Crew protection on heavy bombers? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Admiral Beez

Captain
8,544
9,619
Oct 21, 2019
Toronto, Canada
Did British or US four engined heavy bombers have any armour to protect the crew? For example, would a single armoured bulk head between the flight deck and waist gunners be used to prevent an aft attack killing everyone in one pass?
 
The -24 doesn't seem to feature as much armor, but it's hard to tell. Also, no specifics on thickness for either one:

dc8ab0f9d0adfb71a8b5cc4b3de123b3.jpg
 
For the Lancaster:

28 lb (4mm) seat back and 27lb (9mm) head piece for pilot​
?lb (2.5inch) armoured glass for flight engineer/second pilot​
160 lb (6mm) plate for doors aft of W/T op and navigator position​
13lb (4mm) plate for W/T op seat back​
26lb (6mm) and 38lb (9mm) plate protection for mid-upper gunner​
45lb (9mm) and 8lb (6mm) plate protection for rear gunner​
 


Not only the extra armour but I would also imagine that the extra power turret and extra heavier type guns on the B-17 would up the empty weight of the B-17 as well.
 
For the Lancaster:

28 lb (4mm) seat back and 27lb (9mm) head piece for pilot​
?lb (2.5inch) armoured glass for flight engineer/second pilot​
160 lb (6mm) plate for doors aft of W/T op and navigator position​
13lb (4mm) plate for W/T op seat back​
26lb (6mm) and 38lb (9mm) plate protection for mid-upper gunner​
45lb (9mm) and 8lb (6mm) plate protection for rear gunner​

I'm sure that most of that was removed.

I can't check now, but it would be worth looking at when that was. For example, I know that the doors aft of the navigators position were removed by early 1942.
 
I'm sure that most of that was removed.

I can't check now, but it would be worth looking at when that was. For example, I know that the doors aft of the navigators position were removed by early 1942.
Probably when studies revealed the impossibility of protecting the crew and the grim reality that other areas are more important than some of the crew.
 
I'm sure that most of that was removed.

I can't check now, but it would be worth looking at when that was. For example, I know that the doors aft of the navigators position were removed by early 1942.

Dates on the above are 'standard' or 'existing' armour for mid-1942. Basically 'as designed'.

I've definitely read about certain aspects of protection being removed for one reason or another. Most obvious being the articulated rear turret armour. I don't think enemy fighters' bullets were a significant cause crew casualties. Most often the night fighter snuck up to a range of 50 or so yards and put a decisive burst into the wing.
 
Last edited:
In my notes I have an additional 248 lbs of armour added for protection of the engines on the Lancaster Mk I, from weight and loading sheet as of September 1942. An addition of 300 lbs of armour added for protection of the engines on the Lancaster Mk II, from weight and loading sheet as of January 1943. I do not know the specifics of the fits, just that they were to be refitted to all operational airframes as time allowed.
 
The engines had 100 lb of 8mm plate protection and 144 lb of 10swg deflector plate coverings.

EDIT: my notes on this point are not great but I think this is the setup for the 8mm plate for the Lanc's engines --
  • crescent-shaped plate which protects the oil tank sump
  • vertical piece of plating behind the header tank leg
  • vertical plate at the side of the radiator at outboard engines
 
Last edited:
Gruesome but the only crew member that had to be protected was the pilot. Every other crewman is expendable.
Even more gruesome, some crew members couldn't get out if the pilot was killed (Hampden) and little care was given to how a pilot could get out of a damaged aircraft, like the Lancaster.
 
A friend of mine who flew in PB4Y-2 said their airplane had armor installed but they ended up taking some of it out. They found that when rounds came in the armor tended to cause them to rattle around and cause more damage than if they had gone right on through and back outside. For example, during a head-on pass by a George II (see attached artwork) a 20MM round came in the cockpit and exploded against the armored seatback of one of the radio operators. But it exploded between the seatback and his back, causing the shrapnel to create a shotgun-like wound in his back. When they got back to Okinawa they sent him to an aid station up near the front lines, but he came back, saying that everyone up there was wounded worse than he was. They sent him to Iwo Jima the next day.

SixToOneSM2.jpg
 
A friend of mine who flew in PB4Y-2 said their airplane had armor installed but they ended up taking some of it out. They found that when rounds came in the armor tended to cause them to rattle around and cause more damage than if they had gone right on through and back outside. For example, during a head-on pass by a George II (see attached artwork) a 20MM round came in the cockpit and exploded against the armored seatback of one of the radio operators. But it exploded between the seatback and his back, causing the shrapnel to create a shotgun-like wound in his back. When they got back to Okinawa they sent him to an aid station up near the front lines, but he came back, saying that everyone up there was wounded worse than he was. They sent him to Iwo Jima the next day.
Even the simplest principle like "armour protects people" doesn't get past the reality of putting it into action.
 
Even the simplest principle like "armour protects people" doesn't get past the reality of putting it into action.

When I heard that our troops in Iraq were up-armoring their vehicles I thought about the PB4Y-2 crews taking the armor off. Somebody always wants something different than it comes from the factory, either based on combat experience or just personal preferences - or the desire to better control their environment.

WWII RAF Bomber Command crews were convinced that their IFF jammed German radar so they would activate it for that purpose. It did no such thing but a squawk button was added to enable them to do that. HH-60 crews in Northern Iraq were convinced that the enemy missiles could track their IFF so they left it turned off; that led to two being shot down by F-15's.

The F-106 had a pretty lousy air conditioning system. In the forward wheel well was a sensor that detected when the electronics were not getting enough cooling. The maintenance crews found that if the light showing inadequate cooling came on they could just go in the nosewheel compartment, break the safety wire on the adjustment for the sensor and adjust it until the light went out. This had a similar effect as when people would get a charging system failure light and disconnect it before finally bringing their car into my Dad's shop. No, turning off the light did not fix the problem, but it made them feel better.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back