WW2 Aircraft Ranked by Weight of Armour Plating

[Deleted member 68059]

I just stuck all this into EXCEL from a few German WW2 intelligence reports.

I think it makes interesting viewing. (The IL2 is packing 16.6% of all up weight as plating, a typical western fighter is 2%, like your average Spitfire, Mustang or Typhoon, Thunderbolt a bit less at 1.2% and a Warhawk 3%)

 

[tomo pauk]

I just stuck all this into EXCEL from a few German WW2 intelligence reports.

I think it makes interesting viewing. (The IL2 is packing 16.6% of all up weight as plating, a typical western fighter is 2%, like your average Spitfire, Mustang or Typhoon, Thunderbolt a bit less at 1.2% and a Warhawk 3%)

Most interesting
Have you included also the bullet-proof glass there, or just the 'real' armor?

 

[BlackSheep]

I just stuck all this into EXCEL from a few German WW2 intelligence reports.

I think it makes interesting viewing. (The IL2 is packing 16.6% of all up weight as plating, a typical western fighter is 2%, like your average Spitfire, Mustang or Typhoon, Thunderbolt a bit less at 1.2% and a Warhawk 3%)

View attachment 704403

Excellent, just for kicks, if you have the time, can you punch in the numbers for the Skyraider w/upgraded armor and the AU-1 Corsair?

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Most interesting
Have you included also the bullet-proof glass there, or just the 'real' armor?

It includes armoured glass

 

[buffnut453]

Calum,

That's fascinating. Many thanks for sharing. It would be interesting to see if/how the armour weight changed on the B-24 and B-17 as they evolved beyond the respective D and F variants listed in your chart.

I find it really interesting that the B-24D had less armour than any of the British heavy bombers.

 

[pinehilljoe]

It looks like the P-39 wins again, greatest weight of armor for an aircraft with rear mounted engine.

 

[pbehn]

According to Wiki the Typhoon had 350Kg of armour added to the fighter bomber versions "Because of the vulnerability of the Typhoon's liquid-cooled engine cooling system to ground fire, some 780 pounds (350 kg) of armour was added, lining the sides and bottom of the cockpit and engine compartments, as well as the radiator bath".

 

[Shortround6]

It looks like the P-39 wins again, greatest weight of armor for an aircraft with rear mounted engine.

It wasn't armor.


it was counterweights to try to keep the CG where they wanted it.

It just sounds better to say armor instead of admitting that the thing was about as stable as a cheaply made kids toy.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Due to much whinging on another platform an updated graph.
(NB. The results are artificially flattened because max gross takeoff weight obviously includes a LOT of bombs for the bombers. Whereas fighters need that "spare" power/weight to achieve high dynamic performance. So you still need to consider both metrics very carefully. In other words, a bomber fully laden can afford to "just" be able to lift off the ground with a very long run, and climb slowly, but a fighter cant afford to as it must take off fast and usually also climb very fast, so although a fighter COULD, carry more weight
and still take off, they dont, so the "% of Gross TO wt" will tend to make the fighters look more armoured and the bombers less so.)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Many surprises here. I am guessing the Thunderbolt has less armor because of the radial engine being less vulnerable?

Also a bit surprised how much armor is carried by the Boston, Mosquito and Ventura.

Can someone explain the difference in armor between the Mustang vs. older Allied fighters?

I wonder if some of these are using more efficient armor plate (high carbon / tempered vs. rolled etc.)

I know from numbers on medieval armor that medium carbon, tempered armor had the same bullet protection at 3mm thickness as untempered steel at 6mm or wrought iron (equivalent to modern 'mild steel') at 8mm, so the quality of the metal makes a big difference.

I believe they were experimenting with heat treatment of armor for aircraft but I don't know the details.

How do different variants of Bf 109 and Fw 190 compare to these?

 

[Maxrobot1]

The B-25 and B-26 both had added armor on the sides of the fuselage for pilot protection. I have no idea how much weight that added.
Though not often seen on restored examples, B-17s had large armor plates behind pilot and co-pilot. Some B-29s had armored glass for the pilot too. British bombers that had one pilot, only had armored seats for him. I wonder where the Lancaster had armor besides the seat back and turrets?

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Many surprises here. I am guessing the Thunderbolt has less armor because of the radial engine being less vulnerable?

Also a bit surprised how much armor is carried by the Boston, Mosquito and Ventura.

Can someone explain the difference in armor between the Mustang vs. older Allied fighters?

I wonder if some of these are using more efficient armor plate (high carbon / tempered vs. rolled etc.)

I know from numbers on medieval armor that medium carbon, tempered armor had the same bullet protection at 3mm thickness as untempered steel at 6mm or wrought iron (equivalent to modern 'mild steel') at 8mm, so the quality of the metal makes a big difference.

I believe they were experimenting with heat treatment of armor for aircraft but I don't know the details.

How do different variants of Bf 109 and Fw 190 compare to these?

Not sure, this data is all put into EXCEL by me from German WW2 intel. reports. So naturally they didnt put in their own specifics, although I`m sure some moderately enthusiastic searching could find the info to add them but (from experience) I`m always worried about merging data from entirely different reports together.

 

[Shortround6]

It is a nice tool, but it is a tool and it can be misapplied.
Westland Whirlwind

Armor planes in front of the Hispano cannon drums.
Many of the British planes had some sort of armor in front of the 20mm ammo in belts in the wings. However since the ammo was usually behind the front spar they didn't need quite the same thickness of armor that the Whirlwind did with it's sheet metal nose fairing.

Pilots did vary a bit in size but basically you need the same size seat for pilot regardless of wither he was sitting in a Spitfire or a P-47 so weight of armor compared to gross weight does get a bit misleading.

 

[33k in the air]

Due to much whinging on another platform an updated graph.
(NB. The results are artificially flattened because max gross takeoff weight obviously includes a LOT of bombs for the bombers. Whereas fighters need that "spare" power/weight to achieve high dynamic performance . . . )

Instead of gross takeoff weight, wouldn't a better comparison be to use the aircraft's empty weight? Or its weight without fuel, oil, ammunition, ordnance, or crew? That would show the weight of armour as a percentage of the aircraft's basic structure.

 

[Shortround6]

Instead of gross takeoff weight, wouldn't a better comparison be to use the aircraft's empty weight? Or its weight without fuel, oil, ammunition, ordnance, or crew? That would show the weight of armour as a percentage of the aircraft's basic structure.

It is interesting but it doesn't tell you a whole lot.

Did 200lbs of armor protect the pilot any better (or worse) in an F4F than 200lbs of armor did in an F6F?

US planes didn't put armor in front of their ammo. .50 cal ammo doesn't explode like 20mm HE does on occasion. It doesn't have any explosive.

 

[Greg Boeser]

B-26 armor increased across its production run. The early B-26 and B-26A had no protection for the rear gunner besides a small gun shield.
The B-26B and C significantly beefed up the tail gunner's armor.
It wasn't until fairly late that frontal and side armor was provided for the pilot.
An interesting comparison shows Martin chose to armor specific components (oil tanks, fuel transfer pumps, landing gear uplocks) and crew positions whereas North American provided armored bulkheads behind the cockpit and the gunners' section.

 

[GrauGeist]

Out of curiosity, how would the Hs129 weigh in (no pun intended) on the chart?

 

[elbmc1969]

A quick search says 2,300 lbs of armor (including glass) on the Hs129, or 1040 kg.

MTO 11,574 lbs or 5,250 kg.

At 20% armor when taking off, it's the clear winner.

And you wonder why it's such a pig?

 

[elbmc1969]

It is interesting but it doesn't tell you a whole lot.

Did 200lbs of armor protect the pilot any better (or worse) in an F4F than 200lbs of armor did in an F6F?

US planes didn't put armor in front of their ammo. .50 cal ammo doesn't explode like 20mm HE does on occasion. It doesn't have any explosive.

The purpose of armor is to keep the aircraft in the air, not to protect the pilot. If I put the pilot in a box of battleship armor, but have completely unprotected fuel tanks, my design is not very good.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Keeping pilots alive (slowing down pilot attrition) is also a major issue. If the fuel tank is punctured, the plane can still be landed or crash-landed. If the crew survives (especially the pilot) you don't have to train as many as quickly.