hurricane tank is 28 gallon reserve tank- way smaller. Hurricane reason for being fire prone should be because of the 2 exposed wing tanks in the center mainplane section (close to cockpit). If that nose tank gets lit up in either Spitfire or Hurricane, it's pretty obvious the occupant is never going to live to tell the tale. That is a horrific thought- you'd only be alive for seconds.

You assume the motive of the discussion is for 'winning', mate. The point of the discussion is for realism and accuracy, not 'balance', win/loss rate or any of that malarkey. There is great purpose to this discussion, I'm loving it!

Osprey
Apr-11-2014, 03:58
Did I get it wrong, I always believed the dangerous fuel tanks on the fighter was Hurricane right in front of the cockpit = many many pilots with severe burns.


The front tank wasn't the main threat but, IIRC, that there was no sealed bulkhead between the wingroot and cockpit so any leak in the main wing tanks resulted in fuel pouring into the cockpit directly and often this fuel was already burning. I've read this but would certainly like to see an explosion diagram if anybody can post.

Something else fuel related and I don't expect a patch but one of those minor issues which doesn't bother us Hurricane pilots too much is that the reserve tank, the gravity fed one at the front, was used in order to start the engine and then the pilot would switch to the main tanks. In game you can start on main and that is not correct. Still, it's a minor issue.

Fascinating discussion all round.

trademe900
Apr-11-2014, 04:03
I don't expect a patch but one of those minor issues which doesn't bother us Hurricane pilots too much is that the reserve tank, the gravity fed one at the front, was used in order to start the engine and then the pilot would switch to the main tanks. In game you can start on main and that is not correct. Still, it's a minor issue.

Fascinating discussion though.

the fuel was pumped from the center mainplane wing tanks into the 28 gallon reserve tank just ahead of the cockpit. This was the main fuel feed to the engine.

trademe900
Apr-11-2014, 05:01
It seems that '8mm' and 'bulkhead' are where things are still not 100% clear, which is what Vlerkies pointed out earlier. We know that the planes had bulkheads which could refer to either the cockpit or aft fuel tank section, the curved head armour and seat armour- but which of these items were in which 109? The curved head armour definitely fits in that category, and the E4 factory rear fuselage bulkhead.

So far, what I infer from all the posts here and looking through the sources myself is:

3 components
-Curved head armour, 8mm 28lbs
-Rear seat armour, 53lbs 8mm
-Rear fuselage bulkhead

Early E1s circa 1939: No armour.
Mid 1940 E1's/E3's: Retrofitted curved head armour, seat armour, standard bulkhead.
E4: Curved head armour, seat armour, factory fitted 8mm armoured bulkhead aft of fuel tank.

Also, just another little thought. The Spitfires and Hurricanes were able to have their seat armour fitted as a field mod. However, to get to the rear bulkhead you would need to remove the canopy,seat, fuel tank, fuel tank bay lining; then you have a large, heavy 8mm plate spanning the entire cross section of the fuselage that would need to be somehow squeezed and rotated into the cockpit area and around other components down into the fuselage cavity. That just doesn't seem feasible. Surely that would have to be fitted as part of the factory fuselage assembly process, ie. E4's?

Osprey
Apr-11-2014, 06:59
the fuel was pumped from the center mainplane wing tanks into the 28 gallon reserve tank just ahead of the cockpit. This was the main fuel feed to the engine.

But for startup it was on the reserve, interesting though the reason this pilot gives for using the reserve on startup. 3.57


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf-ANpwFGWk

The question is really whether that pump even runs without the engine running, and the evidence is in the manual.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=i_PaeIRxuVAC&pg=PP13&lpg=PP13&dq=hawker+hurricane+fuel+system&source=bl&ots=q4M55w_eOH&sig=36Earw17-CZz0-2wFsaLDpSdty0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z8pHU-eVNNPX7Aaz4ICQCw&sqi=2&ved=0CGoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=hawker%20hurricane%20fuel%20system&f=false

Hope the link works:

2 (i)
"...fuel is delivered to the engine by an engine-driven pump..."

So you need to start on the reserve tank because it is gravity fed, then switch immediately. In game you do not need to do this.

Osprey
Apr-11-2014, 07:11
It seems that '8mm' and 'bulkhead' are where things are still not 100% clear, which is what Vlerkies pointed out earlier. We know that the planes had bulkheads which could refer to either the cockpit or aft fuel tank section, the curved head armour and seat armour- but which of these items were the 8mm steel for sure? The curved head armour definitely fits in that category, and the E4 factory rear fuselage bulkhead.

So far, what I infer from all the posts here and looking through the sources myself is:

3 components
-Curved head armour, 8mm 28lbs
-Rear seat armour, 53lbs 8mm
-Rear fuselage bulkhead

Early E1s circa 1939: No armour.
Mid 1940 E1's/E3's: Retrofitted curved head armour, seat armour, standard bulkhead.
E4: Curved head armour, seat armour, factory 8mm armoured bulkhead aft of fuel tank.

Also, another little thought. The Spitfires and Hurricanes were able to have their seat armour fitted as a field mod. However, to get to the rear bulkhead you would need to remove the canopy,seat, fuel tank, fuel tank bay lining; then you have a massive, heavy 8mm plate spanning the entire cross section of the fuselage that would need to be somehow squeezed and rotated into the cockpit area and around all the other components down into the fuselage cavity. That just doesn't seem feasible. Surely that would have to be fitted as part of the factory fuselage assembly process, ie. E4's?

It's feasible, just like your mechanic can do stuff to your car.

@Kurfurst. What is the source of those documents you have posted? Are they really official from the manufacturer? I see no date, a low quality drawing and a lot of gothic writing. One should consider that just because an older document had something it doesn't mean it entered production.

trademe900
Apr-11-2014, 07:38
8966

F version discovered with new additional dural armoured bulkhead rear of fuel tank. Interesting ammunition effectiveness data here.


13 July 1940
Air Intelligence Reports

Increasing use is being made of armour plate both in bombers and fighters. An armoured bulkhead conforming to shape of fuselage five feet behind pilot was found on a Messerschmitt 109 which crashed at Elham (Kent). The thickness of the plate is 8mm.

This is quite interesting and relevant. The very armoured bulkhead aft of the fuel tank in question. First 109 E4 discovered with the steel bulkhead? I'm thinking it was the E4's which had this. Would be really cool to find out anything more about this crash and see if this was perhaps not an E4?

The question remains- if most planes by this time did indeed have the 8mm bulkhead covering the fuel tank, then how on earth were there so many accounts of 109s lit up in flames?

If the first fighter to be shot down over the UK was the 8th July and by the 13th this intelligence report had come through, it stands to reason that a significant number of 109s had the armoured 8mm bulkhead.

9./JG52 Ziegler
Apr-11-2014, 08:12
It's feasible, just like your mechanic can do stuff to your car.

@Kurfurst. What is the source of those documents you have posted? Are they really official from the manufacturer? I see no date, a low quality drawing and a lot of gothic writing. One should consider that just because an older document had something it doesn't mean it entered production.

Hmmm? So in case one (you think) it is perfectly reasonable to shoehorn this into the hurricane in the field. Just like a mechanic "doing stuff" to your car, yet in case two something stated in documents (for a 109) doesn't really mean it happened? I think your bias is hanging out a bit. I know, just playing devil's advocate is all. :)

Talisman
Apr-11-2014, 08:45
8966

F version discovered with new additional armoured bulkhead rear of fuel tank. Interesting ammunition effectiveness data here.


13 July 1940
Air Intelligence Reports

Increasing use is being made of armour plate both in bombers and fighters. An armoured bulkhead conforming to shape of fuselage five feet behind pilot was found on a Messerschmitt 109 which crashed at Elham (Kent). The thickness of the plate is 8mm.

This is quite interesting and relevant. The very armoured bulkhead aft of the fuel tank in question. First 109 E4 discovered with the steel bulkhead perhaps? I'm thinking it was the E4's which had this. Would be really cool to find out anything more about this crash and see if this was perhaps not an E4?

The question remains- if most planes by this time did indeed have the 8mm bulkhead covering the fuel tank, then how on earth were there so many accounts of 109s lit up in flames?

I think we need to be very careful in the way we say things, or the casual reader of this thread may get the wrong idea. Correct me if I am wrong, but the 8mm bulkhead that is being talked about does not actually "cover the fuel tank" does it?
Also, correct me if I have got confused, but not only does it not actually "cover" the fuel tank, but it would appear to be 5 feet away from the pilot and tank to the rear.

As I said previously. With no protection to the lower part of the Bf 109 fuel tank under the seat, even if there was some protection to the back of the seat, it would appear to be beyond reasonable doubt that shots on target from the low rear, the most common attack profile, from a Spit or Hurry with 8 machine guns firing at 160 rounds per second (yes I know they will not all hit) should have a good chance of damaging the fuel tank and causing a fire.
Correctly it would appear, this is the only firing position from which I find I am able to inflict such damage in CloD, but not every time as gunnery is difficult. But if I am lucky enough to bounce a 109 low to the rear in level flight, or catch him in a climb during a dogfight in the same low rear position, then I can have some success, but it is by no means guaranteed. I find that fires will only happen if I am on target for long enough (not having tracer in my guns helps with this as there is no warning of my attack) or if I can manage several bites of the cherry from the same attack position during an extended dogfight (not very easy to do).
The rate of fire from a 109 on a Spitfire from the same common low rear attack position is less, but as I understand it, the weight of fire is more (I stand to be corrected if wrong on this point) if hits are on target. So it would appear reasonable that the Spit is more vulnerable to overall catastrophic damage to 109 shots on target in this instance, and that it is more likely to be all over for the Spitfire before the lesser chance of a fuel tank catching fire anyway.
The Bf 109 fuel tank fires in this instance appear entirely reasonable to me, and tally with pilot combat reports of the day. I think the latest TF patch is giving it to us in a much more real way than before.

P.S. Thank you to all for the mostly good responses to this thread and thank you most of all to Team Fusion for all their efforts with CloD.

Happy landings,

Talisman

trademe900
Apr-11-2014, 08:57
No, you are right. It doesn't wrap around the fuel tank as might be imagined with the word cover. Just a big round plate across the inside diameter of the fuselage.

Buzz has stated this 8mm armour plate hasn't currently been able to be modeled but is for now compensated by a increased thickness of the fuel tank, simulating the armour. Perhaps even more effective at stopping damage than the 8mm steel bulkhead as it will also negate deflection shots and not just shots from dead astern.

Vlerkies
Apr-11-2014, 09:55
8966

F version discovered with new additional dural armoured bulkhead rear of fuel tank. Interesting ammunition effectiveness data here.


13 July 1940
Air Intelligence Reports

Increasing use is being made of armour plate both in bombers and fighters. An armoured bulkhead conforming to shape of fuselage five feet behind pilot was found on a Messerschmitt 109 which crashed at Elham (Kent). The thickness of the plate is 8mm.

This is quite interesting and relevant. The very armoured bulkhead aft of the fuel tank in question. First 109 E4 discovered with the steel bulkhead? I'm thinking it was the E4's which had this. Would be really cool to find out anything more about this crash and see if this was perhaps not an E4?


The question remains- if most planes by this time did indeed have the 8mm bulkhead covering the fuel tank, then how on earth were there so many accounts of 109s lit up in flames?

If the first fighter to be shot down over the UK was the 8th July and by the 13th this intelligence report had come through, it stands to reason that a significant number of 109s had the armoured 8mm bulkhead.

Looks on that date its an E3

Mission: R.A.F. Aerodromes, England.

Date: 8th July 1940

Time: 3.45 p.m.

Unit: 4 Staffel./Jagdgeschwader 51

Type: Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3

Werke/Nr.1162

Coded: 4 + (White)

Location: Bladbean Hill, Elham, Kent, England.

Pilot: Leutnant. Johann Boehm – Captured POW.

REASON FOR LOSS:

This aircraft was damaged in combat by Sergeant E. A. (Boy) Mould in a Spitfire of No.74 Squadron. Probably took off from Desvres, near Boulogne. In a formation of four aircraft, flying in line astern chasing a Spitfire, this aircraft was caught from below by another Spitfire which shot into the engine. The pilot put the aircraft into a dive to escape but was hit in the non self-sealing fuel tank and crash landed with undercarriage retracted.

Markings: 4 in white with red border. Aircraft had a staffel sign of a Raven with spectacles and an umbrella under its arm. Built by Erla Maschinwerke. Armament: two 20 mm cannon and two 7.9 MG. The pilot had been in the air force for two years and had carried out ninety-five War Flights.and forced to land at Bladbean Hill, pilot taken prisoner. Aircraft captured damaged. This was the first German fighter to be shot down over the UK.

COMBAT REPORT Sgt E. A. Mould 1940

I was Red leader of “A” flight No.74 Squadron, with No. 2 of Blue Section also in company. The four of us were on interception patrol over Dover when I sighted four Me 109s flying in line astern on my starboard beam. I gave the order, Line astern and turned to starboard, climbing up under the tail of the rear Me 109. I gave him a short 30 degree deflection shot and he immediately half-rolled and dived to ground level followed by Red 2.

In trying to follow him I blacked myself out and lost sight of him, but I saw another Me 109 also flying at low level so I dived on him from about 3,000 feet. He immediately dived to ground level and used evasive tactics by flying along the valleys behind Dover and Folkestone, which only allowed me to fire short deflection bursts at him. After two of these bursts smoke or vapour came from the radiator beneath his port wing and other bursts appeared to enter the fuselage. He eventually landed with his wheels up as I fired my last burst at him in a field near Elham. The pilot was apparantly uninjured and I circled round him till he was taken prisoner.
http://www.aircrewremembrancesociety.co.uk/styled-15/styled-17/styled-200/index.html

http://i.imgur.com/6q2sHyX.jpg
http://www.wingleader.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/luftwaffe_crash_archiveswebsample1.pdf

trademe900
Apr-11-2014, 10:41
Vlerkies, great find. It's indeed an E3 of 4./JG51 retrofitted with 8mm armoured bulkhead, this early! Thanks Ltn Johann Bohm, you've made Clod history.

Since this is July 8th, the first 109 to be shot down in England, do we all concur that the E3 and E1 were equipped with this bulkhead by BoB and not just the E4? Although Robo and Osprey brought up a good point with the terms used for the UK reports, it now seems that 'usual bulkhead' did indeed denote the 8mm steel armour in front of the fuel tank.

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-11-2014, 11:00
Excellent findings, gentlemen!

Moreover, the E-3 so captured with bulkhead armor in July 1940 was Werknummer 1162 seem to indicate that it was an early batch of E-3 retrofitted with armor. The example captured earlier by the French in November 1939, E-3 Werknummer 1304 was noted not to sport any armor yet - it would then follow that neither 1162 did originally, but was retrofitted with it later.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-11-2014, 11:12
Interesting note on the WN1162 crash

"The pilot put the aircraft into a dive to escape, reaching a speed of 435 mph but was hit in the non self-sealing fuel tank and had to crash-land the aircraft with the undercarriage retracted."

Blimey. Catching a 109 in a high speed dive at 435mph!
I'm too scared to go much past 400 in CloD!


Does anyone know the Fuselage diameter at the point where the plate appears to have been installed?
By knowing that we can calculate the weight penalty for TF5 when (presumably if) the armour is corrected....

9./JG52 Ziegler
Apr-11-2014, 11:12
Nice one Vlerkies, and great discussion everyone involved. I'm learning allot of detail I was never aware of. :thumbsup:

Vlerkies
Apr-11-2014, 11:35
Phil, thats almost exactly 700Kmh, which is exactly where things start to go all very wobbly in a 109 in CoD, add an extra say 50Kmh to that and you start to loose very important bits and pieces like control surfaces and wings.


Excellent findings, gentlemen!

Moreover, the E-3 so captured with bulkhead armor in July 1940 was Werknummer 1162 seem to indicate that it was an early batch of E-3 retrofitted with armor. The example captured earlier by the French in November 1939, E-3 Werknummer 1304 was noted not to sport any armor yet - it would then follow that neither 1162 did originally, but was retrofitted with it later.
Kurfurst, can you perhaps explain to me, and others interrested how the Werknummer was assigned?

I have a theory on the above, just a theory and it would only make sense if they were assigned to the airframes as such.

The Wk.nr was put on the tails of the aircraft (some oversprayed with cammo) but as you point out in 1939 Wk.Nr 1304 had no armour, when Wk.Nr 1162 seems it did.
My theory is that although 1162 had armour, it may well have been an airframe that first flew 'well after' 1304 made it into the air.

The 109's were produced in 4 factories, ,many E3's were converted to E4's, likewise one would assume E1's to E3's being the same airframe (fuselage) but I stand under correction in this.
It is also known that many E1's were stored for quite some time waiting for engines, etc, or when they were needed to be commissioned.

So it 'may' just be possible that while Wk.Nr 1304 was being shot down in 1939, Wk.Nr 1162 was still sitting in storage, yet to fly or be designated as E1 or E3, maybe?

Or, as you say retrofitted would also make sense.


See the one image posted previously referencing the storage.
8972

Kwiatek
Apr-11-2014, 13:13
Reading all these post and data i think that probably it could would be that way:

-many E-1 and E-3 from BOB era got pilot armour behind seat and head protection ( but not all as we see from photos from these time) - no fuel tank protection for these versions

E-3 mentioned here shot down 8 July 1940 got only pilot seat armour plate not fuel tank bulkhead plate. It didn't also have head protection.

" The aircraft had a complete circle of armour plate built to the shape of the fuselage just behind the
pilot’s seat"


- from some peroid (we dont know exacly when) probably in serial production of 109 E-4 pilot armour plate (behind seat) was changed for armoured bulhead across fuselage ( behind fuel tank) + head protection.

I dont think so that E-4 got all armour plates + armoured bulhead behind fuel tank beacuse it would be really much heavier plane ( around 2700 kg) which should significantly drop performacne of these plane.

Vlerkies
Apr-11-2014, 14:22
-many E-1 and E-3 from BOB era got pilot armour behind seat and head protection ( but not all as we see from photos from these time) - no fuel tank protection for these versions

E-3 mentioned here shot down 8 July 1940 got only pilot seat armour plate not fuel tank bulkhead plate. It didn't also have head protection.

" The aircraft had a complete circle of armour plate built to the shape of the fuselage just behind the
pilot’s seat"

Hey Kwaitek

Thanks for adding to the post.
With regards to the the above portioned quote. Read that first E3 shot down together with the firing tests that were done using the E because the F was not available at the time and the modification notes on the report as posted by Kurfurst here
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10051&p=111796&viewfull=1#post111796

Now in another post re the very first 109 shot down over Blighty at the start of Bob, this was said.

13 July 1940
Air Intelligence Reports

Increasing use is being made of armour plate both in bombers and fighters. An armoured bulkhead conforming to shape of fuselage five feet behind pilot was found on a Messerschmitt 109 which crashed at Elham (Kent). The thickness of the plate is 8mm.
RAF site here
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/campaign_diaries.cfm?diarymonth=7&diaryyear=1940&diaryday=13

That plane was an E3, without doubt at all, flown by Ltn Johann Bohm, based on crash reports, intel report, time, etc.
(Referenced here)
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10051&p=111947&viewfull=1#post111947

Now if I take a basic diagram of a E3 109 and using the known dimensions of the plane and work out the distance (5ft behind the pilot) on the correct scale, that puts the armour smack bang where the fuel tank armour plate would be(right behind the fuel tank), not the pilot armour right behind the seat as with the head armour.
Now why would they say it was 5ft behind if it wasnt there?

Pilot armour and head armour was right behind the seat, not even a foot away, 5ft behind the pilot protects the tank.

Galland for instance, only got head armour fitted to his crate in 1941, and still had a whinge about it till it saved his life.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-11-2014, 14:50
Hey Kwaitek

Thanks for adding to the post.
With regards to the the above portioned quote. Read that first E3 shot down together with the firing tests that were done using the E because the F was not available at the time and the modification notes on the report as posted by Kurfurst here
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10051&p=111796&viewfull=1#post111796

Now in another post re the very first 109 shot down over Blighty at the start of Bob, this was said.

That plane was an E3 no doubt at all based on crash report, intel report time, etc.


Now if I take a basic diagram of a E3 109 and using the known dimensions of the plane and work out the distance (5ft behind the pilot) on the correct scale that puts it smack bang where the fuel tank armour plate would be(right behind the fuel tank), not the pilot armour right behind the seat as with the head armour.
Now why would they say it was 5ft behind if it wasnt there?

Pilot armour and head armour was right behind the seat, not even a foot away, 5ft behind the pilot protects the tank.

Galland for instance, only got head armour fitted to his crate in 1941, and still had a whinge about it till it saved his life.

Thanks for all of your comments. :thumbsup:

As we have said, we expect to revise the 109E's 3D model for TF 5.0. That will include the appropriate protection for the particular type and time period.

Vlerkies
Apr-11-2014, 15:14
Thanks for all of your comments. :thumbsup:

As we have said, we expect to revise the 109E's 3D model for TF 5.0. That will include the appropriate protection for the particular type and time period.

Hi Buzz
Thank you and TF for all your hard dedicated and more often than not, selfless work. Really!

This post is really just extremely interesting, and as others have said as well, I have learnt so much from everyone's contributions.
Just trying to sort out the chaff from the detail in a coherent way with the help of ATAG members has proved invaluable, together with your input. The data is so conflicting at times.
My comments here are certainly not a dig at TF or anything like, its just an education with like minded folks, and its heartening that we can also disagree amicably. (so often not the case on online forums)
If it helps in anyway to improve TF great, if it makes me less susceptible to being crispy online, awesome :) but I think the whole thread moved well beyond that point of IL2CoD TF patches really, into the realms of a really hearty discussion.

Hope to see many many more similar discussions on ATAG.
I don't think we are quite done here yet though ;)

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-11-2014, 17:32
Phil, thats almost exactly 700Kmh, which is exactly where things start to go all very wobbly in a 109 in CoD, add an extra say 50Kmh to that and you start to loose very important bits and pieces like control surfaces and wings.


Kurfurst, can you perhaps explain to me, and others interrested how the Werknummer was assigned?

I have a theory on the above, just a theory and it would only make sense if they were assigned to the airframes as such.

I have no exact details, but from surviving Werknummer listings it appears that clearly different Werknummers were attached to each factory. Erla was assigned 666- 994 range, and the 1074 - 1574 range. This probably makes sense once we consider that the state orders were constantly revised in Lieferplans (delivery plans). It is almost certain that the Werknummers were assigned to planes being built in numerical (and thus date) order.

What is certain that both the unarmored 1304 captured by the French in November 1939, subsequently tested in Britain (ie. Morgan report) was belonging to the same, but later Erla production series as the armored Wnr 1162 example examined by the Britsh in July 1940. My conclusion is that the latter started out as an unarmored example, and later retrofitted with armor past December 1939. 1304 was captured before the first known mention of armor in the December 1939, so it just probably missed the upgrade yet..



The Wk.nr was put on the tails of the aircraft (some oversprayed with cammo) but as you point out in 1939 Wk.Nr 1304 had no armour, when Wk.Nr 1162 seems it did.
My theory is that although 1162 had armour, it may well have been an airframe that first flew 'well after' 1304 made it into the air.

IMHO 1162 was built earlier than 1304. It just remained in active service much longer, and hence had a chance to receive upgrades.


The 109's were produced in 4 factories, ,many E3's were converted to E4's, likewise one would assume E1's to E3's being the same airframe (fuselage) but I stand under correction in this.
It is also known that many E1's were stored for quite some time waiting for engines, etc, or when they were needed to be commissioned.

The Germans changed the number designation when major parts, like the engine, weapons or radio has changed in the same alphametical designated type. Minor upgrades like armor fitting etc. would not change the designation. Hence the E-1, E-3 and E-4 are the same airframe. In fact it seems from the manual that the E had something you would call in a Spitfire an "universal" wing - it could be either fitted with MGs or cannons in the two gun bays in the wing. The E-4 in any case was so designated because it had MG FF/M instead of the MG FF. Many earlier Es were upgraded to E-4 standard during July-August.

Similary, Clod/TF models only the E-4 as having the propeller automatics, however its clear from the Dec 39 manual (before the E-4) that it was already fitted to existing planes, ie. E-1 and E-3. Obviously not all plane were fitted, and its a reasonable simplifaction IMHO to have E-1 and/or E-3 modelled w/o the Verstellautomatik, to represent those older planes not yet retrofitted. But keep in mind that IRL, BoB era E-1s could have auto prop pitch just like the E-4.

BTW an E-7 would be nice (601Aa or E-7/N w. 601N, both with drop tank option). :)


So it 'may' just be possible that while Wk.Nr 1304 was being shot down in 1939, Wk.Nr 1162 was still sitting in storage, yet to fly or be designated as E1 or E3, maybe? Or, as you say retrofitted would also make sense.

Perhaps, its possible - we would need to see the individual history of 1162. In any case I am more inclined to believe it was upgraded while in service or during a major overhaul, since the E type was rushed to the frontline in the largest possible numbers in 1939/40 - some units still had Jumo 109s at the start of the war.


Also thanks to Buzzsaw for confirming that the bug in the DM model is known to the TF team and that it is to be fixed. I brough up this suspsicion of the lack of Emil armor since pre-release, my own gunnery tests seemed to confirm it (perhaps its just got acute because something else was fixed in the meantime, and bullets dont go missing in the fuselage anymore) its nice to see it finally fixed...

PS. I very much doubt that the E series had a second armor plate right behind the pilots seat, there is no indication of that in primary sources, only in secondary sources, plus the RAF combat experience report referring to the vulnerability to deflection shots because the bulkhead is placed 50 inches behind the pilot also contradicts this.

According to Merrick, the weight of the armored bulkhead of the Emil was 40 kg. Net weight gain of the plane was probably less, since the Emil already carried in an unarmored state a 60 lbs ballast in the tail to compensate for the heavier powerplant. This ballast was probably removed/reduced when the armor plate was installed in the rear fuselage, to maintain CoG.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-11-2014, 17:51
People may be interested in this excerpt from a book on the development of self sealing tanks around the time of the BoB:

http://rapidshare.com/share/4DDF5CF286D578E8AA98884123FE7A2B

Talisman
Apr-12-2014, 06:00
http://imageshack.us/a/img850/8064/bf109ecockpitdetails.png

This image shows the Me 109 fuel tank as made from a rubber bag with a plywood casing.

Talisman
Apr-12-2014, 06:34
Hey Kwaitek

Thanks for adding to the post.
With regards to the the above portioned quote. Read that first E3 shot down together with the firing tests that were done using the E because the F was not available at the time and the modification notes on the report as posted by Kurfurst here
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10051&p=111796&viewfull=1#post111796

Now in another post re the very first 109 shot down over Blighty at the start of Bob, this was said.

RAF site here
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/campaign_diaries.cfm?diarymonth=7&diaryyear=1940&diaryday=13

That plane was an E3, without doubt at all, flown by Ltn Johann Bohm, based on crash reports, intel report, time, etc.
(Referenced here)
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10051&p=111947&viewfull=1#post111947

Now if I take a basic diagram of a E3 109 and using the known dimensions of the plane and work out the distance (5ft behind the pilot) on the correct scale, that puts the armour smack bang where the fuel tank armour plate would be(right behind the fuel tank), not the pilot armour right behind the seat as with the head armour.
Now why would they say it was 5ft behind if it wasnt there?

Pilot armour and head armour was right behind the seat, not even a foot away, 5ft behind the pilot protects the tank.

Galland for instance, only got head armour fitted to his crate in 1941, and still had a whinge about it till it saved his life.

Looks to me like 5 feet behind the pilot would still put a sizeable gap between the fuel tank and the armour.

vranac
Apr-12-2014, 06:39
Nice find Kurfurst. Can you share that manual with us ?

And by the way Spitfire tank is also burning. Maybe not so often like 109's but that's only because of the position. This is with two MG's only after a good fight.
That spit was without one elevator at the end.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuCFagC4_YA

Osprey
Apr-12-2014, 07:38
Hmmm? So in case one (you think) it is perfectly reasonable to shoehorn this into the hurricane in the field. Just like a mechanic "doing stuff" to your car, yet in case two something stated in documents (for a 109) doesn't really mean it happened? I think your bias is hanging out a bit. I know, just playing devil's advocate is all. :)

First time I've ever had that said. Stunning, no really.

I'm on my phone now so won't reply about context until I'm at my pc.

Osprey
Apr-12-2014, 07:51
Thanks for all of your comments. :thumbsup:

As we have said, we expect to revise the 109E's 3D model for TF 5.0. That will include the appropriate protection for the particular type and time period.

Buz, could this be optional? Either a tick in the plane options or an 'early' type. Reason is that we still have fall of France scenarios, it keeps options open.

Long way off but thanks if this is possible.

9./JG52 Ziegler
Apr-12-2014, 08:42
First time I've ever had that said. Stunning, no really.

I'm on my phone now so won't reply about context until I'm at my pc.

Yeah I know, no worries O, we all have our preferences including Me. Just being facetious with you :thumbsup: This is a good discussion and I'm finding it interesting to discover the level of detail within the game FM's in regards to what was factual etc...

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-12-2014, 14:32
Buz, could this be optional? Either a tick in the plane options or an 'early' type. Reason is that we still have fall of France scenarios, it keeps options open.

Long way off but thanks if this is possible.

I would expect we will have both 'with/without' versions like the E-4N and E-4N De-rated.

I could have introduced versions of the Spitfire IA and Hurricane Rotol with self sealing tanks for TF 4.312, to represent the aircraft which were upgraded starting in mid-September, but did not as I would be unable at the same time to add the various configurations of the 109's.

(the Spitfire IIA has self sealing tanks)

As I said, hopefully we will have all the types represented for TF 5.0.

trademe900
Apr-13-2014, 02:56
So with the 8mm armoured bulkhead more or less solved, now remains the question- did the 109 actually have any seat/pilot armour other than the head piece? If not, you can imagine how extremely vulnerable the pilot would be with 160 rounds per second firing, even from near dead astern with the bulkhead in place.

Currently it definitely seems there is seat armour modelled in game like the hurricane spitfire type.

Osprey
Apr-14-2014, 06:26
I would expect we will have both 'with/without' versions like the E-4N and E-4N De-rated.

<...>

As I said, hopefully we will have all the types represented for TF 5.0.

Wonderful :)

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-14-2014, 06:27
Buz, could this be optional? Either a tick in the plane options or an 'early' type. Reason is that we still have fall of France scenarios, it keeps options open.

Long way off but thanks if this is possible.

Any evidence of unarmored Bf 109Es in the Battle of France, Osprey?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-14-2014, 07:18
Any evidence of unarmored Bf 109Es in the Battle of France, Osprey?

interestingly worded. How would one get such evidence?

Would a French crash report say "no armour" behind the pilot. If that's the case would thy not also provide "no whatever" to any other part thyat might conceivably be installed on an aircraft but not found?
i.e. this aeroplane did not contain any wooden parts... or some such.

If the absence of armour was standard and the fittin of armour was non-standard does that mean that any failure to note armour is evidence that there was no armour? I doubt it. So how does one confirm absence? What is the standard of evidence required in this case?

trademe900
Apr-14-2014, 10:06
Regarding 8mm armour bulkhead for France period; the best source to go to would probably be 109 Werknummer 1304. It was subject of a series of trials by the French, British and Americans and as a result was extremely througly tested and evaluated. The aircraft was captured as a result of combat between the French GC III/7 and the German I./JG 76 on 22 November 1939. A section of the evaluation regarding fuselage construction follows:


2.6. Fuselage. – A drawing of the fuselage, including anumber of cross-sections, is given in Fig. 5. There is only a very small fillet at the wing-body junction, and the side of the fuselage is roughly normal to the upper surface of the wing. The under surface of the fuselage remains flat, flush with the under surface of the wing, for more than 3 ft. to the rear of the trailing edge ; the fuselage cross-section then gradually assumes an ovoid form, and finally becomes pear shaped near the tail unit, the fin being merged very gradually into the fuselage.

About 60 lb. of permanent ballast carried at the rear of the fuselage; this had to be installed because of the added weight forward when changing from the Jumo 210 to the D.B. 601 engine.

Vlerkies
Apr-14-2014, 10:08
From what we have learnt so far the 1st E3 downed had the fuel tank armour plate.
Considering the development of the 109 and the airwar for the Luftwaffe leading up to BoF and BoB, it seems lessons learnt made it a pretty std equipment.

Pilot seat armour, from what I can understand was a standard feature. This was 8mm on the top 1-1.5ft and 4mm the rest.
The extra head armour on the top rear of the cockpit not std. This was welded in the top of the cockpit to protect head/neck/shoulders and was 10mm thick curved armour.

Now the rollout of head armour is sketchy, as it was seen in BoB, but for instance Galland only had his fitted in 1941.
Another interesting point, and just going on the books here, its seems Galland was flying E3, E4, and F's at the same time, depending on the day. Maybe writer error, but it seems recurring when discussing his flights in a chronological order.

More digging required.

Osprey
Apr-14-2014, 10:34
Any evidence of unarmored Bf 109Es in the Battle of France, Osprey?

Yes, I've seen loads of imagines of crashed 109's where I can't see armour and crash reports which don't mention it.


I think it's up to you to prove that the armour existed.......just a thought mate.

Vlerkies
Apr-14-2014, 12:46
The only armour you would see without taking the plane apart is the head armour.

eg Sept 1940


Mission: Southern England.

Date: 5th September 1940

Time:10.10 a.m.

Unit: Stab II/Jagdgeschwader 3

Type: Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4

Werke/Nr.1480

Coded: < + -

Location: Winchet Hill, Love's Farm, Marden, Kent, England.

Pilot: Oberleutnant. Franz von Werra (Gruppe Adjutant) Captured unhurt.

REASON FOR LOSS:

This aircraft was damaged in combat possibly by P/O G. H. Bennions of No. 41 Squadron, during diversionary fighter sweep over Kent. Disengaged but pursued and eventually brought down by P/O B. G. Stapleton of No. 603 Squadron. Me 109 forced-landed at Winchet Hill.
The pilot, Oberleutnant Franz von Werra succeded in returning to Germany after his escape from Canada to the United States in 1941. Famously known as the “ONE THAT GOT AWAY”.

A.I.2.(g) Report 1940
Me 109. Forced landed at Love's Farm, Marden, Kent on 05.09.40. Markings < + - black, outlines in white. Crest: Shield U-shaped, outlined in red, divided into 8 segments coloured black and white. Wing tip and rudder painted white, camouflage all blue, fuselage all blue. Spinner divided into alternate black and white sectors. Fitted with DB601A engine made by Mercedes Benz Werke Nr.10598. Aircraft forced landed following fighter action. Condition reported to be very good. Standard armament x 2 20 mm. cannon and x 2 MG 17 machine guns. No head armour.. Starboard wing shows many .303 strikes.

9039
9040
Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4 Wnr.1480 of von Werra under guard (IWM)

9041

The above plane had none.

Some later images of probably F's showing the armour.
http://i.imgur.com/KV8FspT.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8AfhnSe.jpg
There were a few versions or mods of it as well it seems. Galland even designed one called the Galland Panzer made from BP or plexi glass later in '43.

Vlerkies
Apr-14-2014, 12:48
I think it's up to you to prove that the armour existed.

Existed, really?

vranac
Apr-14-2014, 15:43
This thread is very interesting and informative.

I still have some doubts about those cross section bulkhead as a "standard" equipment. Like Varattu said, there isn't any trace of it in reserve parts (Ersatzteilliste) for Me109 from 1941.
And every screw and bolt is listed there.

And considering the sim I never managed to kill a pilot or burn a tank from dead six. You can do that from a side and PK is possible when the cockpit is open in a climb or in a turn.
Anyone managed to do that from dead six ?

Vlerkies
Apr-14-2014, 16:34
Hi Vranac.

Nice video you posted btw, bloody good shot at long range.
Who was flying the Spitfire, did he not know he could out-turn a 109 in pursuit? Thats the first ever burning Spitfire I have seen in the game, not a word of a lie.

On the armour on the 109.
Re interrogate the data provided on the very first 109E3 ever shot down over England, just before or as BoB was starting. (maybe the data is wrong but thats what is available and seems pretty legit)
The RAF's own reports put the armour behind the fuel tank.
Now, you cannot argue it was not there, the above info clearly states it was in this instance!
All that needs to be determined is the extent of the roll out.

This is from the RAF themselves In Jul 1940!!!

Air Intelligence Reports

Increasing use is being made of armour plate both in bombers and fighters. An armoured bulkhead conforming to shape of fuselage five feet behind pilot was found on a Messerschmitt 109 which crashed at Elham (Kent). The thickness of the plate is 8mm.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/campaign_diaries.cfm?diarymonth=7&diaryyear=1940&diaryday=13

Now if I was a lawyer, I would vehemently argue the fact that the choice of word 'increasing' does not mean 'we just noticed'. They had seen this before a number of times, maybe in France even.

To be honest, I don't think this will ever be resolved, but I will keep on trying with an open mind.
Its the same with the head protective armour. It was available at some point (who knows, i don't), but some people only saw it for the first time a year later it seems. I have seen little evidence of it being used in BOB though but I have some questions on that.
One being that the crash reports/accounts note the fact that the plane/s in particular did 'Not' have the head armour fitted. So the people writing the report knew about head armour at the time on 109's?
Just playing devils advocate.

Wulf
Apr-14-2014, 17:58
I haven't been following this issue particularly but I do think it's quite revealing when the extract from the Sept 1940 report (below) specifically notes that "No head armour" was fitted. Why would you specifically mention Head armour if you actually just meant no pilot armour was fitted. Realistically you'd only do that if a) seat or bulkhead armour was standard and b) head (or head and shoulders) armour was already known to be in use at this time, at least in some instances.

The only fly in that ointment concerns the individual who wrote the report. He may have been knowledgeable and well informed or he may have been someone who was a bit 'casual/lax' in the way he used language. For example, he may have been the sort of person who says things like "shrapnel" when he means 'shell splinters' or an 'AR 15 assault rifle' when he actually means 'AR 15 semi-auto'. In this respect he does, for example, refer to the aircraft as a "Me 109" rather than a Bf 109. This is of course incorrect, although this failure is perhaps understandable given that the correct nomenclature for the type was probably only known to particularly well informed RAF personnel at that time.


"Me 109. Forced landed at Love's Farm, Marden, Kent on 05.09.40. Markings < + - black, outlines in white. Crest: Shield U-shaped, outlined in red, divided into 8 segments coloured black and white. Wing tip and rudder painted white, camouflage all blue, fuselage all blue. Spinner divided into alternate black and white sectors. Fitted with DB601A engine made by Mercedes Benz Werke Nr.10598. Aircraft forced landed following fighter action. Condition reported to be very good. Standard armament x 2 20 mm. cannon and x 2 MG 17 machine guns. No head armour.. Starboard wing shows many .303 strikes."

trademe900
Apr-14-2014, 18:35
This thread is very interesting and informative.

I still have some doubts about those cross section bulkhead as a "standard" equipment. Like Varattu said, there isn't any trace of it in reserve parts (Ersatzteilliste) for Me109 from 1941.
And every screw and bolt is listed there.

And considering the sim I never managed to kill a pilot or burn a tank from dead six. You can do that from a side and PK is possible when the cockpit is open in a climb or in a turn.
Anyone managed to do that from dead six ?

I have lit up 109s from dead astern countless times. Lots of single player testing time amongst that too.

It seems the evidence concludes that bob 109s were more or less all retrofitted with the armour and the question now lies with the France period. When was this lesson learnt by the Germans?

Also vlerkies, I'm very interested in that 4mm and 1.5ft 8mm seat armour information. Can you remember the source or you have a link?

vranac
Apr-14-2014, 18:58
Hi Vranac.

Nice video you posted btw, bloody good shot at long range.
Who was flying the Spitfire, did he not know he could out-turn a 109 in pursuit? Thats the first ever burning Spitfire I have seen in the game, not a word of a lie.

On the armour on the 109.


Hi )
Doesn't matter who it is , like I mentioned it was a good long fight and he was very good on defensive maneuvers forcing me to waste my precious cannon shells.
But I got some hits in the wing and his left elevator so at the end he couldn't turn anymore ( he tried with the flaps a bit earlier).
You can call that lucky shot but I was just anticipating where he would be. My first also and I never saw that before 4.3 done with MG only ( 2 109s burnt till now ).

Regarding the armour, I'm not saying it wasn't there,I think it wasn't "standard" equipment.
Just look at this,Germans were and are very meticulous and it's very hard for me to believe that they will forgot to mention something important like armour here.

http://www55.zippyshare.com/v/71709009/file.html

vranac
Apr-15-2014, 02:24
The only fly in that ointment concerns the individual who wrote the report. He may have been knowledgeable and well informed or he may have been someone who was a bit 'casual/lax' in the way he used language. For example, he may have been the sort of person who says things like "shrapnel" when he means 'shell splinters' or an 'AR 15 assault rifle' when he actually means 'AR 15 semi-auto'. In this respect he does, for example, refer to the aircraft as a "Me 109" rather than a Bf 109. This is of course incorrect, although this failure is perhaps understandable given that the correct nomenclature for the type was probably only known to particularly well informed RAF personnel at that time.]

Why is Me 109 incorrect ?

You have German documents where Me109 and BF109 was used in the same document.
Or some people didn't know which aeroplane they bought.

Official manual YKRV 1940.

http://www.dodaj.rs/t/3U/qJ/4rlfJkwf/109e-naslovna.jpg (http://www.dodaj.rs/?3U/qJ/4rlfJkwf/109e-naslovna.jpg)

Vlerkies
Apr-15-2014, 03:10
Hi )

Regarding the armour, I'm not saying it wasn't there,I think it wasn't "standard" equipment.
Just look at this,Germans were and are very meticulous and it's very hard for me to believe that they will forgot to mention something important like armour here.

http://www55.zippyshare.com/v/71709009/file.html
Good, it seems some people doubt its existence at all, maybe we are getting somewhere.



Also Verkies, I'm very interested in that 4mm and 1.5ft 8mm seat armour information. Can you remember the source or you have a link?
I think you posted it, it was an aside to another comment and referencing armour and fuel tanks about the dural bulkhead
8966

JUst as an aside, here is the Galland Panzer head protection.
It's off a G14 and purely for reference purposes.
The top part of the std head armour was modified with the Plexi or BP glass to improve visability.
9052
9053
Some nice pictures here
http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/index.php/flugwerft-hauptraum/jaeger/messerschmitt-bf-109/g-14-462707



On the older versions I have seen 2 distinct plates, 1 is just straight up the back of the head, and the other is the same but with a curved bit on the top protecting from a slightly higher 6 attack.
This was posted by Kurfurst, re an E1!!

http://i.imgur.com/V4ew558.jpg

Probably won't find any of that head protection kit in the E1 parts list either, just saying is all.

Vlerkies
Apr-15-2014, 03:32
Heres an E4 that started life as an E3.

http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/index.php/flugwerft-hauptraum/jaeger/messerschmitt-bf-109/e-4-1407

This quote is a google translation from the above page.

Since occurred on 16 April 2005 Opening of the aviation segment at the German Technology Museum in Berlin can the Messerschmitt Bf 109 E -4 be visited with the serial number 1407. The fighter plane was built in 1939 at the Erla machines GmbH in Leipzig and delivered on 28 November 1939 as the Bf 109 E-3. While its use in season 5 ( group II ) of Jagdgeschwader 77 it came October 27, 1940 on the Norwegian island airfield Hitra in Trondheim for a crash landing of the machine , as a result it has been damaged to about twenty percent. In the subsequent repairs , the aircraft was in a Bf 109 E -4 rebuilt and flew as "black 2" in the first season of the JG 77 more missions. On July 17, 1941 Messerschmitt took this close to the Arctic Sea port of Murmansk part in an operation against Russian forces and was doing so badly damaged that the German pilot was forced to make an emergency landing on a lake near the town of Petsamo . The pilot was able to free himself from his machine , the Messerschmitt Bf 109 E -4 but rapidly sank into the depths of the water. Half a century later, in the summer of 1993 , the water wreck of the " Emil " came back to the surface and was acquired by the German Technology Museum in Berlin. After an extensive restoration, the reason between the years 1994 and 2000 in Héreg , Hungary, took place in 2001 and the completion took place in Friedrichshafen found the historical fighter aircraft in the new building of the DTMB finally a dry place

http://i.imgur.com/lFuS3xF.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0AbGLrA.jpg

trademe900
Apr-15-2014, 03:36
Ah right ok I just thought you may have seen something else on seat armour as well.

PFT_Endy
Apr-15-2014, 04:14
Hi Vlerkies,

like Vranac said, I think noone doubts the existence of the plate but some of the quoted materials bring further questions as well as answers.

For example, the crash report quoted is from 27.10.40, so that's pretty much the very end of BoB (if we take the common 31.10.40 as the end). The question is, would the armor in this E1 be a very late BoB modification and/or only in some planes or was it common and also installed much earlier in the BoB. The quoted document does not really answer that as the armor might have been installed only the previous day as well as two months back right? Was it installed in every E1 or just a few?

Also, does "fuselage cross bulkhead and head protection with curved head shield" mean two things or a single plate curved around the head area, which would mean that it was actually just behind the pilot seat, covering his back and head but not 5 feet behind it as some other, later report suggested? Might that be these are very different kinds of armor these reports are talking about? I'm really curious because for me this is really not clear from these reports...

It's a fascinating discussion by the way, but as with most historical discussions, it also brings a lot of uncertainty and a lot additional questions.

Vlerkies
Apr-15-2014, 04:38
I'm really curious because for me this is really not clear from these reports...

It's a fascinating discussion by the way, but as with most historical discussions, it also brings a lot of uncertainty and a lot additional questions.

We are all very curious.
My german is also non existent which makes it more difficult.

Like I said above, there are more than one of these types of armour that were fitted for the pilot.
The curved head protection I think was a later development. Galland banged his head on it for the first time in 1941 when it was fitted and bitched about it.

Now this photo is attributed as being taken on Gallands RTB after his 40th victory in Sept 1940. (Some more digging by us all will be able to confirm if this date is correct or false)

http://i.imgur.com/4BAL08G.jpg

Notice the plate welded on the cockpit behind the pilots shoulders and head.
Now his bloody nut is in the way so we cant see the top of the cockpit, but I wager that the plate did not go all the way to the top of the cockpit and curve over the top. This is the feature I 'think'was added the next year which Galland banged his head on.
If the above is perhaps correct is makes sense as that saved his life, but he was unhappy with the restricted view, and subsequently modified it to the Galland Panzer. At least, this is how my logic is running at the moment.

There is actually a picture of an E4 Wk.Nr 4101 with what looks to be a Galland Panzer in it???? Now that Wk.Nr was shot down in Nov 1940, but something does not add up with that Wk.Nr, so dont take this as factual, it may just be artistic license by the restorers.
http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de//images/flugwerft/bf109/bf109-e-4-schwarze-12-london-hendon/gross//0021_London-Hendon_Messerschmitt_Bf_109_E-4_WNr_4101_Wappen_JG51_Windschutzaufbau.jpg
http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de//images/flugwerft/bf109/bf109-e-4-schwarze-12-london-hendon/gross//0010_London-Hendon_Messerschmitt_Bf_109_E-4_WNr_4101_Fluegelvorderkante_hinteres_Haubenteil. jpg
http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de//images/flugwerft/bf109/bf109-e-4-schwarze-12-london-hendon/gross//0004_London-Hendon_Messerschmitt_Bf_109_E-4_WNr_4101_Rumpf_schwarze_12_Balkenkreuz.jpg

Vlerkies
Apr-15-2014, 04:47
LOL :)

Ok it seems as if Wk.Nr 4101 was captured as an E3 and used by the RAF as DG200 to test.

A certain test pilot, Mr Harvey Hayworth, was so tall they had to remove the cockpit, and then guess what,they lost it :D never to be found again. :D Bet its in some dingy pub somewhere hehe

http://i.imgur.com/QzXECGp.jpg

So I guess later on in life whatever available cockpit was slapped onto it, which distorts the whole investigation. So as suspected, discount that one as we dont have the real cockpit in the images.

PFT_Endy
Apr-15-2014, 05:09
Yeah, it's very difficult to find the truth with all the conflicting reports, simplifications or inacurracies in them, lost stuff, modified stuff etc.

What is most interesting for me in this whole discussion and what we probably will never be 100% certain is as follows:

1. Taking the different reports into account are we always talking about the same part? Perhaps the report of a crashed plane from late October talks about a different plate than the one later fitted into 109 F? Different descriptions make it difficult to be 100% sure, was it a pilot protection plus head protection or a fuel tank protection and where was its position ie. right behind the pilot or 5 feet behind? Do all the reports speak about the same stuff basically?

2. Was it a standard fitting from a certain period or just some optional field modification in older 109 versions. Like Vranac mentioned it's not on the parts list so perhaps the latter?

3.How common was it and when did the fitting start? Late October reports do not really answer that and might as well suggest it was a late idea as well as an early BoB thing, not certain here... And again, which part exactly is it? For example you mentioned that the curved head thing was a later development (1941) but then again it's mentioned in the crash report from late October. Or perhaps the person making the report meant a different part altogether, not the 1941 part...That's the thing that makes it sooo difficult to be sure of anything here...

Vlerkies
Apr-15-2014, 05:23
Credited as

Oblt. Gerhard Schöpfel seen strapping into the cockpit of his Emil for another sortie over England, August 1940. He was appointed Kommandeur III./JG 26 on 21 August 1940 when Galland became Kommdore

9056
http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2010/06/luftwaffe-fighter-aces-of-jg26-mietusch.html


And heres quite an interesting bit.
On the linked page below the picture of Schopel, there is a picture of what is claimed to be Gallands Emil at the time.

He had 22 victories on the tail at this point so on a time scale based on his record that puts that photo between the 15-25 Aug 1940.
Its difficult to see but it 'looks like' between the 15-25 Aug '40 Gallands crate did not have the rear head armour on the cockpit, whilst Schopfels did.

Then look at the picture posted in the link below of Galland, a month later (Sept) and he did have the plate on the canopy.
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10051&p=112872&viewfull=1#post112872

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-15-2014, 05:32
Yeah, it's very difficult to find the truth with all the conflicting reports, simplifications or inacurracies in them, lost stuff, modified stuff etc.

What is most interesting for me in this whole discussion and what we probably will never be 100% certain is as follows:

1. Taking the different reports into account are we always talking about the same part? Perhaps the report of a crashed plane from late October talks about a different plate than the one later fitted into 109 F? Different descriptions make it difficult to be 100% sure, was it a pilot protection plus head protection or a fuel tank protection and where was its position ie. right behind the pilot or 5 feet behind? Do all the reports speak about the same stuff basically?

Basically I cannot find a single primary reference for the following

a) any 109E inspected in the BoF/BoB period not having the 5-feet-to-the-back 8 mm armored bulkhead
b) any 109E inspected in the BoF/BoB period describing any sort of pilot back plate. Thus I strongly believe this is an error reported / badly guessed in secondary sources only.

In fact that the RAFs 1941 tactical recommendation speaks only about the vulnerability to deflection shots of the 109E because of the placement of its armored bulkhead further back in the fuselage seem to confirm that only the armored bulkhead was fitted. Its shape covering the entire fuselage in contrast to the 109Fs alloy bulkead which only extends to as high as the fuel tank also seem to confirm that the bulkhead on the Emil was both for pilot and fuel tank protection, while the F light alloy bulkhead was only to protect the fuel tank.


2. Was it a standard fitting from a certain period or just some optional field modification in older 109 versions. Like Vranac mentioned it's not on the parts list so perhaps the latter?

I tend to believe it was standard fitting. Secondary sources all seem to state that the armor was a standard factory fitting from the E-4 variant onwards - and the E-4 entered production in May 1940, or perhaps a bit before. However the generic Emil manual from a months back in December 1939 already makes a reference to armor plates.

IMHO it would be extremely unlikely that while the Germans would produce all the E-4 with armor, for the rest of the aircraft would remain some kind of exotic option. That just doesn't make any sense. Probably quite the other way around, it was probably a retrofit starting in December 1939, and standardized on the production line with the next mass production variant, the E-4 in the spring of 1940.

Wheter its in the only parts list available to us seems to be non-decisive in the matter, since we know it was fitted to many planes. Its entirely possible that the bulkhead was just described in an amendment or in a separate manual.



3.How common was it and when did the fitting start? Late October reports do not really answer that and might as well suggest it was a late idea as well as an early BoB thing, not certain here... And again, which part exactly is it? For example you mentioned that the curved head thing was a later development (1941) but then again it's mentioned in the crash report from late October. Or perhaps the person making the report meant a different part altogether, not the 1941 part...That's the thing that makes it sooo difficult to be sure of anything here...

Regarding the timeframe its important to remember that not too many 109s fell to British soil until late August and September, and planes could well have been fitted with various updates for months by the time they were first inspected by the British. The fact that they already captured an E with armor in July 1940 strongly indicates it was already a retrofit. And I very much doubt they had the opportunity to inspect any 109 between May and July 1940 because of retreats etc.

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-15-2014, 05:35
Regarding 8mm armour bulkhead for France period; the best source to go to would probably be 109 Werknummer 1304. It was subject of a series of trials by the French, British and Americans and as a result was extremely througly tested and evaluated. The aircraft was captured as a result of combat between the French GC III/7 and the German I./JG 76 on 22 November 1939. A section of the evaluation regarding fuselage construction follows:


2.6. Fuselage. – A drawing of the fuselage, including anumber of cross-sections, is given in Fig. 5. There is only a very small fillet at the wing-body junction, and the side of the fuselage is roughly normal to the upper surface of the wing. The under surface of the fuselage remains flat, flush with the under surface of the wing, for more than 3 ft. to the rear of the trailing edge ; the fuselage cross-section then gradually assumes an ovoid form, and finally becomes pear shaped near the tail unit, the fin being merged very gradually into the fuselage.

About 60 lb. of permanent ballast carried at the rear of the fuselage; this had to be installed because of the added weight forward when changing from the Jumo 210 to the D.B. 601 engine.

BTW the French report also mentions somewhere in clear terms that no armor was found in 1304. Of course that's just a snapshot of how things were November 1939, and as noted several times in this thread, things started to change about the armor in the next month, December.

Kling
Apr-15-2014, 05:46
Adolf Galland mentions that the head armour protection saved his life during battle of Britain. He also mentions that he was so pissed off with his ground staff because the canopy fell down on his head and the top of the armour plate hit his head real hard and was going to tell them about his opinion about hit, but he changed his mind quickly when his armourer told him that there was a 303 bullet in the back of the plate, consequently saving his life that day..

Wulf
Apr-15-2014, 05:49
Why is Me 109 incorrect ?

You have German documents where Me109 and BF109 was used in the same document.
Or some people didn't know which aeroplane they bought.

Official manual YKRV 1940.

http://www.dodaj.rs/t/3U/qJ/4rlfJkwf/109e-naslovna.jpg (http://www.dodaj.rs/?3U/qJ/4rlfJkwf/109e-naslovna.jpg)


Why is it incorrect? It's incorrect because it's wrong that's why, in the same way that referring to shell splinters as shrapnel is wrong. The correct prefix for both the 109 and 110 aircraft is Bf, not Me. Why is that you ask??? Well, that's because the two aircraft were designed by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, before the company became Messerschmitt A G. And yes, I'm aware that Willy Messerschmitt was one of, if not the principal designer of the aircraft. However, that doesn't change the fact that despite what may be written in some official German documents from time to time, by poorly informed or sloppy officials, the correct designation should still be Bf 109.

By contrast the Me 262 was designed by Messerschmitt A G and consequently is, as one might imagine, quite correctly referred to as the Me 262 and not as the Bf 262. However, if you want to go around calling it that or something entirely different then go for it, that's entirely up to you, but you will be wrong.

PFT_Endy
Apr-15-2014, 05:59
See, unfortunately a lot of this is just guesswork which might or might not be correct, we simply don't know. For example:


a) any 109E inspected in the BoF/BoB period not having the 5-feet-to-the-back 8 mm armored bulkhead

The report Vlerkies quoted does not support your point. It does not specifically say it means the plate 5 feet to the back so we simply don't know its position or what kind of protection it really means. If you have any other reports that specifically say about the plate's position (I think I saw one in this thread mentioning 5 feet specifically and one low quality sketch) or coverage (pilot's back, fuel tank only or more) by all means please quote them, it's always a very interesting read.


b) any 109E inspected in the BoF/BoB period describing any sort of pilot back plate. Thus I strongly believe this is an error reported / badly guessed in secondary sources only.

That's the problem with most sources. Unless there's a pattern, a common description, set of definitions or drawings we can't be 100% sure. And then again, we will not be sure of the scale or retrofit timing based on that.

A 1941 RAF recommendation is again, very diffcult to use as a confirmation because it is what it is, from 1941. It does not confirm one way or another that early/middle BoB aircraft had it for example. If it was from July 1940 for example it would be more reliable in establishing that but it's not...


Regarding the timeframe its important to remember that not too many 109s fell to British soil until late August and September, and planes could well have been fitted with various updates for months by the time they were first inspected by the British. The fact that they already captured an E with armor in July 1940 strongly indicates it was already a retrofit. And I very much doubt they had the opportunity to inspect any 109 between May and July 1940 because of retreats etc.

They could, or they could not. The thing is evidence is inconclusive and very often conflicting. Different reports describe it differently and also you stated that you don't believe it could be something else than non standard. But we can see for example on the photos Vlerkies linked that head protection was non standard. It's not hard to believe that another kind of additional protection was non standard as well. We also know nothing of the scale or retrofitting or when it was done.

That's the problem I think. For me the evidence is very unconclusive, does not offer a 100% certainly when or on what scale the bulkhead was fitted or even it was always the same part. You make a lot of guesswork which may or may not be correct, but I would be very careful here before saying it was one way or another for sure.

I hope we understand each other here though. You seem to be very certain it was the way you describe while the same evidence makes me very uncertain. I'd just be careful about passing any judgement here, there's just too much conflicting data and inconclusive evidence but apparently it depends on its interpretation.

Vlerkies
Apr-15-2014, 06:14
Messerschmitt Bf 109E-1 (W. Nr. 6296F) of Stab III/JG 26, flown by Oblt. Bartels (Geschwader technical officer), which crash-landed in a wheatfield at Northdown beside the Margate to Broadstairs railway line in Kent, 24 July 1940.

Note the full rear head protection and curved top.
Also note the footnote on the last image about the Werknummer with the F designation, and the fact that it had been refitted with a 'E4' canopy as part of that refit, all in, or before July 1940.


http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109E/JG26-Bartels/images/Bf-109E1-Stab-III.JG26-(I+I-Werner-Bartels-force-landed-Kent-1940-03.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/a06799R.jpg

PFT_Endy
Apr-15-2014, 06:36
Yeah, but that's only the head protection right? Or curved head protecion as part of a plate right behind the pilot. Not the bulkhead plate 5 feet behind the pilot or am I wrong here? See, that's the kind of detail that makes the whole subject so difficult :)

Vlerkies
Apr-15-2014, 06:52
Yeah, but that's only the head protection right? Or curved head protecion as part of a plate right behind the pilot. Not the bulkhead plate 5 feet behind the pilot or am I wrong here? See, that's the kind of detail that makes the whole subject so difficult :)

The bulkhead 5ft behind the pilot is a different issue entirely and will not be seen, its internal and is between the tail and the fuel tank just behind the fuel tank, its the dural bulkhead.
The first 109 shot down over Britain sported this armour, but no head protective armour.


What these images seem to show in the last post is the rounded plate head protection.
There were just straight ones as well it seems without the rounded top.

PFT_Endy
Apr-15-2014, 06:55
Ah, I see what you mean.

Vlerkies
Apr-15-2014, 07:30
Hi )
Regarding the armour, I'm not saying it wasn't there,I think it wasn't "standard" equipment.
Just look at this,Germans were and are very meticulous and it's very hard for me to believe that they will forgot to mention something important like armour here.

http://www55.zippyshare.com/v/71709009/file.html

Vranac, are you not perhaps mistaken.

Look on page 35 of the document.
KopfSchutz assembly (part no 135) (head guard/head protection)

It consists of multiple parts including the 'Platte' (part number137) which is welded on the top of the standard head protection.
This is not a headrest like in a car, its head protection and looks exactly like this.
9058

http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/225/media-225779/large.jpg?action=e (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205227645)
THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN 1940. © IWM (HU 104713) (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205227645)IWM Non Commercial Licence (http://www.iwm.org.uk/corporate/privacy-copyright/licence)

Vlerkies
Apr-15-2014, 12:20
Also regarding the bulkhead

See pg's 44 and 39 of the doc Vranac.
In the parts assembly list 22/93 is again referred to as Platte, with 2 joined Platte (pn's 94+95)
http://i.imgur.com/ZsXhmtV.jpg
This is not the firewall in the front of the pit.

There is also reference to 'Platte' on the rear fuselage just behind the fuel tank mountings pg 19. pn 10/209 on pg 20.
Unless that part is distinctly something else?

In all places we expect to see armour they are referred to as 'platte' (plate/s) on the parts list.

Robo.
Apr-15-2014, 14:51
This is the picture of '109 panzerplatte' I got from somewhere a while ago (for a model kit research), might help:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10668862/109panzerplatte.jpg

Crumpp
Apr-15-2014, 15:32
Also regarding the bulkhead

See pg's 44 and 39 of the doc Vranac.
In the parts assembly list 22/93 is again referred to as Platte, with 2 joined Platte (pn's 94+95)
http://i.imgur.com/ZsXhmtV.jpg
This is not the firewall in the front of the pit.

There is also reference to 'Platte' on the rear fuselage just behind the fuel tank mountings pg 19. pn 10/209 on pg 20.
Unless that part is distinctly something else?

In all places we expect to see armour they are referred to as 'platte' (plate/s) on the parts list.

Yes, the January 1941 Bf-109E1 Ersatzteilliste posted in this thread also shows a self sealing fuel tank in the Kraftstoffanlage.

Crumpp
Apr-15-2014, 22:04
To me it looks like we can definitely say that in January 1941, the armor and self sealing tanks was standard on the Bf-109E series. The January 1941 Ersatzteilliste being the first official document presented showing it as standard.

If it follows aviation convention, sometime before January 1941, it was approved and could be added to the existing aircraft based on the technical instructions. The time period appears to have begun sometime after the Battle of France and early in the Battle of Britain.

Looking at the work involved I think it is a major repair and was probably performed as part of the aircrafts depot level overhaul or when it returned to the depot level for other maintenance.

Here is the KopfSchutz assembly:


9072

trademe900
Apr-16-2014, 03:45
Agreed, no doubt It was definitely fitted for the battle of Britain.

Now, the 4mm pilot seat armour, was this standard fitment from the start? Was it built into the seat or an attached part? This important one is still yet to be answered.

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-16-2014, 04:36
Agreed, no doubt It was definitely fitted for the battle of Britain.

Now, the 4mm pilot seat armour, was this standard fitment from the start? Was it built into the seat or an attached part? This important one is still yet to be answered.

Agreed, the armored bulkhead is is done to death now, there is no doubt about it... especially as Vlerkies now managed to track it down in the Ersatzteilliste, which we all skipped over so far. :)

Now as for the pilot seat armor (8 mm back piece, 4 mm curved butt piece), I am fairly certain this did not appear until the 109F. There is no mention of it anywhere in primary sources. Also the British tactical experience papers and firing trials against a replica 109F (modified from an Emil airframe) strongly suggest that this was a new feature of the 109F and was not present on the 109E.

Also the bulkhead of the 109E filled the whole fuselage cross section and was made of 8 mm steel, while the 109F bulkhead was only reaching to about the level of the top of the fuel tank and was made of multi layered (20+ layers) of duraluminium sheets, probably to render incendinary rounds ineffective. It was even effective against early US .50 incendinary, which could penetrate it but only in ineffective state. Later .50 API bullet design was based on Soviet Berezhin round, which was effective.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E_replica_Vulenrability_trials1942_mentioningof armoredbulkheadof109E_zps2250ae92.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E_replica_Vulenrability_trials1942_mentioningof armoredbulkheadof109E_zps2250ae92.jpg.html)

Vlerkies
Apr-16-2014, 04:54
Now as for the pilot seat armor (8 mm back piece, 4 mm curved butt piece), I am fairly certain this did not appear until the 109F. There is no mention of it anywhere in primary sources. Also the British tactical experience papers and firing trials against a replica 109F (modified from an Emil airframe) strongly suggest that this was a new feature of the 109F and was not present on the 109E.
]

Does anyone have a diagram of this thing?

I must admit I am getting quite confused and at times am half thinking that the kopfshutz consists of the 'pilot seat armour' and 'curved head protection'.
There are a number of images of just a straight plate behind the shoulder and neck of the pilot (no curved top)
Perhaps these are the best examples of it just for reference just to illustrate that differing versions existed.


http://i.imgur.com/KV8FspT.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8AfhnSe.jpg


Is the pilot armour not being confused with the shoulder plate on the top of the seat (fastened to the canopy), without the added rounded head piece? Or am I completely confused?

This little bit (rounded top piece) during development was an afterthought and welded to the other piece (straight plate) from what I understand, before being std kit.

Osprey
Apr-16-2014, 05:10
Why is it incorrect? It's incorrect because it's wrong that's why, in the same way that referring to shell splinters as shrapnel is wrong. The correct prefix for both the 109 and 110 aircraft is Bf, not Me. Why is that you ask??? Well, that's because the two aircraft were designed by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, before the company became Messerschmitt A G. And yes, I'm aware that Willy Messerschmitt was one of, if not the principal designer of the aircraft. However, that doesn't change the fact that despite what may be written in some official German documents from time to time, by poorly informed or sloppy officials, the correct designation should still be Bf 109.

By contrast the Me 262 was designed by Messerschmitt A G and consequently is, as one might imagine, quite correctly referred to as the Me 262 and not as the Bf 262. However, if you want to go around calling it that or something entirely different then go for it, that's entirely up to you, but you will be wrong.

Excellent explanation but pointless because the fact is that RAF pilots referred to the 109 as the Me109, consistently. We know what they mean and that is all that matters. They also referred to Germany as 'Huns', 'the Bosch' and 'Jerry', using the same logic it appears the didn't know they were fighting the Germans.

Wulf
Apr-16-2014, 07:05
Excellent explanation but pointless because the fact is that RAF pilots referred to the 109 as the Me109, consistently. We know what they mean and that is all that matters. They also referred to Germany as 'Huns', 'the Bosch' and 'Jerry', using the same logic it appears the didn't know they were fighting the Germans.


Well, this is history we're dealing with. That being the case I tend to think we have a responsibility to interpret and record it as accurately as we know how. The 109 aircraft type manufactured by the Messerschmitt company was officially designated as the Bf 109. That's just historical fact. If precision isn't important to you and you're quite happy to distort the historical record then feel free. But it doesn't really matter how you do it or for that matter how many people follow or precede your example; it doesn't make what you're saying any less wrong. And of course, don't be surprised that, as a consequence, those people who actually do their homework and know what they're talking about tend to place less reliance on your views when you offer opinions on other matters of historical interest.

vranac
Apr-16-2014, 07:17
Yes, KopfSchutz looks ok, but that platte 93 is very strange looking. Still no trace of that crossection bulkhead.

Wulf, what is this?

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/0/KG/4whlJufu/me109-2.jpg
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/1h/CA/HJo2K6s/me109-1.jpg

Both Me and BF were equally used and both are correct

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-16-2014, 07:21
Yes, KopfSchutz looks ok, but that platte 93 is very strange looking. Still no trace of that crossection bulkhead.

That strange looking Platte 93 is the cross section armored bulkhead. See?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E-7Zmanual_zpse1b82fb5.png (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E-7Zmanual_zpse1b82fb5.png.html)


Both Me and BF were equally used and both are correct

Actually they did change the official designation to Me 109, but everyone kept using both, even Messerschmitt AG. I prefer Bf myself, for no rational reason. :)

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-16-2014, 07:37
Well, this is history we're dealing with. That being the case I tend to think we have a responsibility to interpret and record it as accurately as we know how. The 109 aircraft type manufactured by the Messerschmitt company was officially designated as the Bf 109. That's just historical fact. If precision isn't important to you and you're quite happy to distort the historical record then feel free. But it doesn't really matter how you do it or for that matter how many people follow or precede your example; it doesn't make what you're saying any less wrong. And of course, don't be surprised that, as a consequence, those people who actually do their homework and know what they're talking about tend to place less reliance on your views when you offer opinions on other matters of historical interest.

Hardly.

This enters the realm of personal attack. You have differing views on the nomenclature, but please keep it in perspective..

varrattu
Apr-16-2014, 07:39
According to records, by August 1940 all Bf109 E-1 were to have been returned when possible to be upgraded. It is known that many had already been upgraded to E-4’s and E-7s by this time...

An upgrade to a E-4 variant included the replacement of the wings for a reworked pair which would allow the fitment of two 20mm MGFF/’M’ cannons and rewiring of the cockpit. Other alterations included a heavier canopy frame and armoured head support ...

Open Source:
THE ORIGINAL BF109 EMIL by Mark Sheppard (http://www.platinumfighters.com/#!bf-109e/c7r0)

:salute: ~V~

Wulf
Apr-16-2014, 07:42
Yes, KopfSchutz looks ok, but that platte 93 is very strange looking. Still no trace of that crossection bulkhead.

Wulf, what is this?

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/0/KG/4whlJufu/me109-2.jpg
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/1h/CA/HJo2K6s/me109-1.jpg

Both Me and BF were equally used and both are correct


I'm not going to keep repeating myself. This has already been covered. Just because popular usage changed in keeping with the new company title doesn't mean that the official aircraft designation altered.

Vlerkies
Apr-16-2014, 07:56
Bf or Me, knock yourselves out with this.

Its the most comprehensive explanation you will ever get then use whichever you choose, or both as some people do/did.
They even have a report from the Messerschmidt factory on one particular 109F where they refer to both Bf and Me in the same document about the same plane.


http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/bf-me/bf-me.htm

Osprey
Apr-16-2014, 08:29
Thank you Snapper, I felt that too. Nice find Vlerkies.

Wulf, please note that whilst I acknowledge that you have brought forward a nice fact it doesn't mean others are wrong, depends on context of course. For example, Oxford and Collins have conflicts, but both are correct.

Vlerkies
Apr-16-2014, 09:50
Is the pilot armour not being confused with the shoulder plate on the top of the seat (fastened to the canopy), without the added rounded head piece? Or am I completely confused?
.
To quote myself out of confusion so to speak :) disregard this question. The pilot armour was formed frontwall of the fuel tank between it and the seat, nothing to do with the head protection variants.

aus
Apr-16-2014, 19:31
Excellent, and I think a very cogent point on the ballast weight replacement issue Kurfurst. It makes no sense to have 60kg of weight in the tail of the plane, which is useless except to replicate the engineered COG resulting from a previous engine, when a deficiency in pilot/fuel supply protection has been identified for correction. This is also quite likely why the armor was so far behind the pilot. If one takes ballast weight from the rearmost aspect of the plane, and replaces it with a different component (say, 40kg of armor), it must be in a similar position to have similar effects on the A/C COG.

I know that from an engineering point of view, non-functional ballast in an A/C is simply a very ugly thing, and would drive any engineer worth his salt nutty.

Wulf
Apr-16-2014, 19:49
Agreed, the armored bulkhead is is done to death now, there is no doubt about it... especially as Vlerkies now managed to track it down in the Ersatzteilliste, which we all skipped over so far. :)

Now as for the pilot seat armor (8 mm back piece, 4 mm curved butt piece), I am fairly certain this did not appear until the 109F. There is no mention of it anywhere in primary sources. Also the British tactical experience papers and firing trials against a replica 109F (modified from an Emil airframe) strongly suggest that this was a new feature of the 109F and was not present on the 109E.

Also the bulkhead of the 109E filled the whole fuselage cross section and was made of 8 mm steel, while the 109F bulkhead was only reaching to about the level of the top of the fuel tank and was made of multi layered (20+ layers) of duraluminium sheets, probably to render incendinary rounds ineffective. It was even effective against early US .50 incendinary, which could penetrate it but only in ineffective state. Later .50 API bullet design was based on Soviet Berezhin round, which was effective.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E_replica_Vulenrability_trials1942_mentioningof armoredbulkheadof109E_zps2250ae92.jpg (http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Kurfurst/media/Bf%20109E%20armor/109E_replica_Vulenrability_trials1942_mentioningof armoredbulkheadof109E_zps2250ae92.jpg.html)


Ultimately it's all going to come down to weight. You're trying to protect the pilot as best you can but not to the extent that you introduce so much weight into the aircraft that you render it ineffective in air combat. That being the case I suspect you're correct. The 'E' may have begun service in France with just the rear 8 mm bulkhead armour which was then progressively supplemented with shoulder and head plates. This of course still left the pilot prone to angle-off shots from the rear because the main armour protection was situated too far back, behind the fuel tank. I suspect this situation wasn't corrected until the 'F' was introduced and that this was done by replacing the heavy 8 mm bulkhead plate with the lighter laminated aluminium armour (situated behind the fuel tank) which in turn allowed for a lighter 4 mm armour plate to be incorporated into the seat-back.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-16-2014, 20:00
Basic concept of air combat:

DON'T GET SHOT

Luftwaffe tactics were aimed at reducing this possibility... with their emphasis on vertical attacks, altitude superiority, speed.

Worked well till the Spitfire IX arrived and USAAF showed up.

Doesn't matter how much 'armour' you have in the aircraft, it really is not a substitute for avoiding high velocity bullets.

Armour cannot protect 90% of the aircraft, it really only allows a pilot to survive long enough to bail out.

Vlerkies
Apr-17-2014, 04:03
Thats very true!
Even the best of the best dropped their guard on occasion though and paid the price one way or another.
Galland would have been decapitated mid 1941 had it not been for that Kopfshutz armour thingy that stopped/deflected a 20mm canon round from Marian Pisarek's Spitfire.

Crumpp
Apr-17-2014, 09:39
Basic concept of air combat:

DON'T GET SHOT

Luftwaffe tactics were aimed at reducing this possibility... with their emphasis on vertical attacks, altitude superiority, speed.

Worked well till the Spitfire IX arrived and USAAF showed up.

Doesn't matter how much 'armour' you have in the aircraft, it really is not a substitute for avoiding high velocity bullets.

Armour cannot protect 90% of the aircraft, it really only allows a pilot to survive long enough to bail out.

There is not an air force in existence that used a strategy of getting shot as a vehicle for victory.

All air combat tactics are "aimed at reducing this possibility".

You place way too much emphasis on individual aircraft performance instead of the larger picture of pilot experience, logistics, and resources. Individual aircraft performance has nothing to do with it. The performance gaps necessary for such superiority just were not in existence until the arrival of the jet age. Even then it was too little too late to overcome the average pilot experience, logistics, and resources in place.

Osprey
Apr-17-2014, 09:43
Thats very true!
Even the best of the best dropped their guard on occasion though and paid the price one way or another.
Galland would have been decapitated mid 1941 had it not been for that Kopfshutz armour thingy that stopped/deflected a 20mm canon round from Marian Pisarek's Spitfire.

The fact that he was grounded by Goering but disobeyed orders and took off on a lone sortie only to be beaten by a spitfire in a dogfight mid channel and could not understand why the spitfire let him go home when he was at his mercy. Is this the same fight?

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-17-2014, 09:53
There is not an air force in existence that used a strategy of getting shot as a vehicle for victory.

All air combat tactics are "aimed at reducing this possibility".

You place way too much emphasis on individual aircraft performance instead of the larger picture of pilot experience, logistics, and resources. Individual aircraft performance has nothing to do with it. The performance gaps necessary for such superiority just were not in existence until the arrival of the jet age. Even then it was too little too late to overcome the average pilot experience, logistics, and resources in place.

Hmmm. If a 109 is diving out of the sun with its guns blazing I can either consider the pilot's experience, logistics, and resources as you suggest.....or follow Buzzsaw's credo of "Don't Get Shot!"

I'll go with the latter. :thumbsup:

:)

Crumpp
Apr-17-2014, 10:05
Hmmm. If a 109 is diving out of the sun with its guns blazing I can either consider the pilot's experience, logistics, and resources as you suggest.....or follow Buzzsaw's credo of "Don't Get Shot!"

I'll go with the latter. :thumbsup:

:)

Snapper,

You must have missed the point because your reply makes no sense at all.

Everyone avoided getting shot.

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-17-2014, 10:35
Snapper,

You must have missed the point because your reply makes no sense at all.

Everyone avoided getting shot.

Not at all. Buzzsaw's point was that there is a huge preoccupation within this sim with damage modelling and weapon ballistics. This applies to the earlier miscoding with 20mm PK's, the propensity of 109's to catch fire from relatively weak .303's vs the Spitfire's tank-like ability to withstand a barrage of 20mm explosive shells completely unscathed, and the presence/absence of armour plating in the various 109 E-types. His advice made perfect sense to us that actually fly the sim online -- don't get shot in the first place.

The 109 in this sim is modelled quite accurately to be virtually untouchable by Spits and Hurries -- if the 109 is flown historically. Acquire height, use the sun, use the 109's superior speed and energy retention at altitude, don't turn fight, extend after a diving attack, and don't get caught flying low and slow. These are common mistakes I encounter in my adversaries frequently as I pump .303's into them from my Spitfire. There are a number of 109 Clod pilots that I CANNOT catch because they rarely, if ever, make the mistakes I listed above. For them the damage modelling issue remains moot. They "don't get shot".

THAT'S what Buzzsaw was referring to. I submit that it was YOUR reply that made absolutely no sense whatsoever within the context of this forum dealing with the Cliffs of Dover simulation.

I suggest you join us online sometime to gain a little perspective! :thumbsup:

Vlerkies
Apr-17-2014, 11:11
The fact that he was grounded by Goering but disobeyed orders and took off on a lone sortie only to be beaten by a spitfire in a dogfight mid channel and could not understand why the spitfire let him go home when he was at his mercy. Is this the same fight?
Will need to check the dates, think it was the 2nd time in the same day if memory serves me.
Quite a character this bloke.
from wikipedia

On 15 April 1941, Galland took off with lobster and champagne to celebrate General Theo Osterkamp's birthday at Le Touquet, France. He made a detour with his wingman towards England, looking for RAF aircraft. Off the cliffs of Dover he spotted a group of Spitfires. Galland attacked and claimed two confirmed and one unconfirmed shot down. The actual result was the destruction of one Spitfire; the other two were damaged in force landings with both pilots wounded.[64] During the combat Galland's undercarriage had dropped causing one of the RAF pilots (Flight Lieutenant Paddy Finucane) to claim Galland's aircraft as destroyed, but Galland landed without incident at Le Touquet and presented Osterkamp with his gifts

:goofy

Galland and Moulders at the said party that evening. (Moudlers on Gallands left)
http://i.imgur.com/FljiShx.jpg

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-17-2014, 11:44
Great photo, Vlerkies! :thumbsup:

Wouldn't it have been great to have a film (with English subtitles for us poor non-German-speaking types :D) of that discussion!!!

:)

ATAG_Lolsav
Apr-17-2014, 12:11
Wouldn't it have been great to have a film (with English subtitles for us poor non-German-speaking types :D) of that discussion!!!

:)

I can tell you what he was saying:

Galland - "Then that pesky Snapper came in behind me like this and shot me down" :D

Crumpp
Apr-17-2014, 21:55
Not at all. Buzzsaw's point was that there is a huge preoccupation within this sim with damage modelling and weapon ballistics. This applies to the earlier miscoding with 20mm PK's, the propensity of 109's to catch fire from relatively weak .303's vs the Spitfire's tank-like ability to withstand a barrage of 20mm explosive shells completely unscathed, and the presence/absence of armour plating in the various 109 E-types. His advice made perfect sense to us that actually fly the sim online -- don't get shot in the first place.

The 109 in this sim is modelled quite accurately to be virtually untouchable by Spits and Hurries -- if the 109 is flown historically. Acquire height, use the sun, use the 109's superior speed and energy retention at altitude, don't turn fight, extend after a diving attack, and don't get caught flying low and slow. These are common mistakes I encounter in my adversaries frequently as I pump .303's into them from my Spitfire. There are a number of 109 Clod pilots that I CANNOT catch because they rarely, if ever, make the mistakes I listed above. For them the damage modelling issue remains moot. They "don't get shot".

THAT'S what Buzzsaw was referring to. I submit that it was YOUR reply that made absolutely no sense whatsoever within the context of this forum dealing with the Cliffs of Dover simulation.

I suggest you join us online sometime to gain a little perspective! :thumbsup:

Where is all this coming from???

I certainly cannot wait to jump online with you and spend my free time after this kind of welcome.


submit that it was YOUR reply that made absolutely no sense whatsoever within the context of this forum dealing with the Cliffs of Dover simulation.


The announcement that the Luftwaffe tactics were to avoid getting shot down is not a profound revelation. As a newcomer to your forum, it just looks like an attempt to excuse game behavior that has arisen since the modifications.

Moderator's edit: Hi everyone. I've placed a ban on this new member who has a long history of provoking stupid and nonsensical arguments in other forums -- notably the banana forum. I received a heads up from a senior forum member of his arrival, but opted to give him the benefit of the doubt. It didn't take long for his stripes to show through, and this is just a very early warm up for this guy. Trust me, don't shed too many tears for his early departure.

Salute,

Snapper

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-17-2014, 22:07
Galland and Moulders at the said party that evening. (Moudlers on Gallands left)
http://i.imgur.com/FljiShx.jpg

Two pudgy non-flyers on far right and far left are...

Was ist er? Das verstehe ich nicht? :S

Molders is...

Ja, ja, dann können Sie ihn voller Löcher gefüllt ... :shoot:

(please excuse my poor German translation :D)

PS: Notice the field phone on the chair>>> It's there so they can be scrambled for a night intruder. ;)

Wulf
Apr-18-2014, 01:53
Will need to check the dates, think it was the 2nd time in the same day if memory serves me.
Quite a character this bloke.
from wikipedia


:goofy

Galland and Moulders at the said party that evening. (Moudlers on Gallands left)
http://i.imgur.com/FljiShx.jpg


I suspect Galland was undoubtedly an interesting character but not necessarily for all the right reasons it would seem. According to Claes Sundin and Christer Bergstrom, (Luftwaffe Fighter Aircraft in Profile) Galland was very much an 'establishment' figure within the Luftwaffe and while only too willing to assist and protect his old BoB comrades from the vagaries of the National Socialist regime, after his appointment as Inspector of the German Fighter Air Arm he was apparently far less interested in addressing the developing crisis that faced the new cadres of of jagdflieger entering the Luftwaffe in the years following the BoB. To this new generation of airmen Galland was generally known by the derisory term, the 'Perfume Factory' and broadly despised. Instead of nurturing and protecting these new and inexperienced airmen, he instead had a tendency to berate them and accuse them of cowardice or to impose unrealistic demands on them, for example that each schwarm produce at least one victory per combat sortie. This would have been a difficult enough prospect in 1940 but simply unrealistic in the West from 1943.

Roblex
Apr-18-2014, 08:20
Great photo, Vlerkies! :thumbsup:

Wouldn't it have been great to have a film (with English subtitles for us poor non-German-speaking types :D) of that discussion!!!

:)

Using advanced CSI-Miami computer simulation I have gathered together the lip shapes at different times from the reflections bouncing off the cutlery (because light takes longer to reach the camera depending on where the spoons were placed) and this is what he was saying:-

"Then this pig-dog got on my 6 and started taking my plane apart so I lowered my undercarriage as if I was surrendering and when he pulled of my tail I quickly dove into a cloud and hid until he went away. These Englishers are such stupid-heads!" :D

robtek
Apr-18-2014, 12:14
Where is all this coming from???

I certainly cannot wait to jump online with you and spend my free time after this kind of welcome.



The announcement that the Luftwaffe tactics were to avoid getting shot down is not a profound revelation. As a newcomer to your forum, it just looks like an attempt to excuse game behavior that has arisen since the modifications.

Moderator's edit: Hi everyone. I've placed a ban on this new member who has a long history of provoking stupid and nonsensical arguments in other forums -- notably the banana forum. I received a heads up from a senior forum member of his arrival, but opted to give him the benefit of the doubt. It didn't take long for his stripes to show through, and this is just a very early warm up for this guy. Trust me, don't shed too many tears for his early departure.

Salute,

Snapper


That is a really heavy handed reaction, imo.

Provoking a discussion is a basic part of every forum i know and banning one side of a discussion, before it even started, is ill advised.

It takes always at least two participants to a discussion and declaring one side stupid and nonsensical makes the answers to those posts even more so.

The correct solution would be, imo, to ignore such 'stupid and nonsensical' posts.

If they aren't ignored, they aren't stupid and nonsensical anymore.

Salute
robtek

Archie
Apr-18-2014, 12:45
You don't really want him here.I doubt he even flies any sim, just turns up in these sorts of threads on multiple forums...

Robo.
Apr-18-2014, 13:06
Snapper thank you.

aus
Apr-18-2014, 13:07
The 109 in this sim is modelled quite accurately to be virtually untouchable by Spits and Hurries -- if the 109 is flown historically. Acquire height, use the sun, use the 109's superior speed and energy retention at altitude, don't turn fight, extend after a diving attack, and don't get caught flying low and slow. These are common mistakes I encounter in my adversaries frequently as I pump .303's into them from my Spitfire. There are a number of 109 Clod pilots that I CANNOT catch because they rarely, if ever, make the mistakes I listed above. For them the damage modelling issue remains moot. They "don't get shot".
:

Have to say, not really sure I agree with this one 100%, as a CLOD 109 flyer with many Hurri and Spit kills to my credit from TF 3.0 to now. Just yesterday, had a Hurricane keep up with me, within 500m altitude and short distance, in repeated chandelle maneuvers starting from 3km to 7.5km. His energy retention and turning ability outclassed mine from start to finish, and I was not sufficiently powerful enough to generate enough of a delta to be able to turn and line up on him for a shot. This did not use to be the case with previous TF versions. I spent 30 minutes to shoot him down, what eventually happened was that he must have ran out of fuel, he dove for the deck after 20min of contrail altitude stuff, and when we got down there I did finally have enough of a power differential to be able to get him... eventually. But I certainly can't agree that everything is right with the "perception vs reality" department, of the 109 vs hurri/spit argument you are forwarding here.

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-18-2014, 13:13
Heavy handed? Yes it was.

It's my job as the forum moderator to keep this place a good place to visit. I suppose our definitions of "a good place" differ, but nonetheless it's my initial call subject to ATAG Admin's ultimate decision. None of us live in a vacuum here. It was plain that a trouble-making history was about to be repeated right from the get go. As moderator, I nipped it in the bud.

We now have 5,214 forum members now. Checking the ban list I noted that, spam bots aside, the number of banned former forum members can literally be counted on two hands. And a couple of toes. Not bad, considering. It's actually quite difficult to get a ban from this place.

I do expect to receive criticism for the occasional hard decision I feel I needed to make. I make note of it in a positive way, and appreciate the necessity on my part to review the action(s) in question that I took. I do confer with both Admin and fellow ATAG members on a regular basis, and on occasion have reversed an action after consultation and reflection. In this case, my decision stands.

We'll have to "agree to disagree" on this one. Many here know that I will stand up for them, as moderator, even if my personal views are different. The vast majority here respect their fellow forum members and argue and discuss accordingly. They know they won't be attacked for their views, at least not on my watch. For the very few that don't care, I definitely will get heavy handed. Fortunately, that's very rare around here.

Salute,

Snapper





That is a really heavy handed reaction, imo.

Provoking a discussion is a basic part of every forum i know and banning one side of a discussion, before it even started, is ill advised.

It takes always at least two participants to a discussion and declaring one side stupid and nonsensical makes the answers to those posts even more so.

The correct solution would be, imo, to ignore such 'stupid and nonsensical' posts.

If they aren't ignored, they aren't stupid and nonsensical anymore.

Salute
robtek

Macro
Apr-18-2014, 14:36
well done snap. wont be missed :)

I wondered if he even flew never see him in any games. Just seems to start trouble wherever he goes.

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-18-2014, 14:55
Have to say, not really sure I agree with this one 100%, as a CLOD 109 flyer with many Hurri and Spit kills to my credit from TF 3.0 to now. Just yesterday, had a Hurricane keep up with me, within 500m altitude and short distance, in repeated chandelle maneuvers starting from 3km to 7.5km. His energy retention and turning ability outclassed mine from start to finish, and I was not sufficiently powerful enough to generate enough of a delta to be able to turn and line up on him for a shot. This did not use to be the case with previous TF versions. I spent 30 minutes to shoot him down, what eventually happened was that he must have ran out of fuel, he dove for the deck after 20min of contrail altitude stuff, and when we got down there I did finally have enough of a power differential to be able to get him... eventually. But I certainly can't agree that everything is right with the "perception vs reality" department, of the 109 vs hurri/spit argument you are forwarding here.

Hmmm, clearly Your Mileage May Vary with the latest patch. There will be Hurricane Clod pilots here that will take issue with your findings, no question, and likely 109 Clod pilots verifying your experience with accounts of their own encounters. I won't since I really don't fly the Hurricane, other than briefly in the SoW Campaign last Sunday and saw virtually no combat, nor do I fly the Clod 109's other than some private Single Player evaluations.

Hopefully we'll be seeing lots of videos and tracks over the next few weeks by our film-making forum members of both persuasions. I'm editing a 15-minute encounter I had at contrail height with me flying a Spit 1a 100 octane vs an E3. It was a pretty even contest. I didn't record a 5-minute stand off I had vs a 109 on the deck at Tramecourt yesterday; eventually I ran like a scared puppy and he didn't pursue, but we exchanged S! over the close match. None of this proves anything beyond just two of my anecdotal experiences that led me to make the statement I did, which I still believe despite your disagreement.

It'll be interesting to hear others' experiences with the latest patch update.

Robo.
Apr-18-2014, 15:42
Have to say, not really sure I agree with this one 100%, as a CLOD 109 flyer with many Hurri and Spit kills to my credit from TF 3.0 to now. Just yesterday, had a Hurricane keep up with me, within 500m altitude and short distance, in repeated chandelle maneuvers starting from 3km to 7.5km. His energy retention and turning ability outclassed mine from start to finish, and I was not sufficiently powerful enough to generate enough of a delta to be able to turn and line up on him for a shot. This did not use to be the case with previous TF versions. I spent 30 minutes to shoot him down, what eventually happened was that he must have ran out of fuel, he dove for the deck after 20min of contrail altitude stuff, and when we got down there I did finally have enough of a power differential to be able to get him... eventually. But I certainly can't agree that everything is right with the "perception vs reality" department, of the 109 vs hurri/spit argument you are forwarding here.

Hurricane pilot here. :thumbsup: My experience is that at contrail altitude, a well flown Hurricane can definitely give a hard time (harder than usual I mean) to any 109 pilot. At 3km, where you started at, the performance gap is rather big and the Hurri would need to be very good in order to keep up. Judging from the fact you started at 3000m and finished at 7500, it wasn't a rookie. Do you happen to have a track, or pilot's name?

Osprey
Apr-18-2014, 19:31
It was you Robo lol.

Snapper, you did the right thing. I face palmed when he arrived, he must've been banned from BOS finally to end up here.

Wulf
Apr-18-2014, 20:06
Heavy handed? Yes it was.

It's my job as the forum moderator to keep this place a good place to visit. I suppose our definitions of "a good place" differ, but nonetheless it's my initial call subject to ATAG Admin's ultimate decision. None of us live in a vacuum here. It was plain that a trouble-making history was about to be repeated right from the get go. As moderator, I nipped it in the bud.

We now have 5,214 forum members now. Checking the ban list I noted that, spam bots aside, the number of banned former forum members can literally be counted on two hands. And a couple of toes. Not bad, considering. It's actually quite difficult to get a ban from this place.

I do expect to receive criticism for the occasional hard decision I feel I needed to make. I make note of it in a positive way, and appreciate the necessity on my part to review the action(s) in question that I took. I do confer with both Admin and fellow ATAG members on a regular basis, and on occasion have reversed an action after consultation and reflection. In this case, my decision stands.

We'll have to "agree to disagree" on this one. Many here know that I will stand up for them, as moderator, even if my personal views are different. The vast majority here respect their fellow forum members and argue and discuss accordingly. They know they won't be attacked for their views, at least not on my watch. For the very few that don't care, I definitely will get heavy handed. Fortunately, that's very rare around here.

Salute


Snapper


I may well be wrong about this but from what I can see this is the second time, in as many months, that an individual has been 'disappeared' (or their posts removed) for having the audacity to cross swords with a senior ATAG or TF member. I may be right or wrong about that, but it is certainly the perception. As a visitor here I find this development disquieting to say the least. Disquieting because of the flow-on affect actions like these these must have on free and open discussion here and disturbing because, in both instances, the comments made appeared (to me at least) perfectly reasonable and measured.

I have no idea who these individuals are (were) but it seems to me that if you want the forum to have a reputation as a place where free and frank discourse is encouraged, or even possible, then you actually have to walk the talk. Banning people or removing their posts because they have annoyed one of the leading lights, or because you have apparently received reports that they may become disagreeable at some point in the future seems entirely at odds with notions of freedom of expression, openness and transparency. If these guys are idiots or troublemakers surely the average participant here would be smart enough to work that out without the intervention and guiding hand of a 'moderator'.

Robo.
Apr-19-2014, 02:28
Osprey no it wasn't me lol. I have had several interesting fights in various altitudes and I simply find it difficult to believe that at 3km (Angels 10) a 109 struggles against a Hurricane. It does not match with my own experience, that's all. As the altitude increases, it is more and more difficult for the 109 to gain the upper hand. Speed-wise, both E-4 and Hurricane struggle equally at around the top ceiling altitude (30-ish k feet). But I don't know what the initial situation looked like in this particular case, hence my question.

Wulf I completely understand your point of view and I am also not in favour of banning people from public forums. In this case however, an interesting thread like this would just go down the drain in 2 pages.

Not to stay completely OT, after flying the new patch for a bit longer, I don't see anything terribly wrong with 109 fires in game.

Foul Ole Ron
Apr-19-2014, 03:19
I may well be wrong about this but from what I can see this is the second time, in as many months, that an individual has been 'disappeared' (or their posts removed) for having the audacity to cross swords with a senior ATAG or TF member.

You don't know what the guy is like and his history so yes you are wrong. Snapper clearly explained the logic behind this decision and so your perception about the reason is wrong. As a result your whole premise for disquiet is wrong too.

SG1_Lud
Apr-19-2014, 07:23
Osprey no it wasn't me lol. I have had several interesting fights in various altitudes and I simply find it difficult to believe that at 3km (Angels 10) a 109 struggles against a Hurricane. It does not match with my own experience, that's all. As the altitude increases, it is more and more difficult for the 109 to gain the upper hand. Speed-wise, both E-4 and Hurricane struggle equally at around the top ceiling altitude (30-ish k feet). But I don't know what the initial situation looked like in this particular case, hence my question.

Wulf I completely understand your point of view and I am also not in favour of banning people from public forums. In this case however, an interesting thread like this would just go down the drain in 2 pages.

Not to stay completely OT, after flying the new patch for a bit longer, I don't see anything terribly wrong with 109 fires in game.


Very true, a well flown hurri encounter is a gift for any serious 109 pilot, and I have received great lessons in these scenarios. :thumbsup:for those hurri drivers.

Back OT, my personal experience is that the title of the thread is misleading. As someone suggested (I don't recall exactly, but my memory says that PhilStyle) to get to any valid conclusion regarding fires, these shall be tested in all the possible situations (Red vs Red, Red vs Blue... etc) and ammo loads.

In my free time I like to do tests like that. What I've found, is that the hurries and spits burn like torches too, if fired from a allied plane, and less often, burn if shot with german weapons in a very specific spot (very difficult to achieve unless the enemy a/c is not maneuvering or you are a great shot).

So I started to think that it was more and ammo issue, probably not alone, but combined with other secondary aspects of the planes. Can't offer any valid conclusion because 100s of tests have to be done to be strict, and s very boring. As I am not by far a good Spit or Hurri Pilot, probably not the best beta tester either. I am using De-Wilde and AP for getting those planes burning.

Buzzsaw stated clearly that he looked carefully at the planes fuel tanks, and the 109 armor is being discussed for TF5.0.
I believe that it's being noted that the relative % of fires among the different planes in TF 4.312 is off, and they are looking at it, as it happened with the wrong PK (Correct me if I am wrong)
I am not sure if the TF is bothered to reopen the ammo to discussion as a possible candidate of the culprit, or they are already doing it internally.

I am content with what I have (for free) and enough olde to have learned to live with what I don't like. :)

The only thing that sounded strange to me was the "don't get shoot" answer. OK, I can understand the intention, but this is not the answer to people's concerns, specially when they are not noobs at all, and can be taken as patronizing.

-S-

EDIT: damn spelling engine, keeps changing hurri for hurry. Sorry guys if I missed one.

robtek
Apr-19-2014, 08:33
So the reason for the 'unrealistic' high percentage of burning 109's might be the 'unrealistic' high amount of DeWilde Ammo used on the red side????
Wasn't that ammo in short supply for quite some time during the BoB?

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-19-2014, 09:32
Well, Wulf, I'd rather take crap for something I did than for something I didn't do. This is a prime example.

Salute.



I may well be wrong about this but from what I can see this is the second time, in as many months, that an individual has been 'disappeared' (or their posts removed) for having the audacity to cross swords with a senior ATAG or TF member. I may be right or wrong about that, but it is certainly the perception. As a visitor here I find this development disquieting to say the least. Disquieting because of the flow-on affect actions like these these must have on free and open discussion here and disturbing because, in both instances, the comments made appeared (to me at least) perfectly reasonable and measured.

I have no idea who these individuals are (were) but it seems to me that if you want the forum to have a reputation as a place where free and frank discourse is encouraged, or even possible, then you actually have to walk the talk. Banning people or removing their posts because they have annoyed one of the leading lights, or because you have apparently received reports that they may become disagreeable at some point in the future seems entirely at odds with notions of freedom of expression, openness and transparency. If these guys are idiots or troublemakers surely the average participant here would be smart enough to work that out without the intervention and guiding hand of a 'moderator'.

Roblex
Apr-19-2014, 15:26
This seemed appropriate :-)

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-19-2014, 15:31
I guess that pretty much sums it up! roflmao

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-19-2014, 15:36
Well, Talisman started one helluva thread that went in all kinds of directions. The crux of the matter is that all damage modelling will be looked at for Patch 5.0 and, where TF deems necessary, adjusted towards even greater historical authenticity given the many factors discussed here involving ballistics and aircraft construction, including armour.

Thanks to all for contributing.