- Thread starter
-
- #21
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 see you have never looked at any diagrams of where the plating IS on an aircraft then.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.
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.
Oh, I've looked at plenty of them. Pilot armor is the main thing, not the only thing. I was responding to Shortround's statement that "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." That may be true, but it is also irrelevant, since having the 20mm rounds explode may not kill the pilot, but it will prevent the aircraft from staying in the air.I see you have never looked at any diagrams of where the plating IS on an aircraft then.
You cannot fully plate fuel tanks as they cover such a large area the weight would be gigantic, which is why people use self sealing tanks.
The schematic below is typical for nearly all WW2 fighters, you may get some plating to cover the cannon shell magazines
or oil tanks too but that's it. The shell magazines being protected to stop them exploding and hurting the PILOT.
True, I apologise.Anyhow, no need to be snide
No idea what your point is.Having an Axis 20mm shell explode in your .50 cal storage is certainly not a good thing but it is not quite the significant emotional event that have some of your own 20mm ammo explode in the storage bin/drum would be.
The pilot has a bit more time to sort out what course of action he will take. Maybe just few seconds or may be a few minutes.
Plenty of aircraft or various types suffered 20mm strikes and remained airborne.That may be true, but it is also irrelevant, since having the 20mm rounds explode may not kill the pilot, but it will prevent the aircraft from staying in the air.
I believe you, but could you site the source for the figures on the Il-2, its hard to believe a 1940 design propeller plane could get off the ground with 16% of its weight as armor/dead weight.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.)
View attachment 704527
Ahh...gotcha, my badGG - He's referring to your own 20mm cooking off in the tray.
No idea what your point is.
I spent most of my 42-year aerospace career in the field of combat aircraft survivability, so I'd like to take a crack at "the difference in armor between the Mustang vs. older Allied fighters." Survivability has 2 factors, "susceptibility" and "vulnerability." Vulnerability is what happens after a hit has been scored, Susceptibility is about how to minimize the probability of being hit in the first place. The better (lower) an aircraft's susceptibility, the less vulnerability reduction needs to be incorporated in order to get to a given level of overall survivability. F-35 is the most recent example I personally know of (I've been retired for half a dozen years now) where low susceptibility (due to its stealth features) was successfully used as a justification for deleting some of the originally-incorporated vulnerability reduction features, at least from the STOVL variant. The details are in its Live Fire Test reports if anyone's interested. So back to WW2: The Mustang was faster and higher-flying than the P-39 and P-40 and others of an earlier generation, so that meant that weight could be saved by trimming the hardening features. I suspect that's driving at least some of the earlier/later armor weight trends in the chart.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?