[Partly Fixed 12/17/22]Pilot Protective Armor Missing or Incorrect Thickness

[Magic Zach]

12/16/22 Preface:
In this Friday's OpenBeta update, the easy coding fixes have been added for the P-51, 190s, Spitfire, 109, and 47.  However, the Mosquito has been missed.  Additionally, the armor plates that are missing from DCS entirely haven't yet been included.
Items that were fixed in the 12/16 OpenBeta update will be highlighted in green, and marked with the update date.

TL;DR: Many warbirds have incorrect armor values, or are missing armor.

If you open the x-ray.edm in the Modelviewer, and the individual aircraft's Lua, you can see the IDs from the Modelviewer and see what those objects' properties are.
Please click on the photos here, as while I've minimized them in this post so it doesn't get cluttered, but if you click on them you will see them in better resolution.




The P-51D (INCORRECT):
[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The headrest and seat back armor (aka XArmor01 and XArmor00) - If we open Aircorps Library and look at the drawings for the late P-51D, like ours, we will see that these are two pieces of armor welded together.  The headrest being 7/16", or 11mm...and the seat back being 5/16", or 8mm thick.  Meanwhile in DCS, it is given a thickness of 22mm!  For both plates!  Almost three times the value of most of the area of the armor.  I have an idea on how this value came to be, but I'll drop it into the spoiler below:

Spoiler

Again, I remind that if you click on these photos, they will expand and be more legible, especially if you open them in a new tab.
You'll see here, that each part is given a number designation.  The old armor plates were given -2 and -3.  You can also see more details about these parts on the parts list table, including their dimensions.  You'll notice their thicknesses are at 5/16" and 7/16".  Now if you go to the list of changes, you'll see in September of 1944 they added parts -8 and -7.  These are new armor plates.  Their dimensions are exactly the same as the old ones, but the material changed (can read it in the parts list table).

Of note...
How did we get 22mm as the current assigned armor value?  It seems a bit random.
I suspect that someone misread the drawings for specifically the P-51D's head armor plate.  You'll notice that in the drawing's notation, they add -3 and -8 right on top of each other, seemingly pointing at the same part.  We know now that this was how they notated changes done to parts over time, next to the change code designation K1 drawn in a circle next to the new part.
So, someone probably was in a rush when finding armor thicknesses, and saw the -3 and -8 (the head armor) on top of each other and thought this meant, merely looking at the parts list and not the change table, that it was two 7/16" plates welded back to back to each other, to create one plate.  Essentially doubling the armor thickness.  Now double 7/16" and you have 7/8"....or, in metric, 22.22mm!  Mystery solved.
Unfortunately, it looks like in order to speed up the process, this incorrect value was copy-pasted across all the subsequent aircraft, minus the Spitfire.  As you press on, you'll come to notice this.

[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The armored glass (aka XArmor02) - In DCS, it is given a thickness of 75mm.  Using the schematics from Aircorps Library, we can again see that it is 1.5" thick, or 38mm.

Spoiler

[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The instrument panel (aka XCockpitElement02) - In DCS, this is given a thickness of just 1mm!  In truth, the instrument panel is a part that's for once, thicker in truth, coming out to 0.128", or 3.25mm.

Spoiler

[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The firewall (aka XArmor03) - This is given a value of 12mm in DCS, or just a scratch under 1/2".  For our 51D, it appears that a more possible value would've been 1/4", or 6.35mm.

Spoiler

Of note, these next two photos are of the left half of the overall firewall assembly.  The firewall assembly drawing does not give specific armor values.  The left and right are identical, aside from holes and openings being drilled into different locations for controls and pipes to pass through.

The P-51D (MISSING):
The coolant header tank armor - This is a piece of armor that has been missing from the Mustang's damage model.  It is 1/4" thick, or 6.35mm, and lies just forward of the coolant header tank within the engine nacelle, between the coolant header tank and the spinner.

Spoiler

It's also mentioned here, in this video featuring the Mustang Sierra Sue II while she was under construction, and if you let the video play, we are also shown the firewall bulkhead's armor as well, and the cutout from it in the center.

I'd also like to mention that Sierra Sue II is probably one of the most historically 1:1 flying Mustangs out there today, as they would've been built during the war years.  And this is thanks to AirCorps Library.

In summary for the P-51:
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor00 from 0.022 to 0.008
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor01 from 0.022 to 0.011
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor02 from 0.075 to 0.038
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor03 from 0.012 to 0.00635
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XCockpitElement02 from 0.001 to 0.00325
-Add coolant header tank armor.  Steel, 0.00635

 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Magic Zach
12/16/22: DCS OpenBeta update that included partial fixes

[Magic Zach]

The P-47D-30 (INCORRECT):




The rear armor (XArmor01) - The shape is generally correct, however for some reason left and right outside edges slightly fold forwards.  Not entirely sure why, as it's not reflected in schematics for the late 47D.
As you can see in the photo above, it is given again, the same value of 22mm.
However, the armor should be split into two separate pieces like was done for the P-51D.  While the head armor and body armor are welded together, they are of different thickness.  The head armor should be 3/8" thick, or 9.5mm.  The larger, body portion of the armor however is 1/4" thick, or 6.35mm.

Spoiler

[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The instrument panel (XArmor00) - Interesting that DCS identifies this as armor.  If you look at the second photo in this post, you'll see that "XArmor00" (the instrument panel's ID) is set to have a thickness of 22mm.  However, in truth the instrument panel was only 1/8" thick, or 3.2mm.  This means that DCS set the instrument panel to be almost 7x thicker than it was intended.

Spoiler

The P-47D-30 (MISSING):

The bullet-resistant windshield - It's evident in the 3D model that the glass is of the protection type at least, but it also shows in the drawings.  Yet in the damage model, it is not there.  You can even see it (or rather, NOT see it) absent in the photo from the Modelviewer, at the top of this post.  The glass is of the same thickness as that of the P-51D's, at 1.5", or 38mm.
Here you have the bullet resistant glass for our bubbletop P-47:

Spoiler

For comparison sake, here is also the razorback 47's glass, of the same thickness as well.  Interestingly for the razorbacked P-47s, the bullet resistant glass was mounted inside, separate from the canopy.  It was mounted at an angle, inside the cockpit, between the gunsight and the windscreen.

The frontal armor - This is a smaller cut of armor, that was mounted just forwards of the windshield, at a slope, just inside the upper cowling, intending to give further protection below the armored glass's reach.  It was 3/8" thick, or 9.5mm.  On early P-47Ds, without the bubble canopy, this was at a significant slope, somewhat parallel to the armored glass.  However with the introduction of the bubble, it's slope was reduced and it was shortened in height.

Spoiler

In summary for the P-47:
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor00 from 0.022 to 0.0032
-Break up XArmor01 into XArmor01 and XArmor02 (head armor) and give XArmor01 a value of 0.00635 and XArmor02 (head armor) a value of 0.0095
-Add "Reinforced Glass" windscreen, give a skin value of 0.038
-Add frontal armor.  Material "Steel", and a skin value of 0.0095

Edited December 16, 2022 by Magic Zach
Dec 16 OB update

[Magic Zach]

The Fw 190A-8 (INCORRECT):




Photos:

Spoiler

1A: Diagram of different layouts and variations of armor.  Goes to the table below.
NOTE: We have the variation of the A8 in DCS that does NOT include the armored windscreen side panels.



1B: Table of different layouts and variations of armor.  Goes to the diagram above.

A different listing of the armor layout.  Again, we shouldn't have the armored glass side windows.
NOTE: both the oil cooler and oil tank are rings that sit completely around the inside circumference of the engine inlet.

[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The headrest armor (XArmor01) - In DCS this armor is also 20mm thick.  It appears that this is actually supposed to be 12mm.  Considering the armor thickness of the previous two aircraft, even the P-47, don't have armor to that depth.

[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The bullet-resistant glass windshield (XArmor02)- In DCS, this is also the now-familiar 75mm thick.  But again, the A8 actually has some pretty heavy protection here, having a corrected glass thickness of 50mm...still a lot more than the P-51's and P-47's.

Regarding the seat armor, back armor, and shoulder armor - It was hard for me to pinpoint what was going on here, specifically if the wider section of the armor covering the torso area was the shoulder armor plate, or the shoulder armor plate+back armor.
The back armor (XArmor00") is set to 20mm in DCS as it is now.

I see two options for fixing this one:
1) Try to approximate the armor thickness of three different plates into one.  The seat back plate is 8mm, the shoulder plate is 5mm, and each of the two back plates are 5mm.  Seeing how the the back plates somewhat overlap with the seat, and the shoulder armor is completely behind the seat, an argument could be made that the average armor value for the area as a whole may be closer to 10-11mm.
2) Remodel the armor in the x-ray.edm.  The armor layout in the x-ray.edm appears like it's different enough from the realities of the armor placement that it may do better to just add new pieces.  The current object for the armor behind the pilot could be resized to roughly simulate the shape of the combined shoulder and back plates, as one object.  This would be pretty sensible considering the shoulder and back plate armor are the same thickness at 5mm.  Then forwards of that, a brand new armor piece, XArmor03, to simulate the seat back armor at 8mm.

Regarding the oil cooler and oil tank armor - If you look into the Lua, you'll find that there is already a sort of armor given to the cooler and tank...themselves!

Both have a pretty happy value for their wall, and are assigned the steel material.  The oil cooler, in reality, had a 6.5mm armor ring, and the oil tank behind it had a 5.5mm armor ring.  6mm is a good happy average.  The issue however I see with these, isn't the skin value ("armor") itself, but the layout in the DCS DM.  Maybe by accident, but it seems that the space taken by the oil tank does not wrap around the inside of the engine inlet.
This is how the oil tank and oil cooler are in the DCS x-ray.edm currently:

Spoiler

Ideally, either every other segment alternate between an "oil tank" and "oil cooler".  This, or the whole ring be segmented along the circumference to more accurately portray the cooler and tank's layout.  Such as, potentially:

Spoiler

In summary:
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor01 from 0.02 to 0.012
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor02 from 0.075 to 0.05
-Either A) Change XArmor00 from 0.02 to 0.01 or B) Change the model of XArmor00 into the shape of the combined shoulder and back plates and give them 0.005 meter thickness, and add the pilot's seat back armor and give it 0.008m thickness.
-A change to the oil cooler and oil tank layout

Edited December 16, 2022 by Magic Zach
Dec 16 OB update

[Magic Zach]

The Bf 109K-4 (INCORRECT):


Due to lack of hard evidence, I've had to rely a lot on earlier 109 versions to get my information.  To my knowledge however, there weren't any changes to the armor on the Bf 109 after the change from the 109F to the thicker 109G armor layout.  From that point on, the only change in the armor was what naturally came with the Erla-Haube canopy, and I believe a reduction in size of the aluminum plate behind the fuel tank (more on that later).

Spoiler

[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The seat armor (XArmor00) and head/neck armor (XArmor01) - DCS has these both set to 20mm, but it appears this was something closer to 11mm for both.
[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The armored windscreen (XArmor02) and  head glass (XArmor03) - DCS, as per the norm now, has these set to 75mm currently.  The actual values of the armor thickness is actually 60mm for both.  This will make it the warbird with the thickest armored glass, albeit not as sloped as the Fw 190A-8's.

Spoiler

The Bf 109K-4 (MISSING):

The Galand-Panzer frame - The metal framework that holds the armored glass behind the pilot's head.  This was of a similar thickness to the seat armor, at 11mm.  This is especially useful as partial protection from hits coming from the 109's high six.

Spoiler

For other photos just look at the pictures for the seat armor and head armor, above

The duraluminum laminate plate (IT WAS FOUND THIS WAS REMOVED FROM BF109s WITH MW50 INJECTION, INCLUDING THE K4) - This was a bit rough to find information on.  From what I gather, it was a plate placed 6" behind the fuel tank.  It seems that when it was introduced with the Bf 109F, this plate was more like a bulkhead, that fit inside the tail from edge to edge.  However, by the time we got to the G6, this plate may have been cut down to fit to the shape of the aft face of the fuel tank.
What is for sure however, is that this plate was made from 30 laminates of aircraft skin dural, bolted together.  This made a "solid" (if all the laminates were perfectly flush with each other) armor thickness of 0.735 inches.
Based on ballistic testing on the version of this plate on the 109F-4 (called a bulkhead then), it appears that the combination of the dural plate, fuel tank, and 11mm pilot armor would stop .303 incendiary rounds.  However, .50 caliber incendiaries could punch through all three with some success.
Edit 11/20/2022: It was found that this armor plate was not featured on the Bf-109K-4, or any Bf-109 that featured the MW-50 injection, likely due to the Mw-50 tank's placement nearby the dural armor plate.  However, this was armor featured on 109's without Mw-50.  And on the 109F series, this plate also was enlarged to fill the entire inside area of the tail cross-section...essentially a 21mm dural bulkhead behind the fuel tank.  To reiterate though, this plate was shrunken on 109s from the G-2 and on, and was completely removed for 109s featuring Mw-50 injection, such as our K-4.
Here are some further photos:
 

Spoiler

Taken from the 109G parts list, showing the placement of the fuel tank.

Also, the parts list.  This appears to be the new shape of the dural plate on the 109G, and very possibly on through to the Kurfurst.

Regarding the dural plate found on the 109F (the seat armor was changed from this in the 109F to the 11mm in the 109G, but this shows how tolerant the dural plate was to allied caliber):

This was taken from a report, Metallurgical Examination of Laminated Aluminum Alloy German Aircraft Armor from a Messerschmitt ME-109 Plane.  That's the full name...it's quite the mouthful.
I believe the wording regarding the placement of the plate, under 6.) General considerations is a mistake of sorts.



Metallurgial Examination of Laminated Aluminum Alloy German Aircraft Armor from a Messerschmitt ME-109 Plane.pdf

In summary:
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor00 from 0.02 to 0.011
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor01 from 0.02 to 0.011
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor02 from 0.075 to 0.06
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor03 from 0.075 to 0.06
-Add full Galland-Panzer 11mm metal frame, behind the pilot's head

Edited December 16, 2022 by Magic Zach
Dec 16 OpenBeta update

[Magic Zach]

The Spitfire (INCORRECT):




[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The headrest armor plate (XArmor01) - This is the only warbird in DCS that appears to have unique armor values, that aren't 20 or 22mm, so I was at first inclined to think that the armor had been set correctly.  However this doesn't appear to the be the case either.  DCS, as you can see above, has set the headrest armor to 18mm.  This plate in fact only reached a depth of 6mm in truth.

Spoiler

This is half of the headrest armor, that together make up the triangle-shaped piece.  The plate's original dimensions before it was cut to shape are in the top-left, and you can read it has a thickness of 6mm.

[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The body/bottom armor plate (XArmor00) - In DCS, this plate is set to 12mm.  This plate should be set to 7mm

Spoiler

Half of the bottom armor plate:

[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The bullet-proof windscreen (XArmor02) - Like all the other aircraft, the Spitfire in DCS has the windscreen set to 75mm.  This was in truth 41mm..or apparently 44mm with the glue between the layers included.

Spoiler

The Spitfire (MISSING):

The 20mm ammo box armor, and more - There was a plate just forward of the ammunition boxes for the Hispano's ammunition.  I cannot find more specific details on it, other than it being featured in an exploded view from the Supermarine Spitfire Owner's Workshop Manual (that I haven't bought, but it's where the photo was from, online), and this schematic showing the armament placement within the wings of the Spitfire, and it includes the armor.  It refers to drawing 34662/Sheet 4 for more specific information and dimensions on it, but unfortunately this appears to have been never uploaded to AirCorps Library.  Nevertheless I'll upload what I have up to now....

 

Spoiler

I highlighted the armor in red.  You can see it's got spacers between itself and the ammo box.

Speaking of ammo box (Sheet 9), here it is.  The armor isn't visible here I believe, as it's not listed on the parts list on the top right.

#134 points out the 20mm magazine armor, and you can pretty easily pick it out, as it's got the spacers.  #19 additionally seems to point out the "armored spinner", and #39 points out an "armored firewall/fuel tank bulkhead".  I cannot seem to find any information on these two, outside of the exploded view from the Owner's Workshop Manual.

In summary:
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor00 from 0.012 to 0.007
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor01 from 0.018 to 0.006
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor02 from 0.075 to 0.041
-[If further information can be found] Add 20mm ammunition box armor, spinner armor(?), bulkhead/fuel tank armor(?)

Edited December 16, 2022 by Magic Zach
Dec 16 OB update

[Magic Zach]

Regarding the Mosquito and Fw 190D-9:

These are two aircraft that I haven't found any specific information for, butt I'm very open to suggestions!  However based on these other aircraft, educated guess can be made.
[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The Fw 190D-9 - Looking within the cockpit, we can get the impression that the armor layout between the Fw 190A-8 and the Fw 190D-9 are very closely related, and I believe the D-9 could use the same armor values as the Anton.  Either way, even if the new values are wrong, it will bring the aircraft more in line with the others, and remove it from it's 20mm armor plate (yes, all these birds currently have nearly the same armor plate thickness).

Spoiler

The Mosquito (UPDATED 11/29/2022) - 
The following paragraph is now mostly overwritten by the content further below, so I'll spoil it but I'll also leave it here so readers will have better context:

Spoiler

I can't even begin to find a reference for dimensions for this bird.  The only library of 23,500 schematics of the Mosquito, to my knowledge, is soley held by The People's Mosquito.  In the meantime, it may do well to make educated guesses.  The Mosquito's armor in DCS is currently varying between 14mm and 20mm thick.  The seats are 14mm, while there is this armor cover over the nose that is 20mm thick.  The front windscreen is reinforced, and at 40mm.
This looks like one of the better planes to start off with, with the most minimal adjustments needed.  The 14mm seats sound too thick however, and it's probably more akin to 10mm, based off of past armor thicknesses, and looking at the 3D model in the cockpit.
I can't comment on the 20mm nose cover armor, but I can say that the one case in my research when I've come across any aircraft with an armored panel as thick as 20mm was the Fw190A8's ground attack armor layout, or /R8.
The 40mm thick glass sounds perfect already, no adjustment at all there.

Spoiler

UPDATE (NOV 29, 2022)
As Nineline recommended a few posts down, I have got in contact with the individual Numbers on Discord.  He's a well-informed individual, who is very personally invovled with flying Mosquitos in New Zealand today.  I asked him the relevant questions, and here are his replies:

Spoiler

Notice how he mentions a plate between the the instrument panel and BMG gun bay.  If you look at the screenshots of the x-ray.edm above, you'll notice that this plate is not featured in DCS.  Do not mistake the panels further underneath the windshield, as those are merely the instrument panels, composed of 2 to 3mm aluminum in DCS.  This large, subdivided oval piece of 15mm steel armor was between those instrument panels, and just behind the BMGs.

Spoiler

Now, in DCS, the navigator has a two-piece armor back behind him, and the pilot as one solid one.  However, all three of these pieces are the same thickness.  Well, now we know why the navigator had his head armor modeled independently, and that they were different thicknesses, as listed according to Numbers.
And yes, they all are steel:

Additionally in this photo above, Numbers mentions that the windshield is bullet resistant.  And while he says that he couldn't recall its thickness, he recalled it a few minutes later:

Now, what on Earth is that sloped steel 22mm armor on the top of the nose, in front of the windshield, in DCS?

Spoiler

Well, I asked Numbers this as well.
 

Spoiler

This steel 22mm sloped armor in DCS, is evidently, only 2.5mm of aluminum!
On a rather positive note however, the 40mm armored glass in DCS is actually spot on!  No change is needed to the armored glass.
 

In summary (Fw 190D-9):
-[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Copy adjusted armor from Fw 190A-8 to the Fw 190D-9

In summary (Mosquito):
-Change XArmor0 from 0.014 to 0.01
-Change XArmor2 from 0.014 to 0.008
-Change XArmor1 from 0.014 to 0.005
-ChangeXArmor4 from 0.022 to 0.0025
-Change XArmor4 from Steel to Aluminum
-Add 15mm steel armor plate immediately behind the Browning machine gun bay

Edited December 16, 2022 by Magic Zach
Dec 16 OB Update

[Magic Zach]

Final post has just been added!  It took me a while to complete all this writing 

[Magic Zach]

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Interesting! I hope we can have insights like these more!

[NineLine]

Thanks I will take a look at this next week and report as needed. 

[Magic Zach]

I've made a mod that modifies the pieces of existing armor to match the data found.  Most of these armor plates got halved, some got cut down to a third.
Using the lightest airborne caliber, the Spitfire's .303s, I did some testing with this mod, firing pinpoint on the cockpit of all aircraft except the Fw 190D-9.  I skipped this aircraft because the armor is identical to the A8, so the Anton's results can vouch for the D9.

These are the results using the default armor:

These are the results using the modified armor, as per the summary section on the end of each post above.  NOTE however that this only changes the existing armor in each aircraft, and does not modify the shape of the armor, or add entirely new armor:

NOTES:
-The P-47 was not included because upon modifying its armor, DCS would kick back and crash when attempting to load a flight/track.  So the results of the modified P-47's armor are not known.
-The fuel tank in the 109 was given a 19mm aluminum wall.  This affects the wall thickness of the fuel tank from all sides, but for the intents of this test, they effectively worked as that 19mm 30-laminate dural bulkhead behind the fuel tank.
-The Spitfire admittedly has very light armor, lighter than the rest.  And it shows in the videos.  The .303 rounds appeared to pierce through the armor, through the pilot, and into the fuel tank or engine.  On a different test (not recorded and shown here), I ignited the fuel tank on fire this way, from a dead astern shot, and the pilot popped the canopy but he bled out before he could bail.  The piercing ability on this bird seems a little excessive, and I wonder if it's appropriate to add more content and objects to the Spitfire's damage model, such as a firewall bulkhead.  The firewall bulkhead was made of asbestos, sandwitched between two layers of aluminum.
I did not score a kill on the Spitfire pilot in either default or modified during this particular video-recorded set of tests, due to the AI reacting to the loss of engine power first.
-Regarding the Mosquito, it appears that when the pilot is killed, the plane will not roll over into a slight dive like the other AI.  The Mosquito, when the pilot is hit, will keep its current course and hold its controls standfast.  This is what I found through other testing on the side, off-camera.  So what you'll probably want to observe in these video clips, is when the pilot's head suddenly slouches.  However either the navigator doesn't have a death animation, or he's superman 
 

Fixed Armor Thickness for 190s,51,IX,109, and VI.zip

Edited November 13, 2022 by Magic Zach
Added zipped mod

[Hiromachi]

I suppose this thickness values differing from the documented ones are an attempt to factor something called hardness of the material. The line only says steel and there does not seem to be a place where you can input different hardness values for face, core and back, which should be the case as most of the WW2 armor used in those aircraft was face-hardened. For example Japanese 16.5 mm armor from the Ki-48 "Lily" bomber had hardness of the "face" of 555 - 589 (Brinell hardness) or 56 - 59 (Rockwell C hardness) and 302-341 for the "Back" (again in Brinell hardness scale). Similarly in Ki-43, Ki-61, etc. where 0.5 caliber AP bullets of penetration above 20+ mm failed to penetrate 13 - 15 mm plates.

So this higher thickness might be a simple attempt, by using the material of the same properties, as DCS does not go into details of metallurgy and material properties, to factor that "the other way".

[Magic Zach]

48 minutes ago, Hiromachi said:

I suppose this thickness values differing from the documented ones are an attempt to factor something called hardness of the material. The line only says steel and there does not seem to be a place where you can input different hardness values for face, core and back, which should be the case as most of the WW2 armor used in those aircraft was face-hardened. For example Japanese 16.5 mm armor from the Ki-48 "Lily" bomber had hardness of the "face" of 555 - 589 (Brinell hardness) or 56 - 59 (Rockwell C hardness) and 302-341 for the "Back" (again in Brinell hardness scale). Similarly in Ki-43, Ki-61, etc. where 0.5 caliber AP bullets of penetration above 20+ mm failed to penetrate 13 - 15 mm plates.

So this higher thickness might be a simple attempt, by using the material of the same properties, as DCS does not go into details of metallurgy and material properties, to factor that "the other way".

A couple of us were dicussing this possibility, but it seems that's not the case.  Primarily because face hardened armor will provide about another 10% "effective" thickness over homogeneous armor, and 10% more from 11mm doesn't give you 22mm.  The other reason being that the armor values used in DCS by default are universal for nearly all plates and all birds, almost all being eithe 22mm or 20mm (specifically looks like 20mm was just 0.022 with just the thousandths place dropped for convenience maybe), while the reality is all our aircraft have different thicknesses of protection.

[Magic Zach]

9 hours ago, NineLine said:

Thanks I will take a look at this next week and report as needed. 

Is it possible we could get an answer to what exact type of "steel" is used in the damage model?  Generic or homogeneous steel qualities, of face-hardened steel?  Been getting a lot of questions about it, particularly in Discord, and I don't have an answer for them.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Magic Zach

[NineLine]

On 11/11/2022 at 1:02 AM, Magic Zach said:

 I can't even begin to find a reference for dimensions for this bird

Numbers is on the forums and on our Discord, he is an SME that is involved with a place in New Zealand that restores Mossies, he may be able to help answer questions if he has time, just dont pester him

All incorrect values have been reported. I do not know if there is tweaking of the numbers for material type, but the team will review and I will report back if anything above was a wrong assumption.

Thanks

PS I will work on the missing stuff, but that could take much longer, I do have other reports with problems with the X-ray model, so I will include those with these. 

PSS I have no idea when the team will get to these. So try not to bump too much or at all unless you have new info.

Thanks!

[Magic Zach]

UPDATE!!
I'm now given the impression that the 109K-4 did NOT have a dural plate behind the fuel tank.

Spoiler

If we look at the section Waffen/Panzergewicht (Weapon [Weight]/Armor Weight), we will see these weights displayed in tons of kg.
You will notice that as we transition from the G-6 to the G-14 and K-4, with the addition of the MW-50 tank there came a removal of 32kg of armor weight, from 78kg to 46kg.  Considering that the MW-50 tank is mounted in the same section as the duraluminum plate, and it's the only piece of armor in that section, it stands to reason that it is the only armor that was affected when the overall armor weight was decreased.
We can subtly check this as well.  Dural as a density(p) of 2790kg/m^3, according to Google.  With an apparent mass of 32kg, and we know the width of the plate at 21-22mm (either/or, depending on the report you read, using 22mm this time), we can find the plate's face area. Mass/(width*p) will give the face area.  32/(2790*0.022) = ~0.52 square meters of face area.  The square root of the result is 0.72m.  So if have have a square plate of this dural, it's sides measure 0.72m by 0.72m.  This, if we eyeball, looks about the same area as the aft face of the fuel tank.
This seems to identify the removed armor for the K-4 as that dural plate.

I will not remove the dural armor section on my Bf 109K-4 post much farther above, so people can stay up to date to additions here while having all the context.  However, I will edit that post to make a note that this armor was excluded on the Kurfurst.  The Bf 109K-4 does not have a duraluminum plate aft of the fuel tank.

Edited November 20, 2022 by Magic Zach

[amazingme]

Maybe the G-6 had a steel armor instead of dural..

[NineLine]

All simple number changes have been fixed and verified and requested to merge with Open Beta, the oil cooler and then missing parts are still being reported and will need to wait for an artist if decided to be changed.

Also I was told that we could not "sandwich" plates together, so anywhere there is a request to add a plate to another to get a somewhat correct thickness, or like the glue on the Spitfire glass will not be possible as it will mess up the math and not react correctly, especially when the materials are different. So those would need to wait for art or other additions to be done correctly.

Thanks

[Magic Zach]

7 hours ago, amazingme said:

Maybe the G-6 had a steel armor instead of dural..

That armor behind the fuel tank was dural, not steel.  30 laminations, 22 gauge.
The other armor was steel, though by late war the quality of it was significantly reduced.  That's splitting hairs however.  DCS only identifies a material as "Steel" and not "homogenous steel" and "face-hardened steel", which can give a noteable, but at our armor values only a very slight improvement to protection, around only 1mm.  Considering we're making a jump from 22mm to ~8mm for some, I'm not going to get that specific, especially when I don't have more complete information on it, like pure armor thickness values.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Magic Zach

[Magic Zach]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

All simple number changes have been fixed and verified and requested to merge with Open Beta, the oil cooler and then missing parts are still being reported and will need to wait for an artist if decided to be changed.

Also I was told that we could not "sandwich" plates together, so anywhere there is a request to add a plate to another to get a somewhat correct thickness, or like the glue on the Spitfire glass will not be possible as it will mess up the math and not react correctly, especially when the materials are different. So those would need to wait for art or other additions to be done correctly.

Thanks

For the Spitfire's windscreen, the bonding agent between the layers is going to have essentially a nil effect on the overall ballistic protection, especially with these glue layers behind lesss than 1mm each.  For just sim purposes, I think making the overall armored windshield glass 41mm and ignore the extra 3mm of glue would suit just fine.
And while on sandwiched armor, if a 109G-6 was to come down the line later, the dural plate could practically just be 21-22mm of "solid" armor, as far as a flight sim is concerned.

Thanks on the update though!
Looks like between the new .50 belts and the updated armor values, this next update or two to OB is going to be a big hit!

[gordonvembu]

thank you for your devotion and dedication to the ww2 warbirds Zach.

ppl like you...aka...the community is what makes or breaks a game.

when devs ears go deaf...game dies.

pls keep up the indiana jonesing for more buried or forgotten treasures sir.

[Magic Zach]

UPDATE!

As @NineLine recommended, I got in contact with Numbers.  He's answered many questions regarding the Mosquito's armor, and even revealed there is another piece of armor on the Mosquito, not featured in DCS.
I've updated the relevant post on this thread to reflect the new information.  Hopefully this will make it into one of the DCS updates as well, alongside or shortly following armor fixes to the other warbirds.

[Magic Zach]

The OpenBeta update today has resolved many issues!
However there are still some remaining.  The easy code fixes for the Mosquito remain untouched.
And Mosquito aside, there are the model and additional new armor pieces to be added as well.  This list includes:

P-51D:
-Addition of coolant header armor
P-47D:
-Addition of bulletproof windscreen
-Addition of frontal armor piece
Fw190A/D:
-Separation of the main armor plate into the seat armor, shoulder armor, and "back" armor on each side (though the current changes made are something good to hold over for now)
Spitfire:
-Addition of 20mm magazine armor (can't find more definitive proof of this piece)
Mosquito:
-Addition of armor plate just aft of gun bay
-Removal or thickness/material change of the sloped armor on the Mosquito's nose
Bf-109:
-Galland panzer armor frame (particularly the upper portion) around bulletproof glass protecting back of pilot head

[Magic Zach]

Bump.  At the very least, the Mosquito's current armor plates that aren't missing haven't been adjusted yet.

[Magic Zach]

DCS may have recently added more visual 3D model aspects to the Mosquito, including some cool views of the gun bays.  What's ironic with this however is that it visually shows the armor plate just behind the .303 magazines.  And yet in the damage model, it is missing.