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?
Opinions On This Article I Found About The Zero
- Thread starter contrails16
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fighter opinion zero fighter
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Generally speaking, speculating about such things is outside my purview, but the pilots may have suffered injuries and have felt vulnerable without pilot armour. My interest here is better understanding the adoption of armour on the 109 E and I have learned a lot as a result of this thread and subsequent reading. 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; JG 26 appears to have incorporated pilot armour to some degree by the summer of 1940, many units did not fully adopt pilot head armour until the fall of 1940 and not all 109 E-4s had pilot head armour from the factory. Armoured windshields seem to be extremely rare in Bob era 109s.
Perhaps of interest: Muster eines Laderplans Bf 109 E-3 as found in Bf 109 E Flugzeughandbuch, L.Dv. 556/3 16. Dezember 1939 notes Nur gültig für Flugzeuge ohne Panzerplatte (Only valid for aircraft without armored plate). Also see attachment of bulkhead armour on Me 109 E-1.
Attachments
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
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.
Attachments
some more
Attachments
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Whoa, nice documents! I can add these:
Hurricane I
17 Sqdn. Operations Record Book, 5 October 1939: "bullet-proof section in the windscreen."
1 Sqdn. Operations Record Book, 12 March 1940: "All aircraft in squadron have been fitted with rear armour."
145 Sqdn. Operations Record Book, 18 May 1940: "armour plated aircaft"
151 Sqdn. Operations Record Book, 11 May 1940: "Rear Armour plating has now been fitted to all the Hurricanes at present held by the squadron."
Spitfire I
No. 609 Operations Record Book, 27 May 1940: "rear armour plating"
No. 611 Operations Record Book, 2 June 1940: "armour plating recently fixed behind the pilot's seat of all our aircraft"
No. 41 Operations Record Book, 23 November 1939: "Armour Plating"
No. 152 Operations Record Book, 24 May 1940: "armour plating completed"
This raises an interesting point, were Bf 109's updated like Spitfires?, a production E-3 gets issued but is updated to roughly E-4 spec with field mods?, could it be that seat armor is easily fitted to the earlier models but head armor not so much so is left out?, I know I'm guessing but looking at all the information and photo's there appears to be a huge variation in 109's during the BoB.
One changed E-3's MG FFs to MG FF/Ms and got more or less an E-4s.
My guess is that it was easier to install the head armour than the armour behind the seat. But clearly many early Es got rear armour as a field mod. Maybe there were some bottle-necks in production and Germans decided to give priority to rear armour, it covered much large area. Same to armoured windscreen, during the BoB 109s mostly combat with FC fighters and so the armoured windscreen was not so important.
My guess is that it was easier to install the head armour than the armour behind the seat. But clearly many early Es got rear armour as a field mod. Maybe there were some bottle-necks in production and Germans decided to give priority to rear armour, it covered much large area. Same to armoured windscreen, during the BoB 109s mostly combat with FC fighters and so the armoured windscreen was not so important.
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)
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)
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Thank you Greyman, very interesting and informative! That must have taken a lot of work to pull those numbers together. It's appreciated. Just to be clear, these numbers are based on examinations of 109s downed on British soil, right? Does there appear to be any correlation between existence of armour and unit?
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.
Last edited:
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
I was going through some 109 G crash reports and was surprised to find this:
Crashed Enemy Aircraft Report Serial No. 158:
Petrol Tank. This is of the unprotected non self-sealing type. A bulkhead of laminated dural sheets of a total thickness of about ¾ inch is mounted behind this petrol tank in the same manner as recently found in Me 109 F-4 aircraft.
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.
Crashed Enemy Aircraft Report Serial No. 158:
Petrol Tank. This is of the unprotected non self-sealing type. A bulkhead of laminated dural sheets of a total thickness of about ¾ inch is mounted behind this petrol tank in the same manner as recently found in Me 109 F-4 aircraft.
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.
Attachments
Bf-109 vs P-40 if you read the combat report in post 690 it talks about the Me 109 bursting into flames on the third burst.
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.
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.
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
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.
Attachments
Thanks for the information!
Hello Slaterat, Thanks a lot for the very interesting docus!
I was rather shocked by the following on the photo Armour7
In point 14.
'...The top speed of the latest type of Me. 110 in only 310 m.p.h., which is some 40-50 m.p.h. slower than the Spitfire. There should therefore be no danger of the Spitfire being attacked from behind by the Me.110, unless the pilot is so foolish as to be completely surprised.'
The estimated speed was an overestimate for the Bf 110B (1/3 of the serviceable 110s (altogether 82) were Bs on 31 Aug 39) and 16 mph too low for 110C-1 (2/3 of the serviceable 110s were Cs on 31 Aug 39). And because nobody flew at full throttle all the time, height advance gives extra speed and as we know most of the air combat victims were surprised the argument is surprisingly stupid. No wonder that both Hawker Typhoon Mk. IA and Gloster Meteor F.4 got into service with the rear part of the canopy metal covered because 'they were so fast that there was no need to see what happened behind'.
I was rather shocked by the following on the photo Armour7
In point 14.
'...The top speed of the latest type of Me. 110 in only 310 m.p.h., which is some 40-50 m.p.h. slower than the Spitfire. There should therefore be no danger of the Spitfire being attacked from behind by the Me.110, unless the pilot is so foolish as to be completely surprised.'
The estimated speed was an overestimate for the Bf 110B (1/3 of the serviceable 110s (altogether 82) were Bs on 31 Aug 39) and 16 mph too low for 110C-1 (2/3 of the serviceable 110s were Cs on 31 Aug 39). And because nobody flew at full throttle all the time, height advance gives extra speed and as we know most of the air combat victims were surprised the argument is surprisingly stupid. No wonder that both Hawker Typhoon Mk. IA and Gloster Meteor F.4 got into service with the rear part of the canopy metal covered because 'they were so fast that there was no need to see what happened behind'.
I would not be so shocked by the position of the 109 fuel tank, IMHO it was safer for the pilot than those of Hurricane and Spit. IIRC the gravity tank of Hurri and the upper tank of Spit were not self-sealing and being just front of pilot had a blow-torch effect on pilots if hit and ignited. Because airflow forced fire backwards in planes IMHO the worst position for a fuel tank was just front of the pilot. The upper tank of Spit had at least the 3.5mm light metal armour over it and an armour plate front of it. But in 109 there was an armour plate behind it, in Es with armour one bulkhead more rear than in Fs and Gs, so it was easier for bullets to go past it and still hit the tank if the fire was not coming straight behind.
In Fs and Gs the problem was that the highly aromatic German fuel began to dissolve self-sealing material if the tank stayed filled a longer time. Maybe the reaction was faster in the hotter climate in Africa. Finns noticed the dissolving phenomenon after the war and replaced the s-s tanks by light metal ones in their 109s.
Sorry, I misplaced my answer, should have been an answer to the message #113.
