Jump to content

P-51D, 3 types of flights online


Integrals
 Share

Recommended Posts

Whilst I can understand that its frustrating sometimes pointless is a bit of an exaggeration. Sure it's not as intuitive to fight in but there are several pilots who come to mind when I think of the P-51 who can mop the floor some pretty good 109 drivers. Likewise there are people who are incredibly proficient in the 109.

 

When I first started in the Bf 109 I went and flew into furballs with plenty of targets often only to get killed time and time again without coming close to having someone in the gunsight. I think i hit 0-9 K-D in one night at some point. Frustration isn't unique to the mustang and whilst she may be in need of a more period suitable engine setting, she certainly isn't a slouch in the right hands.

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm going to set up a red v blue P-51 server one of these days so I can't bitch any more... I just flew the 109 again and honestly flying the P-51 in the current state against it seems completely pointless.

 

I was on fire and still fighting many v 1... then managed to disengage and rtb.

 

 

 

not soon enough.

 

:megalol: i was the one that shot him up, missing many times with the far convergenence and he turns around 1 shots me and pops my engine it was either him or i grenaded it myself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok then, when is the Spitfire released? :)

Will be released with the new damage model :)

Favorite modules : Huey, F-86F, F14 and P-51D

Quest 2, RTX 3080, i7 10700K, 16 Gb of RAM, Pro Flight Trainer PUMA helicopter setup, Warthog HOTAS with two force sensitive stick, custom cockpit and a GS-Cobra dynamic seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I can understand that its frustrating sometimes pointless is a bit of an exaggeration. Sure it's not as intuitive to fight in but there are several pilots who come to mind when I think of the P-51 who can mop the floor some pretty good 109 drivers. Likewise there are people who are incredibly proficient in the 109.

 

When I first started in the Bf 109 I went and flew into furballs with plenty of targets often only to get killed time and time again without coming close to having someone in the gunsight. I think i hit 0-9 K-D in one night at some point. Frustration isn't unique to the mustang and whilst she may be in need of a more period suitable engine setting, she certainly isn't a slouch in the right hands.

 

Maybe the experience of starting in the mustang has skewed my view, but I felt like I could completely control the fight in the 109. I feel like the aircraft gives you much more opportunity to be aggressive (and rewards you for doing so with the 30mm) and is actually much more forgiving of mistakes than the P-51 because it *feels* like you can turn and run whenever you need to.

 

I have never had the same feeling in the P-51. Its get rounds on target then get the F** out as fast as possible and mistakes usually kill you.

 

Again, this is just my experience for what it is worth. Maybe the 109 just matches my style more? I'm not sure... I have half as many kills in 2 flights in it as I've got in almost 3 months of the 51.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can pretty much say the same about my experience but I think that it's due to my lack of P-51 experience and since I'm used to the 109 I sometimes try to fight it like it is one, which simply doesn't work. If you try you'll usually stall all over the place and feel like your airplane is underpowered. I get a similar feeling when I sit in the Dora. I don't know how to make use of my advantages so I try multiple things, some of which are from my 109 'instincts'.

 

I agree that I can control the fight more in the 109 but thats cause I know how to fight its strengths and to force my oponent to do what I want him to. To be fair doing these things in the Mustang is probably somewhat more abstract and harder to understand/get used to and practice with. The 109's style suits the classical perception of a dogfight where its all about turning better than the other guy and getting above him. Turn and climb are easy for people to understand whereas I feel like Mustang tactics are maybe slightly less intuitive/require a more thorough understanding of how air combat works.

 

Like I said it's obviously not impossible. The best thing to do is find the guys who know how to do it and see if they would be so kind as to share some of their secrets with you :P

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm pretty sure the reason it's so much easier to get pilot kills on the Mustang is that DCS considers any hit on the relatively large surface area of the canopy as a "cockpit hit" even when the hit would not have transited any space particularly close to the pilot, whereas hits only count as cockpit hits on the Bf109 if you hit the relatively tiny canopy, and DCS altogether throws out hits that hit the skin near the cockpit which *would*, in reality, continue on through the pilot. Just not a very good method of adjudicating hits. The new damage model should help out with that.

 

Or the fact the pilot in the 109 is just better covered and protected by thicker armor plates and more structrural elements behind him - including the fuel tank and occasially, and MW 50 tank.

 

Earlier 109 variants arrangements basically rendered .50 AP unable to penetrate the armor plates from 200 yards if the round passed into the tank below the fuel line.

http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site

 

Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse!

-Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people are talking about how the MG 131 should be more effective because they were positioned closer together than the .50 cals of the Mustang. They forget one thing: 3 of those .50 cals were pretty close together on each wing. Much closer than the 109's MGs. So I never really understood this argument.

 

By the way, the 109's MGs are just as ineffective in DCS as the Mustang's .50 cals. You often need to waste a lot of ammo before the Stang starts smoking, and even then, it's just a visual damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the fact the pilot in the 109 is just better covered and protected by thicker armor plates and more structrural elements behind him - including the fuel tank and occasially, and MW 50 tank.

 

Earlier 109 variants arrangements basically rendered .50 AP unable to penetrate the armor plates from 200 yards if the round passed into the tank below the fuel line.

 

i think the 109 had armored glass panes too, not too sure, but how thick is the armor plating behind the 109? 50 cals have been used to strafe destroyers, armored cars, heavy iron trains, submarines, cargo ships, etc and such not discounting the armor on the 109, just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 109 pilot back armor was 8 mm and slanted slightly, head armor was 10 mm thick with a 60mm armored glass in it. Under the pilots buttocks and seat there was curved 4 mm plate joining the back plate, which however would be at an extreme angle from rounds coming from behind. To actually hit the pilot, the bullet would first need to pass through the fuel tank, in most cases the MW tank and in some cases the radio sets mounted further back in the fuselage, all of these will slow down the bullets.

 

Depicted is a G-2, where the only difference to the K is that the G also had a multi (20+) layered 0.8mm aluminium plates behind the fuel tank, this was removed and replaced by the MW tank on the late G/K variants. At least with the extra aluminium layer the combined effect was such in tests that the .50 AP could not go through the pilot armor from 200 yards if it hit below the fuel line in the tank (and chancy if it hit above), so the effect of going through liquids must have been considerable.

 

The armor coverage is pretty good though in the vertical and proves cover for +/-10 degrees deflection shots.

 

Messer-Bf.109_armorprotect-1.jpg

 

Now, it seems my memory misserved me, I must have had the Spit's armor plates in my head. At least on the P-51B - and I assume the P-51D was similar - the armor back plates were 5/16" (7.9mm) with a 6/16" (9.5mm) head piece, though there is considerably less "stuff" behind them to slow down the bullets, except for at head level where some radio sets were put.

 

air_550a_003.jpg

 

P51_Av_4407_DA_armor_p144_W.png

 

Note that its just a bulkhead behind the pilot, but there is no "butt" or curved head armor to give some protection against deflection shots from under/above.

 

In short the P-51s armor protection for the pilot is pretty simple, and apart from piercing the skin (which isn't a small factor as it hits at high angle and could lead to tumbling of the bullet) and truth to be told, it provides rather marginal protection even against the 13mm rounds with their weaker ballistics, see the German pen curves - the cc. 8mm back seat seems to still penetratable at 300 m if the round passes through a 1.5mm skin first at 70 degrees deflection and a 20 degrees sideways deflection, same for the head plate since it doesn't have skin to penetrate first, despite its greater thickness.

 

13x64B_MG-131-02.jpg


Edited by Kurfürst

http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site

 

Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse!

-Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depicted is a G-2, where the only difference to the K is that the G also had a multi (20+) layered 0.8mm aluminium plates behind the fuel tank, this was removed and replaced by the MW tank on the late G/K variants. At least with the extra aluminium layer the combined effect was such in tests that the .50 AP could not go through the pilot armor from 200 yards if it hit below the fuel line in the tank (and chancy if it hit above), so the effect of going through liquids must have been considerable.

 

As soon as we get a realistic damage model this all becomes a huge negative for the K4. With aircraft being so small it becomes very difficult to get strikes with .50 API and NOT damage something critical.

 

Currently we've got no leaks, no penetration modelling, and no incendiary effects. I think all of the discussions about the relative performance of the 109K4 will go away once we get an accurate damage model and realistic spotting/aircraft visibility, regardless of whether or not the Kurfurst still gets the benefits of simulator ergonomics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as we get a realistic damage model this all becomes a huge negative for the K4. With aircraft being so small it becomes very difficult to get strikes with .50 API and NOT damage something critical.

 

Currently we've got no leaks, no penetration modelling, and no incendiary effects. I think all of the discussions about the relative performance of the 109K4 will go away once we get an accurate damage model and realistic spotting/aircraft visibility, regardless of whether or not the Kurfurst still gets the benefits of simulator ergonomics.

 

Strongly disagree regarding realistic spotting/aircraft visibility. OK if you are lone wolf all the time and just want to dogfight in airquake perhaps, but if pilots want to fly more realistically and fly as part of a squad with cooperative operations/missions on large maps then not being able to see your own squad mates and spot/identify friendly aircraft as well as enemy will still remain one of the biggest problems, especially for WWII DCS.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

56RAF_Talisman

 

Spitfire! 'That's no aircraft, that's a bleedin' angel'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the fact the pilot in the 109 is just better covered and protected by thicker armor plates and more structrural elements behind him - including the fuel tank and occasially, and MW 50 tank.

 

Earlier 109 variants arrangements basically rendered .50 AP unable to penetrate the armor plates from 200 yards if the round passed into the tank below the fuel line.

 

At any sort of deflection other than a dead-astern shot, that armor is of limited value. And as you yourself admit, ANY shot inside 200 meters (a pretty average distance) will penetrate in absolute worst-case scenario, going through both the fuel tank, the pilot's armor, AND the pilot. Of course, if the fuel tank *isn't* full, or if the round comes through on any of the vast majority of angles that are *not* through the fuel tank, it will easily perforate the armor. The M8 API perforates 8mm rolled hardened armor out to 1,200 meters (measured at a standard 30 degree impact angle). The K4's pilot armor is not a particularly difficult barrier for .50 cal at WW2 air combat distances.

 

But let's say that you're right, and the round has to transit through the fuel tank, and doesn't have enough energy to make it through the fuselage, both sides of the tank, the fuel, and the bullet just splatters on the back of the pilot's armor. Of course, this assumes the tank is full because the K4 has magically not emptied half the tiny fuel capacity just getting to the fight- and let's not forget that the portion of the tank actually behind the pilot is the narrow, top end of an L-shaped tank, and accounts for perhaps 75-80 liters out of the 400 liter capacity... so once 80 liters are burned off, the pilot no longer has liquid fuel behind him, just a big gap full of easily ignited vapors.

 

Anyhow, bullet goes through all of that and somehow doesn't have enough energy to penetrate the pilot's armor. Ok, that's certainly possible. So, hooray, pilot survives! ...but now he has a through-and-through perforated fuel tank that just sprayed aerosolized high-octane fuel throughout the rear fuselage, and his pilot's armor has just struck a hard surface which ensures the 15 grains of barium nitrate and aluminum/magnesium alloy incendiary filler reliably ignites and disperses everywhere around that spilled fuel.

 

Best case scenario, the Bf109 has a severe fuel leak. Worst case, it explodes.

 

Actually, worst case, the .50 cal perforates the pilot's skull AND the aircraft explodes.

 

*lol* I love how you point out that the K4 has "so much stuff behind the pilot other than just the armor- the bullet has to go through a fuel tank, and an MW50 tank, and skin, and, and....

 

...and then you claim the P-51D does *not* have anything behind the pilot. Because, you know, there certainly weren't multiple radio sets and, I dunno, an even bigger fuel tank than the K4? And of course at any shot beyond about 5-10 degrees deflection, none of that stuff- on either the Mustang or the K4- is actually between the shooter and the pilot. Nor, in a 5-10 degree deflection shot, is any of that stuff between the shooter and the engine.


Edited by OutOnTheOP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strongly disagree regarding realistic spotting/aircraft visibility. OK if you are lone wolf all the time and just want to dogfight in airquake perhaps, but if pilots want to fly more realistically and fly as part of a squad with cooperative operations/missions on large maps then not being able to see your own squad mates and spot/identify friendly aircraft as well as enemy will still remain one of the biggest problems, especially for WWII DCS.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. Currently you can see aircraft at 30NM but they start to disappear and fail to render parts of the model, or shrink to less than one pixel, at ranges inside of 1000 yards. They should be a pixel at ~7NM and get slowly larger as they close. Things obviously should get easier to see as they get closer to you, but apparently the person on the ED team who implemented this current scaling solution had other ideas. Its not even a case of ground clutter or lack of reflections from surfaces. See this thread here:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2869267&postcount=170

 

Currently the K4 pilots get the advantage of being able to assess the air picture from incredibly long distances to know exactly where and how much they need to climb to get above the highest bandits, as well as having the rate of turn and climb advantage when the engagements go to less than 1000 yards to defeat bandits they lost track of due to the terrible model visibility. Its even the case in the Mustang currently that aircraft can shrink so much at 300 yards that (with a realistic and not crazy-zoomed eye-point) they fail to render well enough to see their plane of motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kurfurst

That kind of amour is not a problem for .50cal from 500m

 

P-51D has nearly 16mm of armour plate behind the pilot.

 

The document you have presented shows penetration of API ammo at 100m it can pen 17mm at 90deg angle. While .50cal can penetrate 25mm at that distance.

 

From what I saw P-51D has 16mm of steel as armour, so unless you are 100 (or closer)and at perfect angle you cannot penetrate the P-51's armour. And of course that is with the API ammo you have shown. But much of the belt is made of HEI and HEIT ammo isn't it?

 

.50cal M2 AP and M8 API can easily penetrate the 8mm and 10mm armour of the 109.


Edited by Solty

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kurfurst

While .50cal can penetrate 25mm at that distance.

 

That sounds about right. M8 will perforate 16mm at 500 meters (at 30 degrees angle). M20 does even better; 21mm at 500 meters. At 100 meters it will be significantly better. I suppose if we're talking late '44, you might be carrying either.

 

... It might be nice to allow selection of M2/M8 or M2/M20 belts in the mission editor. M20 should be particularly brutal.


Edited by OutOnTheOP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kurfurst

That kind of amour is not a problem for .50cal from 500m

 

Surely not! In fact that kind of plate is easy to be pierced even by .30 cal ammunition - provided that armor is not hardened, perfectly aligned for a 90 degree impact, not angled, and there is nothing the slow down and thumble the bullet before it actually hits the armor.

 

However once those factors come in, penetration drops very significantly, as trials demonstrated.

 

P-51D has nearly 16mm of armour plate behind the pilot.

 

Sure thing Solty! I say it might have even had 100 mm! And was invisible too, since nobody ever mentioned it.

 

.50cal M2 AP and M8 API can easily penetrate the 8mm and 10mm armour of the 109.

 

Unless its a real firing test and it just can't. Now there are of course limits to that - at close range, with good conditions it very well can - but as far as the typical combat scenario goes, the pilot in the 109 is pretty well protected against .50 API.

 

See also "Vulnerability of 109F to attack from .303, 50 cal, 20mm ball and 20mm HEI" report from March 1943.


Edited by Kurfürst

http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site

 

Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse!

-Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At any sort of deflection other than a dead-astern shot, that armor is of limited value. And as you yourself admit, ANY shot inside 200 meters (a pretty average distance) will penetrate in absolute worst-case scenario, going through both the fuel tank, the pilot's armor, AND the pilot.

 

Actually IIRC there was some 30% chance of a penetration occuring, if I recall the report's finding correctly.

 

Of course, if the fuel tank *isn't* full, or if the round comes through on any of the vast majority of angles that are *not* through the fuel tank, it will easily perforate the armor. The M8 API perforates 8mm rolled hardened armor out to 1,200 meters (measured at a standard 30 degree impact angle).

 

Firstly, the fuel tank is always full since in practice a droptank was carried and it topped the main tank, rather than direct feed. Secondly, whatever the laboratory paper figures for M8 API were, they were not enough in real life conditions as live fire trials showed. Thirdly, the tank was self sealing.

 

The K4's pilot armor is not a particularly difficult barrier for .50 cal at WW2 air combat distances.

 

Define particularly difficult. It was not completely proof of course, but it offered reliable protection against all but the shitt***st situations. That's only so much you can do in a fighter, however, but as far as the 109 went, it did pretty well in the pilot protection department.

http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site

 

Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse!

-Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever the laboratory paper figures for M8 API were, they were not enough in real life conditions as live fire trials showed.

 

Really? Because I seem to recall some 4-odd years of live fire testing where the .50 cal did just fine.

 

30,000+ nazi aircraft don't lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...