B-17 armor plates (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter WESTLAND
- Start date
Jadera
Airman 1st Class
B-17 Flying Fortress - Blueprints, Drawings & Documents | AirCorps Library
B-17 Boeing Flying Fortress
app.aircorpslibrary.com
- Thread starter
- #3
Thank you, but those are general diagrams. I am interested in detailed information that specifies the thickness.View attachment 898018View attachment 898019B-17 Flying Fortress - Blueprints, Drawings & Documents | AirCorps Library
B-17 Boeing Flying Fortress
Jadera
Airman 1st Class
Oh i see
Oliverlovesplanes
Airman 1st Class
- 165
- Mar 9, 2026
smutny
Airman 1st Class
Interestingly, both of the IPC's on Aircorps Library are missing the armor plating pages. 
However, the IPC posted here on the site has those pages. It's upload -6, page 266.
If you need dimensions, take the part numbers on page 267 and plug them into the Aircorps Library search and you can pull up the drawings. Hopefully they're readable, not all scans are.
However, the IPC posted here on the site has those pages. It's upload -6, page 266.
If you need dimensions, take the part numbers on page 267 and plug them into the Aircorps Library search and you can pull up the drawings. Hopefully they're readable, not all scans are.
cvairwerks
Staff Sergeant
65-7387 is the master installation drawing for the armor on F and G models, but you need to read the effectivity tables as well. There are dozens of changes in parts effectivity and they are all serial number dependent. You essentially need to define a particular serial number and chase thru the tables to figure out the exact installation. Part numbers roll due to changes and configurations do as well based on engineering changes.
Part numbers roll due to multiple reasons, some as simple as a vendor change or a material change. I've seen as many as a half dozen or more rolls on a specific part number due to this over the years.
It's can be a big puzzle, but when you figure out how to read it all, it gets easier.
Part numbers roll due to multiple reasons, some as simple as a vendor change or a material change. I've seen as many as a half dozen or more rolls on a specific part number due to this over the years.
It's can be a big puzzle, but when you figure out how to read it all, it gets easier.
Oliverlovesplanes
Airman 1st Class
- 165
- Mar 9, 2026
If this helps!
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Doesn't hurt!
EAIAnalog
Airman
Here's the 65-7387 drawing (Plate Installation - Armor). I've marked the 3-15141 drawing with a pink rectangle. The drawing has 2 sheets, spread across several images. The _1x are the first sheet, and the _2x are the second sheet.
Last edited:
EAIAnalog
Airman
Hmmm, I expected all the images to be displayed along the bottom, but I did something to embed them. I have no idea how to fix that, so if someone wishes to do that, feel free.
This is an excellent diagram! It confirms something I suspected regarding the cut-out nose for the bombadier's position in the earliest B-17s. How can I find a clearer copy of this diagram to download?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
From Hangarthirteen.org
the website used to upload new digitized blueprints regularly, but the Armament section is no longer available
cvairwerks
Staff Sergeant
Something to factor in... In running thru the armor plate drawings, anything prior to the D model and some E models, does not have a thickness specified on the drawings, but rather a note to see Army Specifications for Armor for materail data. Only with some of the late E's, does a thickness show up on the prints. At that point, depending on location, it was listed as .5" or .6" thickness.
65-7387 is valid only for aircraft 41-24340 and on. 24340 was the 1st F model built.
65-7387 is valid only for aircraft 41-24340 and on. 24340 was the 1st F model built.
EAIAnalog
Airman
The drawings I've looked at show either a .25" or a .30" thickness. The 3-15141 drawing above shows .30" nominal. Also note its weight calculation in the upper right corner.
Almost all of the drawings I have reference the B-17F, so a later version might have thicker armor.
Almost all of the drawings I have reference the B-17F, so a later version might have thicker armor.
- Thread starter
- #17
Thanks! Fantastic drawings!
cvairwerks
Staff Sergeant
It's interesting as the 15141 does have a thickness listed, but when Dev 1 was added in Nov 1942, that thickness was invalidated, but not removed for a block of serial numbers. Probably means that there were original design 15141 parts in production at the time, or the drawing was updated to the Dev 1 material spec, but with Dev 2 flag, those particular aircraft on the Dev 1 flag either did not get the new plate thickness, or it was allowed as a repair or mod item, post delivery. It would be interesting to find the Ordinance Spec for Armor Steel and see what the differences are. By that drawing, you could end up with a plate that was 5/16", 1/2" or 39/64ths thick, making the assumotion that the 1/2" and 39/64ths carried down to this drawing.
Flag notes, diamonds, pennant and any other methods of flagging changes are quite important to understand what is going on. It's the hardest thing to teach to the new kids when dealing with paper drawings, where there isn't an electronic database of effectivity. Been dealing with paper drawings for my entire career and still can get sidetracked if I'm not careful when there are lots of changes noted! It hasn't been until the last decade or so that many drawing standards have been homiginized over various vendors. There's still lots of differences, but more and more similarities as projects get built. GD&T is one thing where there is a specification and it's exact and almost eveyone follows it, no matter the industry. It's a facinating subject....
Flag notes, diamonds, pennant and any other methods of flagging changes are quite important to understand what is going on. It's the hardest thing to teach to the new kids when dealing with paper drawings, where there isn't an electronic database of effectivity. Been dealing with paper drawings for my entire career and still can get sidetracked if I'm not careful when there are lots of changes noted! It hasn't been until the last decade or so that many drawing standards have been homiginized over various vendors. There's still lots of differences, but more and more similarities as projects get built. GD&T is one thing where there is a specification and it's exact and almost eveyone follows it, no matter the industry. It's a facinating subject....
Last edited:
