bada
Airman 1st Class
I was at first too. wonder if the range hasn't been inverted
why is the A6M Zero's lack of armor emphasized so heavily (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter mig-31bm
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Something sure seems to be off.
Hi
The drawing of the Spitfire V on page 259 of 'Knights of the Skies' gives details of the armour. The front 'Header Tank' was 6 mm steel armour. The front of the front fuel tank was 4 mm steel armour. The top and sides of the fuel tank was 10 SWG of Alclad "deflector", this replaced the original thinner access panels over the fuel tank. Frontal armour would have mainly been protection from return fire from bomber defences:
Mike
The Japanese were genuinely astounded at the lengths that the Allies went to retrieving downed airmen, but that doesn't mean they didn't care; the IJN did not have dedicated air sea rescue operations, but floatplanes with regular operational units were often tasked with rescuing downed pilots. There is a perception that the lack of armour and SS tanks in the Zero was because the Japanese didn't care about the welfare of their pilots, that's simply not true, the reason was because of the desire to make it manoeuvrable, and solely that - remember that when it was designed, no one was putting that stuff in their aircraft.
Aft of the pilot's seat in every mark of Zero was a compressed air-inflatable cell that inflated on ditching to enable the aircraft to float while the pilot got out. The Zero's fuel tanks also had a fire extinguishing system fitted to them, again, why would the Japanese go to the trouble of installing this stuff on their aircraft if they didn't care?
The aircraft I mentioned in my previous post that received self-sealing tanks had a rubberised coating installed in them, but it was found to be largely ineffective at stopping heavy gunfire. Installing the rubberised coating in the Zero's tanks would have added weight, denying the manoeuvrability it relied on, so it wasn't fitted. Another aircraft that worked on the same philosophy as the Zero was the Yokosuka D4Y dive bomber, which had no armour and no self sealing tanks. When the IJN received its first examples, the aircraft was ridiculed and senior officers said it was a toy, but they couldn't ignore its performance; it could outrun an F4F in a straight line and it had very long range for a two seat bomber, so it was put into production initially as a recon aircraft. To achieve its remarkable performance the designers omitted protection measures as Horikoshi had done in the Zero. It wasn't until the later D4Y4 models that armour and self sealing tanks were fitted. It was very unreliable in service but it was potentially a great aircraft, it just happened to be Japanese, with all the ingrained baggage that that entailed!
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,076
- Sep 29, 2025
We are lucky that the D4Y had the engine and aerodynamic flutter problems that it did when it first appeared. The few that got into combat as dive bombers wrought a bit of havoc.
They did, the USS Princeton and the Big Ben Franklin were attacked by D4Ys, both knocked out of the fight, the Princeton scuttled.
The flutter issue, combined with terribly unreliable Atsuta engines made the D4Y a bit of a dog in service, but the improved D4Y3 with the Kinsei was an improvement in reliability. The aircraft was quite advanced in concept; the majority of its systems were electrically actuated; undercarriage, dive brakes, flaps, bomb bay doors. It had a novel manual system that disengaged the electrics if there was a fault in the system, through a selector box in the cockpit. On landing, the dive brake folded upwards into the flap well, as it was a fowler flap that extended outwards, and the brake covered the rear orifice where the flap sat in its normal retracted position, offering undisturbed air flow over the flap.
MIflyer
Captain
How much armor do you think the F-100, F-104, F-105, F-106, and F-4 had?
None.
They added titanium vandium armor to the B-52 in the early 1970's based on the Vietnam experience and of course the A-10 is legendary for its armor.
- Thread starter
- #68
I'm kinda curious, could these "removable armor" be added back on late model Spitfire Mark 24 and Spiteful XVI? or would the space for them be removed forever?
So by that logic you are saying the Japanese didn't care about their pilots? That's a Massive leap of logic there, man. Huge.
Hi
I am not sure I understand this question? The armour would be removable if it was not needed for the tasks the particular aircraft was being used for, for example if it was being used for training purposes it would not need the whole armour layout, the "space" would still be there. The Spitfire Mk.24 and Spiteful were major redesigns compared with the Spitfire Mk.V so their were probably some internal differences and were only flying post-war.
My experience with aircraft armour plate is fitting it and removing it from Westland Wessex HC.2s of No. 72 Squadron during the late 1970s early 80s, the "space" for it was still there when removed, I can't see there being a difference in the Spitfire Mk.V and similar marks.
Mike
- Thread starter
- #71
Basically I saw that on late Mark Spitfire, they seem to not have the armor plate behind the propeller, and the armor box seem to have the frontal plate remove. So I'm just wondering whether that is because the space for these armor are completely removed or that they just remove the plate because the mission doesn't require it.
Also I have always thought that Spitfire is just as squishy as Zero, I didn't expect it to be so well protected. The thing literally have more armor plate than P-47
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
Air Marshall Dowding went to great lengths when defining the requirements for the Spitfire to help pilot survivability. In With Wings Like Eagles, Korda wrote a lot about Dowding's efforts.
Last edited:
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,076
- Sep 29, 2025
Do you know when that armor was fitted to the front tank? Early Spit V? Later? Spit I or II?
Although I don't have the original document with me - usually they include an example on how to use the graph - I've worked with graphs like this before and I suspect you use it as follows:I was at first too. wonder if the range hasn't been inverted
1. You start with a range and muzzle velocity. Let's say 1400 yards and the 2835 ft/s muzzle velocity (36 in barrel).
2. You project upwards along the 1400 yd line until you reach the 2835 ft/s MV graph. Then you move left to read off the striking velocity. In this case about 1325 ft/s
3. Now you consider the the impact angle: Let's say 30 degrees.
4. Along the same 1325 ft/s horizontal line, you move right until you intersect the 30 degree graph.
5. Project downwards to read the penetration: About 0.26"
For a longer range, let's say 2000 yd and again the 2835 ft/s muzzle velocity. Then from step 2:
2. Upwards along 2000 yd up to 2835 ft/s MV, then left to read striking velocity: 1025 ft/s
3. Let's use 30 degrees impact angle again
4. Along 1025 horizontal line up to 30 deg line
5. Project down to read off the penetration: 0.21"
And as a final example, 600 yd, 2835 ft/s muzzle velocity, 0 deg impact angle (perpendicular):
2. Striking velocity: 2125 ft/s
4. Along 2125 ft/s line to 0 deg line
5. Penetration approximately 0.68"
So:
Shorter range -> higher striking velocity (at zero range, striking velocity = muzzle velocity)
Shorter range -> more penetration
Smaller angle (more perpendicular) -> more penetration
It all seems correct to me.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
OK, it works, but why?
I mean why design a chart that way.
They already know the remaining velocity at distance, assuming standard air conditions.
Run distance across one axis and penetration across the other and put in the angle slopes.
Now with aircraft at different altitudes the remaining velocity at different ranges can change, a lot.
But unless there is another chart to convert sea level velocities to remaining velocities at different altitudes the user is just guessing at remaining velocity.
The best that can be said is that at higher than sea level altitudes the penetration will always be greater than chart.
At 10,000ft the air is about 0.74 times as dense as it is at sea level and at 20,000ft it is 0.53 times as dense with corresponding differences in drag and changes in impact velocity.
And as a final example, 600 yd, 2835 ft/s muzzle velocity, 0 deg impact angle (perpendicular):
2. Striking velocity: 2125 ft/s
4. Along 2125 ft/s line to 0 deg line
5. Penetration approximately 0.68"
As in 600yds, 2835fps mv, 0 degrees impact
2, not needed.
4. follow 600 yd line to curved 0 degree impact line.
5. follow to other axis to hit the approximately 0.68" mark.
The 45in barrels were never used in aircraft guns although there were some water cooled AA guns than had them to go with the air cooled ground guns.
Last edited:
As I said, I don't have the rest of the document for context, but graphs like this are quite common and I have used similar ones many times. I have even created graphs in this format before. It is presented in this way as it links multiple parameters on a single graph, thereby reducing the number of graphs required to look up related information. In this case, you get both impact velocity and penetration distance as a function of range, muzzle velocity and impact angle - all on one graph. You don't have to look up the striking velocity - you can move straight across to the appropriate impact angle line, but the striking velocity is there to be read off if you need it.
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,076
- Sep 29, 2025
I would just note that with steel core 'true AP' ammunition, which wasn't exactly rare, you'll get much better as in 2 -3 times penetration.
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,076
- Sep 29, 2025
Ammunition loadouts varied a lot but it was not uncommon to include a mix with some AP ammunition.
Hi
For armour protection of the Fuel Header Tank it was Mod/248 of 6 June 1940, for the Glycol header tank it was Mod/247 also of 6 June 1940, so for the Spitfire Mk.I and II. See extract from 'Knights of the Sky' pages 236-237 below:
Mike
Hi
The story is rather more complicated than that, Dowding appears to have decided that the fighters needed more armour than he first thought after discussion at a Air Fighting Committee meeting, see extract from 'Knights of the Skies', pages 172-173 below:
Mike
