Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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%)
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?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
It includes armoured glassMost interesting
Have you included also the bullet-proof glass there, or just the 'real' armor?
It wasn't armor.It looks like the P-39 wins again, greatest weight of armor for an aircraft with rear mounted engine.
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.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?
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 . . . )
It is interesting but it doesn't tell you a whole lot.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.
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.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.