why is the A6M Zero's lack of armor emphasized so heavily

[MikeMeech]

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
View attachment 883070

Hi
To simplify a long and complicated story, frontal armour for single seat fighters was the first armour to be fitted to give them protection from return fire from unescorted bombers. Rear armour became important when it was decided to send fighters to France where they might meet enemy fighters. Armour requirements might change during the war in the light of war experience.

Mike

 

[MIflyer]

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

No, if anything I am saying the opposite of that.

 

[MikeMeech]

Hi
Knowledge in the RAF of other air forces' use of armour was discussed during late 1937, extracts from 'Knights in the Skies' pages 142-146:

Is it true the USA was not interested in this problem at the time? If not what do US sources say on the subject during 1937-38.

Mike

 

[mig-31bm]

This is confusing, weren't radial engine supposed to be a lot more resistance to damage compared compared to liquid cooled engine since liquid engine have coolant line and what not?

 

[Shortround6]

This is confusing, weren't radial engine supposed to be a lot more resistance to damage compared compared to liquid cooled engine since liquid engine have coolant line and what not?

This has entered popular culture, but it really depended on the specific engines.
Yes liquid cooled engines had radiators and coolant lines, but they were often of smaller volume (or at least frontal area) for the main engine.
Some V-12s were somewhat resistant to gun fire, at least small rounds. There is also a difference between a damaged engine lasting for 5-15 minutes and one that stops running 5-15 seconds after being hit. Neither one gets you back to base (unless flying very close to base) but having 5-15 minutes of even low powered flight improves the pilots chances of survival.
Part of the radial engine reputation comes from the P&W R-2800, not all R-2800s continued to run with several cylinders missing but some did. Enough to help the legend?
Some French radials were known to lose their propellers without any enemy airplane or AA gun being within several hundred KM of them. Two row radials without a center bearing have a much harder time trying to stay running with one or more cylinders missing or severally damaged. Radials with lots of deep fins may keep small bullets from hitting the actual cylinder walls or cylinder heads depending on angle of the shot/s.
Any engine that takes hits to the crankcase can loose oil even if the structure remains intact. How fast is it leaking and where? Out the bottom of the cowl or out the top blinding the pilot even not getting into the cockpit.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

There you go picking on those Gnome Rhone 14s again...

 

[MiTasol]

I thought he was picking on the Wright Oilcones.

 

[SaparotRob]

I thought we picked on Boeing?

 

[MikeMeech]

This is confusing, weren't radial engine supposed to be a lot more resistance to damage compared compared to liquid cooled engine since liquid engine have coolant line and what not?
View attachment 883175

Hi
I believe they were stating the obvious problem that to protect the radial engine with armour was difficult because frontal armour would prevent much of the cooling air reaching the cylinders, unlike the armour around the liquid cooled in-line which would not cause that problem (the only problem there is the radiators and their protection, there were always problems and trade offs for protection systems).

Mike

 

[taly01]

why is the A6M Zero's lack of armor emphasized so heavily

To add a new point to the thread, there was a propaganda bias against the enemy. One side thinks the other side is stupid and dumb and has bad equipment, this is just a bias common to all wars, and is meant to be a moral (or coping) effect. You do not want to be frightened of the enemy as you will not fight positively.

WW2 in pacific started with England and USA having a low regard to Japanese technical accomplishments. This was rudely disproven in the first year of the war. However in the Guadalcanal campaign the F4F flyers worked out to force combat with the A6M as they had a better chance of surviving combat, and if a F4F was damaged near Guadalcanal they could bail out and be rescued as the USN commanded the sea there in daylight. While a damaged A6M had to fly 500 miles back to up its own bases.

But yes the A6M not getting full seat and headrest protection was unusual for a WW2 fighter. As far as i can work out only small numbers of A6M in late 1944 ever had both seat and headrest protection, and even during 1945 it was not usual to be fitted to A6M either!

 

[skultew]

As far as i can work out only small numbers of A6M in late 1944 ever had both seat and headrest protection

It depends entirely on the Zero production series and modification.
Beginning in the summer of 1944, the A6M5 Model 52 Otsu modification was introduced which featured front bulletproof glass (need to note it was introduced not from the start of production). Then was followed by the A6M5 Model 52 Hei and A6M7 Model 62 Hei. In total approximately 2,590 aircraft were produced starting with the Model 52 Otsu and given that the armored glass was permanent as well as the extensive number of photographs of planes equipped with this glass, it was installed on almost all aircraft.

Then on A6M5 Model 52 Hei 8mm armor plate and 55mm bulletproof glass were added behind the pilot. However these elements were removable and there are a significant number of photographs in which for example 55mm armored glass is missing (it's difficult to determine whether the 8mm armored backrest is missing in the photographs) suggesting that a part of Zeros flew without rear armor or only with armored plate.

Older Zero versions were not modified to install any armor protection.

and even during 1945 it was not usual to be fitted to A6M either!

So to understand how common armor protection was for Zeros in 1945 it's necessary to consider the production period of aircraft which we see.
It's safe to say that many aircraft produced from summer-autumn 1944 were equipped with armored glass in front of the pilot, but it's difficult to estimate the number of aircraft equipped with rear armor.

 

[don4331]

To add a new point to the thread, there was a propaganda bias against the enemy. One side thinks the other side is stupid and dumb and has bad equipment, this is just a bias common to all wars, and is meant to be a moral (or coping) effect. You do not want to be frightened of the enemy as you will not fight positively.

My response was going to be very similar: If you tell your pilots that the enemy is flying a plane that is faster, turns better, with cannons, you wind up with pilots who are frightened of the enemy. And a lot of pilots don't want to die in a foreign country for some politician. On the flip side, if you tell you pilots, your tactics are better, your skill is better and your plane is more rugged/ the opponent is unarmoured, so all you have to do is get one hit in and he will burst into flames, your pilots will believe they have a better than equal fighting chance. And will attack to get that 1st hit in.

I'm also fan of nuuumannn 's post #42: Doctrine said - the 1st one to hit the opposition's CV won. So, if you increase range by compromising armour, but it allows you to hit 1st, you win. If you force the opponent into defensive tactic - Thach weave/Lufbery circle/etc and as a result the opponent's fighters aren't disrupting/shooting down your bombers, you are winning. The job of your fighter isn't to shoot down the opponent's fighters, its to prevent the opponent's bombers from destroying your assets.

Shooting down the opponent's fighters does have a positive effect of your ability to shoot down the opponent's bombers but it is secondary.
​

Japan knew they couldn't get into war of attrition with Allies, so they needed to make choices that would allow quick win.

 

[yulzari]

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:
View attachment 883102
Mike

Regarding the Boulton Paul Defiant, I find it interesting that Louden notes in the minutes on the 8th of January 1940 references to the 'no allowance' forward turret guns and refers to the scheme to do so 11 months previously in February/March 1939. This begs the question of why there was no published doctrine, training nor pilot's sights to do so? When it was inherent to the Defiant proposal and consistent not only with the Great War Bristol Fighter experience and doctrine but also that of the Hawker Demon in recent service. That the pilot could fire the turret guns from a button in his cockpit only makes this even more puzzling. The Hanson minutes of 25th of January 1940 show that 'no allowance' forward shooting was still considered a live consideration weeks later.

When was the decision taken to bereft the pilot of the means to accurately fire forwards, who decided this and what was in hand for the pilot's sights? I have not read any reference by operational aircrew on 'no allowance' shooting by the pilot. They would appear to have been in total ignorance of an opportunity that was still live when production was running in January 1940 and 264 Squadron had been conducting operational trials since October 1939.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

So... without any synchronization system?

 

[Greg Boeser]

So... without any synchronization system?

No allowance refers to an aiming system in which an aircraft with fixed, oblique firing guns merely has to position itself below and behind the target to score hits. Think "schraege Musik" on German night fighters.

 

[MikeMeech]

Regarding the Boulton Paul Defiant, I find it interesting that Louden notes in the minutes on the 8th of January 1940 references to the 'no allowance' forward turret guns and refers to the scheme to do so 11 months previously in February/March 1939. This begs the question of why there was no published doctrine, training nor pilot's sights to do so? When it was inherent to the Defiant proposal and consistent not only with the Great War Bristol Fighter experience and doctrine but also that of the Hawker Demon in recent service. That the pilot could fire the turret guns from a button in his cockpit only makes this even more puzzling. The Hanson minutes of 25th of January 1940 show that 'no allowance' forward shooting was still considered a live consideration weeks later.

When was the decision taken to bereft the pilot of the means to accurately fire forwards, who decided this and what was in hand for the pilot's sights? I have not read any reference by operational aircrew on 'no allowance' shooting by the pilot. They would appear to have been in total ignorance of an opportunity that was still live when production was running in January 1940 and 264 Squadron had been conducting operational trials since October 1939.

Hi
It appears the "pilot" option to fire the guns was removed quite early on, see extract from 'British Aircraft Armament Volume 1' by R Wallace Clarke, page 68 below:

Also the 1938 proposed Fighter Command tactics for use of the turret fighter , extract from Dr. Alfred Price's 'Aeroplane' article in October 2008:

Mike

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I know it's a "pipe dream" but it always seemed like if there was a forward-firing option Defiant could have been a lot more interesting as a fighter.

 

[Frog]

I know it's a "pipe dream" but it always seemed like if there was a forward-firing option Defiant could have been a lot more interesting as a fighter.

As a bomber chaser yes but not as a dogfighter...

 

[yulzari]

So... without any synchronization system?

The guns firing over the propellor tips.

See A description of no allowance sighting and shooting.

 

[Shortround6]

Whatever attractions the Defiant offered in 1937-38-39 when there was only the prototype flying and all the pretty drawings of formations were pretty based on theory (and wishful thinking?) things changed in 1940. Things were also changing behind the scenes in England. RAF was getting better ammunition for all .303 guns, but it wasn't there yet. The factory for the 20mm Hispano gun was just getting into production in Dec 39/Jan 1940 when the first Defiant squadron was issued their first aircraft.
Choice of single seat fighter armed with two 20mm and several .303s against bombers or a two seat fighter armed with four .303 for bomber busting?

Defiant doctrine/theory also depends on the Germans staying stupid for quite a while and not improving their defensive guns. Turns out they did (somewhat)and that helps gloss over the Defiant.
But the Germans did add more guns, just not in directions that the pretty pictures show the Defiants attacking from. But how hard would it have been (at a cost in drag) to widen the firing arc of the downward firing guns? Or fit a better gun (or two guns)?
British (at least the Defiant fans) were expecting a much better standard of cooperation from the Defiant pilots and gunners then they ever got from real pilots.
Expecting Hendon Display formation precision while attacking enemy bombers and a very high standard of interception so that the Spitfires and Hurricanes can peel off any escorting fighters in time for the Defiants to perform their airshow precision flying?
Defiants vs Bf 110s would not have been pretty but even if the 110s don't shoot down the Defiants, the Defiants are not shooting down the bombers and that is escorts job, keeping the bombers from getting shot down.