I'm going to throw this out there, could the Luftwaffe pilots feel they were getting outgunned so E-4's were issued as quickly as possible with or without armor just to get them into the battle?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No, 109 E , Werk Nr. 1480 was definitely a Bf 109 E-4 according to my sources. Shown below from Prien II./JG 3 and Battle of Britain Then and Now. No head armour in this photo either.
I'm going to throw this out there, could the Luftwaffe pilots feel they were getting outgunned so E-4's were issued as quickly as possible with or without armor just to get them into the battle?
The Zero definitely was behind on the introduction of armour and self sealing fuel tanks. Spitfires and Hurricanes were equipped with front armour in the summer of 1939. Hurricanes in France were the first to be equipped with rear armour in later 39 and early 1940. Hurricanes on the production line were being completed with front and rear armour in Feb 1940, as well as self sealing fuel tanks. Spitfires mark 1's had their rear armour adding in service and in many cases this was limited to only the head plate. Spitfire mark 2's had front and rear armour installed on the production line. Introduction of rear armour on the 109 e seems to be similar to the Spitfire with it not really becoming standard until at least the introduction of the 109e4, with some pictures of later 109s still lacking head armour.
I think all I can say so far is that some 109 Es had an armoured bulkhead sometime in 1940, adoption of pilot head armour was inconsistent;
Is out of doubt that the W.Nr. 1480 was built as E-3, but is near sure that when was shoot down was to E-4 standard, the canopy from the pics posted from Mike Williams seem that of E-4, from the pics we can't identify the guns model MG FF or FF/M
Mid-effort update on my little investigation here. I'm up to Oct 1.
Vast majority of 109s from the get-go (July) have the 2-piece fuselage bulkhead armour.
First instance of the head armour found is on July 7.
1 July - 31 August roughly 20% of 109s have the head armour
the first (and only) instance of windscreen armour found (aug 31)
1 Sept - 30 Sep roughly 35% of 109s have the head armour
the first (and only) instance of self-sealing fuel tank found (sep 2)
Note: The fact that unprotected petrol tanks are fitted is of great interest. It will be remembered that a plain metal petrol tank was found in a Me 109F aircraft in the Middle East recently. The vulnerability of these machines must be greatly affected by these tanks
Was, after the introduction of rear armour in Spitfire and Hurricanes (and Me109..), a correction of C.G. necessary?
AFAIR, early Spitfires were a bit nose heavy, so some ballast in the tail was introduced (Quil). Probably, removing the tail ballast was sufficient to restore the correct position.
When RE 2000 was sold to Hungary a backplate armour was installed "on the field", that impaired the correct position of C.G., with nasty consequences.
Those documents that slaterat posted speak to this somewhat.
The Hurricanes with the wooden airscrew cannot be fitted with rear armour unless the flare shoot is deleted owing to C.G. difficulties. The Hurricane with the metal (V.P.) airscrew can be fitted. (attachment armour9)
Unfortunately, the position and weight of this armour does not provide the necessary moment about the C.G. to permit the deletion of the lead ballast. It will therefore be necessary to retain the lead ballast when the rear armour is fitted. (attachment hsarmour17)
A couple of other images that slaterat posted go over much of the same ground. No C.G. issues mentioned with respect to Spitfires in slaterat's docs that I saw.
...It hadn't occurred to me that the 109's fuel tanks weren't self sealing. I wonder if that one instance of a seal-sealing tank had less capacity? I'm reminded of Unwin's recounting of his Sept. 15 combat, "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."
Fwiw, I have the Crashed Enemy Aircraft reports for 109 G's but haven't found anything like it on 109 E's yet.
T...It hadn't occurred to me that the 109's fuel tanks weren't self sealing. I wonder if that one instance of a seal-sealing tank had less capacity? I'm reminded of Unwin's recounting of his Sept. 15 combat, "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."
Fwiw, I have the Crashed Enemy Aircraft reports for 109 G's but haven't found anything like it on 109 E's yet.