- Thread starter
-
- #21
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
True. The Spitfire and many other top-line 1940 planes also lacked armor for the pilot (at first, anyway). That included the first P-40s. The Wildcats in service in 1941 apparently already had armor, though. Plus, the more powerful American engines (made possible by higher-octane gasoline than the Japanese had) was also a major factor; the stronger engines could lug around the heavier airframes with greater ease, and the top speeds of the Zero and Wildcat were just about the same. The Zero had better climb performance, but the Wildcat could dive faster.You make this [lack of armor] sound like a revolutionary deviation from contemporary design standards, but while there were a few aircraft with (rather limited) protection in service when the A6M was designed, the default was still no armour.
and this article is not good, there are some wrongs, i rate it lower of generic thread on this forum
I'm not claiming that the Zero was a *bad* airplane, but I am saying it was not a *great* airplane. It had one outstanding strength, its maneuverability, and that one thing shocked and impressed the Americans who flew against it. But in the long run the relative ineffectiveness of its weak .30 caliber machine guns and slow-firing, low-capacity 20mm cannon against the rugged Wildcats offset its nimbleness. That, plus the Zero's fragility and its lack of a radio (meaning that the flight commander could only communicate with the other planes by hand signals and wing waggling, whereas the Wildcat commander could talk to his group). The end result was that once battle tactics were adjusted, groups of Zeros were outmatched by groups of Wildcats.The Zero was one of the best fighter of him generation and was with a less powerful engine.
I've just the impression that there is a want to born an other myth that the Zero was a bad fighter.
It's been linked to before in other places, and i'm not repeating it because I believe everything in it to be beyond dispute, but it is very well informed:
For those who hasn't seen it before.
Initially the spitfire was not supposed to be a dogfighter, it was an interceptor and at the time no SE fighter could fly from Germany to England, they did have some armour in front of the pilot, as protection from a bombers defensive fire. With the fall of France they rapidly fitted armour behind the pilot, which compensated for the variable pitch props also fitted at the front.True. The Spitfire and many other top-line 1940 planes also lacked armor for the pilot (at first, anyway). That included the first P-40s. The Wildcats in service in 1941 apparently already had armor, though. Plus, the more powerful American engines (made possible by higher-octane gasoline than the Japanese had) was also a major factor; the stronger engines could lug around the heavier airframes with greater ease, and the top speeds of the Zero and Wildcat were just about the same. The Zero had better climb performance, but the Wildcat could dive faster.
HiInitially the spitfire was not supposed to be a dogfighter, it was an interceptor and at the time no SE fighter could fly from Germany to England, they did have some armour in front of the pilot, as protection from a bombers defensive fire. With the fall of France they rapidly fitted armour behind the pilot, which compensated for the variable pitch props also fitted at the front.
I dont know what it says about what actually happened but those quotes are the best laid plans of mice and men. Hurricanes were sent to France without armour but the whole discussion is odd, fitting the CS prop and using 100 octane fuel transformed the Hurricane and Spitfire anyway.Hi
The book 'Knights of the Skies - Armour protection for British fighting aeroplanes' by Michael C Fox, covers the story of armour plate quite well. The 1938 ideas for frontal armour for fighters is included below:
View attachment 647841
The idea and fitment of rear armour plate for Hurricanes (and later Spitfires) pre-dates the fall of France:
View attachment 647842
View attachment 647843
Mike
All aircraft are perfect on the drawing board..............until they flyI'm continuously surpised to find out there was no such thing as a perfect aircraft. Doh.
The RAF did add armor to their planes, but only after the Battle of Britain was well underway. The Luftwaffe was armoring its planes as early as 1939. Armor was not added to the Zero until very late in the war.I'm not a fan of the Zero and never will be, it's not a warplane but instead an armed aerobatics aircraft. Ask yourself a question, would you fly a A6M across the channel in 1940 against chain home or likewise the other way into France in 1941?, no I didn't think so. There was a good reason both the RAF and Luftwaffe demanded armour and self sealing tanks on production aircraft and retro fit kits for in service aircraft after the battle for France.
It was when the Battle of France was underway, armour was already fitted in front of the pilot, what was added was to the rear.The RAF did add armor to their planes, but only after the Battle of Britain was well underway. The Luftwaffe was armoring its planes as early as 1939. Armor was not added to the Zero until very late in the war.
PAT303,I'm not a fan of the Zero and never will be, it's not a warplane but instead an armed aerobatics aircraft. Ask yourself a question, would you fly a A6M across the channel in 1940 against chain home or likewise the other way into France in 1941?, no I didn't think so. There was a good reason both the RAF and Luftwaffe demanded armour and self sealing tanks on production aircraft and retro fit kits for in service aircraft after the battle for France.
My particular source said "from about mid-1940" without additional details. The Battle of France began on May 10 and ended June 22. The Battle of Britain is given officially as July 10-October 31. Additional particulars would be welcome, although the main point remains, that Spitfires did not have armor until after the RAF gained some combat experience.It was when the Battle of France was underway, armour was already fitted in front of the pilot, what was added was to the rear.
Read post No 29 on this thread from MikeMeech. The fitting of rear armour was tied in with the fitting of C/S props and use of 100 Octane fuel. This was done during the Battle of France and in some cases actually in France with Hurricanes. Spitfires first saw action over France during Dunkerque but they were operating from south England.My particular source said "from about mid-1940" without additional details. The Battle of France began on May 10 and ended June 22. The Battle of Britain is given officially as July 10-October 31. Additional particulars would be welcome, although the main point remains, that Spitfires did not have armor until after the RAF gained some combat experience.