Yes, World War 2 planes had armour BUT...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Nearly every plane in WW2 had armour, but usually not like people think.
⚜ Support My Work ⚜
- You can support my Channel with Patreon: / milavhistory
- You can support my Channel with a donation [Paypal]: www.paypal.me/...
⚜ Find Me On Social Media ⚜
- Twitter: / milavhistory
- Facebook: / bis18marck70
⚜ Sources ⚜
Yefim Gordon, Ilyushin IL-2/IL-10
Francis Dean, America's Hundred Thousand
#Il2 #armor #warbirds
Hey all, I hope you enjoyed this one! It's a topic that I wanted to address since a long time. Btw, in the original script, I also went into more detail on radial vs inline engines as it does tie into surivability. Yet, as that is essentially a topic for itself, it will see it's down video down the line!
T'was marvellous
So this is like the difference between hp and defense.
Bismarck wait...fuel tanks not armored...but didn't the 109 have around 20mm of fuel tanks protection ?
they have self sealing tanks. doubt it will fix the impact of a 20 he round though
1barnet1 it does in war thunder
"Of course next to the thickness, the hardness also matters" what about length? Because she tells me it doesn't matter O.o
Pope_Leo Just make sure the angle is right and you're set
If that still doesn't work, just buy her some batteries.
We all know she is flying with Tyrone when you´re not looking. :))
T H I C C
liltacoknight Yikes, buddy...don't know how to break this to you, but the angle matters a lot...and I'm not talking about armor.
B-17: No one can shoot me down i’m a flying fortress
Bf109G6’s: May I offer you *30mm mk 108 minengeschoss round*
i mean they were sturdy but a 1 or 2 fighers can bring down a alone b-17
I believe the whole myth about American planes were well armored and Japanese planes were not came from the fact that early war Japanese planes did not have self sealing fuel tanks, meaning they very easily burst into flames when shot, while American planes did have self sealing fuel tanks.
A lot of it had to do with the fact that compared to IJN fighters, a USN plane would soak up the rifle caliber rounds fired by an early or mid Zero by the dozens if not hundreds depending on how lucky the USN plane was because of the robust design of typical US Carrier aircraft, which was intended to withstand the shock of repeated carrier landings.
For as long as I can remember (and I've been an airplane fanatic for about forty years now), the American/Japanese issue has always been about ruggedness, not necessarily about armour.
Please remember that the A6M was also designed as a carrier airplane and had to withstand repeated carrier landings.
In fact, the A6M was a very rugged aircraft, as long as we are talking about the structure. The typical A6M was rated for a stress of, at minimum, 12G, and that's a lot. When it came to fuel tank and pilot protection(or protection of the ammunition), that's where the weakness begins.
Of course, the late model Zero's beginning with the A6M5 model 52 otsu had armor protection for the pilot, armored glass in the front and back, self-sealing fuel tanks and even CO² fire suppression systems for the tanks(as far as I know, the CO² fire extinguishers were fitted as early as the A6M3 model 22). The wing skin was a lot thicker to withstand faster dives, too. At that point, it wasn't as agile as the earlier models, but still more than agile enough to outmaneuver any plane that wasn't a japanese army Ki-43 Hayabusa/Oscar in a low-mid speed dogfight. Too bad that, by then, the pilots flying them were often very inexperienced.
What additionally keeps this myth of the Zero's fragility alive is that, even during the Battle of the Philipines in 1944, there were still A6M2's and A6M3 model 22's flying around which did not have all of this protection.
There are various reports from US pilots during the Battle of the Philipines, within the same timeframe of a few weeks, which all speak of "Zeke's/Zero's". Some describe them bursting into flames fast and being easy to outspeed as they've come to expect, others describe them keeping up in a dive with F6F Hellcats and taking quite a beating without even so much as a spark of flame... to the astonishment of the pilot in question.
The logical conclusion is that these were different models... but since they don't look very different at all, even up close on the ground(with the exception of the "clipped wing" A6M3 model 32), they were all just identified as Zeke's/Zero's. I very much doubt that the US and British pilots could tell an A6M3 model 22 apart from an A6M5 from distances of up to hundreds of meters while in flight and fighting them. ;)
The only model which had a different codename assigned to it was the aforementioned model 32, initially "Hap" but, after General "Hap" Arnold complained, later called "Hamp".
Another issue here is the overall weight of each aircraft relative to its fuel load and consumption rate. The A6M Zero was so light and carried so much fuel that Zero escorts accompanied the Japanese bombers from Taiwan ("Formosa") during the initial bombing raids on the Philippines. The range of the A6M was much greater than that of the much heavier F4F Wildcat. This strongly indicates the Wildcat would likely be tougher and have less "fuel exposure" as compared to the Zero. A pilot carrying drop tanks had to be mindful of dropping them before entering a dogfight and I don't believe the Americans were using drop tanks in the Pacific Theater until mid-1942. The Zeroes striking Pearl Harbor carried drop tanks, increasing their overall vulnerability. The Japanese designed their aircraft for the long ranges required for the Pacific Theater from the outset. The Americans eventually replaced all of their B-17's in the Pacific Theater with B-24 Liberators largely because the B-24 had better range capability.
Also, Japanese pilots often expressed their astonishment at the relative durability of American-made aircraft as compared to their own. As Bismarck points out, this is really the result of a combination of factors.
The Japanese Zero was designed to be as maneuverable as possible, which is why they skipped on the self-sealing fuel tanks.
The pilot is better protected for two reasons. First the plane is useless if the pilot is killed. In fact, shooting the pilot is even more effective than shooting the engine. The plane with a destroyed engine is still a bit of a threat. But if you shoot the pilot, the plane is nothing but a falling paperweight.
Also protecting the pilot is good for moral.
Plus pilots are more expensive to train than planes are to build.
And it takes 20 decades to make a pilot
20 decades? Not many humans have lived longer than 11!!!
Don't argue Dick, A Jock is an expert!
Eric Taylor Also a good pilot is hard to replace. They're not simply someone you can conscript off the street. You need to give them lots of training and experience and practice and such.
So you're saying I can not simply strap wings and some jet engines to a Panzer IV and rule the skies?
...I might need to find new ways of becoming -Batman- a billionaire superhero
MikeGoesBoom the German billionaire superhero
Google Antonov A-40
Brilliant on paper, but.... not practical. Two thoughts come to mind. Power to weight ratio. And aerodynamics. Tanks weren't designed to fly. From the first world War, to today. When you look at the shape of any tank as apposed to an aeroplane you'll notice a lot of differences.
So you are going to become Fledermausmann?
@@AdrianOkay Batler
So the recipe for a strong plane before guided missiles from what i understand is 1) have a sturdy frame 2) self sealing fuel tanks 3) protection for the pilot 4) excess surface area that can take hits without absorbing too much energy, and possibly 5) redundant and robust control systems.
Did i miss anything?
Air cooling. A liquid-cooled engine is inherently more prone to damage because a single leak coolant leak would lead to overheating, which in turn would cause the engine to seize. Radial engines were also more resistant to damage by design - whereas a damaged cylinder in a radial would result in the engine working unevenly, there was still possibility of it carrying the plane to safety (as was often the case with the R-2800, which could keep working despite having several cylinders shot off). If a V12 was shot in the block or the head the probability of the entire rotating assembly seizing was much greater. This is also the reason why I consider the IL-2 to be a stupid design - with an air-cooled radial it would've been a much more effective plane with less armouring required. Why it was chosen over the Su-2 for mass production I have no idea (engine shortages perhaps?).
Following your list and my points, these are the reasons why the P-47 was considered to be such a tough plane:
1. Very sturdy airframe made to a high standard (which includes the control surfaces, especially models from the P-47C onwards with metal-covered elevators)
2. Very large wing area (this along with the wing planform is what made the P-47 such a great performer at very high altitudes).
3. Air-cooled radial engine (which could work even with the turbosupercharger assembly disabled).
4. Self-sealing, large capacity fuel tanks (one could re-route the fuel delivery from the main tank to wing tanks and vice versa).
5. Reasonable protection for the pilot (mostly thanks to the extensive and sturdy airframe, not the armouring).
6. Ease of piloting despite the plane's bulk and heft.
Also of note is that a massive radial engine acts as a huge armor plate protecting the pilot from frontal hits, where a smaller water cooled engine offers less effective protection due to its smaller size.
Very true. While the soft steel and aluminium alloys engines were made from back in the day weren't enough to stop a huge weight of fire, setting of fuses of incoming HE shells and stopping rifle calibre bullets was often the difference between life or death. This is why among WW2 fighters the P-47 would've been my preferred mount, if I had the choice in the matter that is.
"Did i miss anything?" - Yeah. Being able to take off with all of that installed. ;-)
Self sealing fuel tanks were only effective against rifle caliber rounds
And that's why Germany loves it's flak.
*loved
@@Bobylein1337 *loves
German flak: it can do anything, even kill tanks!
FlugAbwehrKanone
@German countryball In German it is ONE word: "Flugabwehrkanone" like that. Please don't spread wrong German words and grammar. Especially if you are German yourself.
“P-47 can shrug off most hits and still fly”
Fw-190: *looks at me*
Game: pLanE bUrNt dOwN
But in warthunder the russki plans are flying tanks...tanks made of stalinium wood...do u want to tell us that this was not the case in real life? ;)
Russel Man The Mosquito was primarily constructed of wood, and was one of the most versatile and effective aircraft of the war
Zero was full-metal. Soviets did a splendid job, it's just discredited for the early-war results, mainly because of LaGG-3 (which was good aerodynamically, but had too weak engine for that) and well - simply being outnumbered by Germans. And then it drags on and historians put it to their books, as if all the Soviet planes throughout the war were bad, then everyone believes it - and then the misconceptions are spread.
For example Yak-1 - good plane (comming from actual performance, physical, not percieved by pilots), but try to do anything 1 against 5 with prospect of 10 more comming soon.
MiG-3 - amazing machine, but could not be used to its fullest - and using it at lower altitude meant using it completely different from what pilots were trained to do.
LaGG-3 - ...well... it _was_ heavy. But also heavily armed, German bombers were scared of it.
Wood is not lighter than metal. They just used it, because they had to save metal for bombers. While wood was plentiful and easy to work with.
It isn't what the aircraft is made of that matters, it's the way it was designed. Do they have multiple spars in the wing, do they have redundant control surfaces, do they have redundant control mechanisms? Design Philosophy is what matters when you want to design a tanky aircraft. The best, and most modern example, of the Flying Tank philosophy is the A-10 Warthog/Thunderbolt II.
Russel Man Although wood did reduce the radar profile - useful for gliders and such meant to avoid direct combat
Russel Man They weren't only do of simple wood. Was a construction involving laminated wood and resins. More or less like a composite material. It didn't caught fire easily, but HE rounds deal great damages.
“I will now show the armour protection for the Ki-43-II”
**PROCEEDS TO SHOW JUST THE PILOT’S SEAT**
And the pilots didn't want even that. The prevailing view in the IJAAF fighter community was that the best armor was not getting hit, so anything that made the plane less maneuverable was a liability.
wasn't the problem with Japanese planes their fuel tanks had no armor?
@@ArousedRat1 what you said is dumb. NO PLANE had armor on it's fuel tank. They sealed when hit. No one would want a 1000 kg armored fuel tank weighing them down. Also almost All Japanese planes had self-sealing fuel tanks. It was the early war ones that didn't have protected fuel tanks.
@@bobuboi4643 oh no sorry to have offended you with a comment from 7 months ago
It is noticeable that the two aircraft you single out as having the best armour protection - the Sturmovik and the Hs 129 - primarily operated in the ground-attack role. In other words, the aircraft most exposed to ground fire were those for which it was considered most beneficial to sacrifice speed and manoeuvrability in favour of increased protection.
3:00 "Self sealing" This means if you shoot a hole in the take, the fuel tank will seal the hole up after the bullet passes through. This is accomplished by lining the fuel tank in a soft rubber which would reform to plug up the hole. The fuel tank might still leak, but it will leak much less than if there was a .30 or .50 caliber hole in it.
Do a myth about the bullet'proof' glass of WWII sometime. A lot of people confuse it with modern ballistic glass.
How is this three years old but not a single comment
@@jandajanda2242 quiet odd indeed
@@jandajanda2242 yes
I've seen the waist gunner armor on a B-17G. Would stop a pistol caliber bullet, but not a large rifle round. I think it was more to stop flak than anything else.
Yes, they figured armor thick enough to stop projectiles would be far too thick, so they didnt even try. Not that far back in the fuselage. It would mess up the balance of the plane. Its good for morale though, mostly. Protecting the pilots was the key.
seen what when ? you been in the war ? you 70+ years old or is this some stupid video game or movie knowledge ?
@@catnium air museums exist dumbdumb
It's all about the angle :)
With angle, distance and the fact that a bullet that has lost a large part of its energy may inflicts less severe wounds one could argue that said plate might be good to have against a 7-8 mm round.
Excellent video, helping to clear out one of the most classic misconceptions about WW2 aviation.
Well, armor can be amazing! Follow me.
Strap heavy plates to the vehicle but since it can't fly anymore, just remove the wings and connect the engine to some sorts of wheels or treads.
Hell, now that you are there you can put a heavier gun, like a 50, 76 or even a 105 mm.
Now you have a nice and fearsome armored plane!
I think I’ve heard of one of those! They were called umm.... ahh... Tanks? That might’ve been it, maybe the barrel but idk
Have you seen the image of the Wellington with all the rear half of the fuselage covering shot off, exposing the inner construction? It's incredible.
Yes, but fired from an aircraft, a .50 would still need time to strike enough struts to break the construction. No point in thinking of that though, I don't know of any times Americans were fighting Wellingtons :P
Tom Sanders Wow...jingoistic, deluded american here ladies and gents lol. Why would a 12.7mm bullet be better at destroying an unarmoured mesh than smaller calibre machineguns and 20mm HE...? I'd much rather put my money on the cannons
Yes it will put nice .50 cal holes in it to match the .30 cal ones.
Tom Sanders That's OK. Because the Wrong brothers borrowed the Australian Sir Lawrence Hargreaves wing shape designs (he went hang gliding from the mid 1880's)
lol
My uncle fought on a B-17 as a tailgunner, part of the 100th bomb group on "Sparky"; named after their radio man who was shot through the chest while trying to defend against some Fw190. one of which my uncle actually shot down (actually it exploded in the air) He knew an officer who told him the story of his first mission (the officer's first mission) where the officer in question went on his very first mission with 10 B-17s. All but the one the officer was on were shot down.
Great video. I remember an occasion when in War Thunder I shot down a Hs 129 B-3 with a I-16 Type 18 (with 4 ShKas) and the other guy was complaining a lot about the Hs 129 having incredible armor and still getting shot down by a plane with for rifle-caliber MGs, and I explained to him that the 129's armor is mostly on the cockpit, but he was still raging, and in fact, today I shot down a Thunderbolt with my 190 A-5 (2 Mg-17s, 2 Mg 151/20s and 2 Mg FF/Ms) and he complained about the Thunderbolt being heavily armored but getting shot down quickly, and I told him the armor is around the cockpit and the fuselage, while pretty tough, cannot take the punishment 4 20mm cannons can dish out. The Sturmovik is a case of a heavily armored plane that also has a very tough structure. Anyways, the location of armor plating on planes is quite obscure, and information is rather scarce, but at least WT lets us see exactly where the planes have armor platings
wood1155 I wouldnt quite call him an idiot. People do believe these weird things about armor, and I dont blame them. Like I said, information is often quite scarce, making armor and its effects rather obscure. I do however believe doesnt really pay attention to things, because WT lets us see exactly were the armor is on EVERY plane, and I was playing a Sim battle, so it expected that sim players know at least the very basic...
André Alves dude with the gun pods the 190 A5 is a beast. There is no plane that didn't go down in flames after appearing in front of the 20mm my 190. Love that plane, one of the best in the game
André Alves Yes, I remember back when I played WT it was something that would constantly pop up. I am hoping that this video might clear up some of the confusion some players have.
Niki St I hate gunpods. I dont feel them necessary at all, even on the 109s. On the late G models I usually go for the U4 modification (Mk 108 instead of the Mg 151/20 on the nose), and even the 190s with "just" 2 cannons. In my opinion, the gunpods are completely unnecessary, unless you are attacking a heavy bomber such as a B-17 or a Liberator. They are extra weight and drag
on the flip side, wellington is better than it used to be but is still nowhere near as rugged as it should be. ofc that might have to do with the proliferation of 20mm cannons, even at its newer lower tiers.
The best armour for a fighter pilot spotting the enemy first.
of course only a few 20mm bullets can destroy a airplane if they hit the right place - that is the most fascinating thing about aircombat: a half second of aiming and shooting can decide if a huge, high and fast flying airplane will break to huge, high and fast flying parts
Read about Hans Joachim Marseille, a Luftwaffe fighter pilot who raised his gunnery to an art, sometimes being questioned over his kill claims (until the wrecks could be found) because people didn't believe that he could shoot down planes with so few rounds expended -- on one occasion, he shot down six planes (three of whom were aces) with a total expenditure of 360 rounds.
BUT it was mostly against ground fire and schrapnel.
Thing is, What made a difference was :
-where are the fuel tanks placed?
fuel tanks can really stop bullets.
-are these self sealing?
-How the aircraft's structure is made, usually the bigger the wing, the smaller a 12.7mm will appear.
Yub the 109's fuel tank was below and to the rear of the pilot so the tank was more likely to be hit, but it was less likely to actually injure the pilot.
Also wasn't the Zero's Aluminium known to be more brittle than the US ones, as in that it might've been harder, but it would deform less before breaking?
While in the Spit they had tanks in front and behind of the pilot, the rear one might stop bullets and if hit burns not injuring the pilot, but the front two, if they are hit you are in trouble........
Wiki: " Called "extra super duralumin"
(ESD), it was lighter, stronger and more ductile than other alloys
(e.g. 24S alloy) used at the time, but was prone to corrosive attack,
which made it brittle.[9] This detrimental effect was countered with an anti-corrosion coating applied after fabrication."
The Wellington has such a great design. During my years at Airbus I've suggested to design the A380 that way. Has been denied as being not necessary but have been rewarded with a nice wrist watch :-)
Makes sense that the armour would prioritise the pilot and crew over the aircraft. Aircraft can be mass produced (providing your nation can spare the resources) or repaired if they are brought back with battle damage. However a badly wounded pilot may take months to recover and may even be unfit for service for the rest of their life. Also, if an aircraft is damaged, the pilot has a chance to limp it back to the airfield or at least to friendly lines. However a mortally wounded or dead pilot is obviously not bringing that plane back.
Edit: I suppose even the most ruthless top brass would have to admit that human loss is tragic too...unless you're in Soviet Russia.
...except that the soviets apparently also armored their pilots...
Abe Herbert
Abe Herbert
I’m on thin ice here but my understanding is that Soviet Ace fighter pilots were protected by directing the rest of their squadron to throw themselves round the sky and do everything to keep themselves between the aces and any enemy plane threatening them.
I didn't even know the P39 had a special armor setup, and I love that plane. Love the channel, stay awesome man
I know you’ve used war thunder for visuals before, this video would have benefited greatly from using war thunder with the armor viewing mode.
No
Warthunder is inaccurate as hell when it comes to armour models.
The key is self sealing tanks, general ruggedness and limited armor - almost entirely for the pilot in the form a plate behind the seat and head, add bullet resistant glass. Like you said, a really armored a/c like the additionally armored Sturmbock suffered terribly in terms of performance. So basically the confusion is general ruggedness, pilot protection and self sealing fuel tanks and not actual armor.
A Thunderbolt was more rugged than a Mustang, the latter had an inline engine with a vulnerable cooling system and as such much more prone to critical engine damage, whereas the Thunderbolt’s radial engine could actually continue to operate with whole cylinders shot away.
The A6M design was a great design, but it traded ruggedness for range and maneuverability.
Every aircraft is a weapon system and it does not operate in a vacuum, a type might be superb one day and obsolete the day after as technology and tactics change.
The P-47 had that big beautiful radial engine that a pilot sat behind. It provided frontal protection.
Yes. So did the engines of every other aircraft. Take a look at what angles the engine of a P-47 will protect the pilot from: basically directly ahead, which isnt that common a place to take fire from. Now compare it to how well all the OTHER radial engined aircraft protect their pilots. Not much different. Compare to how INLINE engines protect from the front: also not much different. Tell me, when was the last time you heard someone say "man, that Zero was almost impossible to shoot down from in front, because the engine protected the pilot from that direction"? Never. Yet the engine ought to protect the pilot just as well, given the long nose of the P-47 and the angles bullets could travel at. Surely you dont suggest that the R-2800 was somehow more bulletproof than other engines? Speaking of which, using your engine as armor isnt ideal. Any decent round is going to penetrate the cylinder or crankcase, and while it might keep you alive long enough to get away and bail out someplace safe, odds are against it flying all the way home. So its hardly like the bullets just bounced off the engine like it was armor plate and the pilot went on is way, laughing merrily at the paltry attempts to down his invulnerable machine. All too many P-47s were shot down, both by ground and air fire. Fanboys and jingoists always seem to forget that fact. Myth =/= reality.
And of course its always the P-47 you hear it about; apparently the F6F and F4U didnt have this same miraculous ability, in spite of havin te same engine. And the F6F was significantly more armored than the P-47! Never heard anything about the British planes using Hercules or Centaurus engines, even though they are the same size.
@@justforever96 While I agree with most of what you say, the "having the same engine" line is deceptive. While they were all the same base Pratt and Whitney R-2800, they were all different variants. The way you word it seems like you mean all of the planes have the exact same power, performance, etc. The F6F-5 had the R-2800-10W (2,200 horsepower), the F4U-4 had the R-2800-18W (2,380 horsepower), and the P-47D-30 had the R-2800-59B (2,600 horsepower).
I have read of incidents where the engine used by the corsair, the R-2800 double wasp (also used by the F6F Hellcat, P-47 Thunderbolt, and other aircraft) would actually ingest 20mm cannon rounds fired at it, "chew" them up inside the piston chamber, and then spit them out of an exhaust type, causing the following damage: one damaged/destroyed piston and cylinder (out of 18), and stripped paint/scratches near the exhaust pipe. Pretty sure the description is at least a partial exaggeration (it is from a book by Bruce Gamble: The Black Sheep: The Definitive History of Marine Fighting Squadron 214 in World War II), but is a good example of ruggedness. The round gets in the engine, but the engine isn't bothered too much by it. Pilot probably loses some power, but otherwise is fine.
Awesome video! This just showed up on my feed. I'm impressed. You sir just earned a subscriber! I love the voice overs with the explanations by picture and simulation. Awesome work!
joespeed1952 cheers !
I remember when Sentimental Journey came to our local air museum. I read about the pilot saying he'd send letters home to his dad saying "don't worry about me, we're well armored".
Then getting home after the war and his dad saying "at least the whole plane was well armored", and him saying "actually no, I could push my thumb through the skin of the B17.
I just didn't want you to worry about me when I was sending those letters."
I NEVER thought it was armor that enabled the American planes to survive hits ---
I always thought it was because our planes had self-sealing gas tanks, and the
Japanese planes did not.
That was made into a bigger deal than it really was. It was more down to build quality and the fact that the US planes had sturdier frames that could still hold together after taking hits and had powerful engines which allowed them to be heavier in construction. The Japanese were restricted in how they could build theirs in the early war due to their engines being sub par at the time, at least in terms of what they were asking of them. The Zero is a perfect example of this.
Of course the US was also helped in engine development by the British, which was how the infamous P-51 got to be so popular. The Allison engine P-51s were ok, by the Rolls Royce Merlin engine P-51s were legendary, especially once they also got improvements in other areas such as the bubble canopy.
@@imapopo2924 The P-51 Merlins were indeed designed by Rolls Royce, but they were built under license in the US by the Packard Motor Car Company (although the initial experiments by the British used Rolls Merlins). A number of Packard Merlins were also shipped to England to be used in Spitfires.
The Allison V-1710 was actually a very good engine at altitudes under 15,000 feet, and it performed excellently in the P-38 when coupled with the P-38's turbosuperchargers. In the P-39, P-40, and early P-51 they suffered from the lack of a decent high-altitude supercharger like the Merlin had. US doctrine had always been to use turbochargers for planes intended for high-altitude work, but those three airframes just didn't have room to fit turbochargers the way the huge P-47 and twin-fuselage P-38 did. Why they never put a more advanced two-stage, two-speed, intercooled supercharger like the one from the later Merlins on the V-1710 after 1943 or so is something I've never quite understood.
Well done Bismarck. I too have studied build vs armour, though not to the level that you have, and I was surprised to discover how very little protection there was on the IL2 and the B17. As Martin Caidin said, it was the brilliant interconnections of its structural members that gave the B17 its rugged strength. This is true of all tough birds. The Wellington had an extraordinary structure, tough and resilient. I look forward to viewing your other videos. Thank you.
Talk about de havilland mosquito. Wooden wonder
Cost nothing to make, flew into tanks, and was all round awesome.
Don't forget the Fairey Swordfish, that crippled the Bismarck's steering system.
And technically one of the first Stealth plane. Even though that wasnt exactly the idea behind it.
My father was an aircraft engineer for Glenn L Martin during WWII. One of the things he told me was that the various companies decided not to use the heavy steel armor plate because of weight issues. Instead, several layers of plywood were used because the would stop or slow down most machine gun rounds and stop most flack pieces. The plywood was not effective against 20mm rounds. And it could not be installed everywhere needed. But even one inch multilayer plywood was very effective as 3/8 inch armor while being lighter
An absolutely fantastic and informative video as always.
Who thought of the entirely glass cockpit? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been pilot sniped in war thunder while flying the HE-111
A lot of Eighth Airforce bombers flew back to England with dead and wounded aboard, but the plane was not shot down. Some of those simulated shoot downs look like the fighters never had to factor the bomber's defensive armament. In reality, formations were generally attacked using a burst and scat approach. Just lining up on the tail wasn't too smart. Those twin fifties were aim-able in a way fighter planes weren't. Many interceptor pilots never flew into bomber streams. Fear was the ultimate reality. Some simulations make us all Audie Murphys.
Britain's tactic against the Germans was RADAR, then wait for German escorts to peel off (Due to fuel restrictions) then dive them, fill the bombers with lead, then GTFO, bombers either routed, or got peppered again.
Cameron M. It seems the German planners never understood the integrated radar and plotting the British brilliantly devised. At this critical part of the war the British were ahead in some critical areas. It was their finest hour.
During the Battle of Brtian, one RAF pilot opinioned that the German bombers should not actually be shot down but left to fly back badly damaged and carrying dead and wounded.
His reasoning was it would have a greater effect on Luftwaffe morale.
grahvis I think that completely loosing a plane would be more damaging to morale. It would make the losses very visual when for each raid you see less and less people returning.
It's not very visual if the plane doesn't return. A broken plane returning with wounded and defeated crew would be more visual to them. Seeing their dead and wounded comrades would affect morale more than them simply not returning is what I think they were getting at.
very Good! answers a lot of questions and dispels alot of misunderstandings and myths.
Nice video bud. BTW do you have a sibling called Tirpitz ?
Shaggy D Not since she got lost in some Norwegian fjord.
Sorry to hear that. Promise me you won't go hunt to Atlantic Convoys again let's just say the HOOD is looking out for you...
I heard the hood got roasted by him tho
I was lucky to sit in a Messerschmidt 109 and a P-47 in an air museum. There is a huge difference in size, smilar to sitting in a VW Polo vs sitting in a For F-150. The German and Japanese planes were small and cramped compared to the American planes, a bigger plane has just more ruggedness to it naturally even if they have the same armor.
"Armor" in airplanes were meant to protect the crew. You can still shoot a heavily armored airplane down by hitting the airplanes vital organs, even though the pilot might survive. Thanks for the video Bismarck.
Motherbrain Jr Armor is US spelling - elsewhere it is armour
Ian moseley Lindybeige has a video about this
Excellent video. One of your best - thanks!
Actually, the name 'Flying Fortress' was a trademark registered by Boeing before the first flight of the prototype.*
*Munson K, Swansborough G. (1972) Boeing: An Aircraft Album. London: Ian Allen. SBN 7110 0192 8. pp. 65
Yes, after it was uttered by a reporter at the press conference unveiling the new plane. Boeing liked the name, and immediately had it trademarked.
Indeed. In 1935. So not "during WWII".
I read an interesting story on plane survivability in a book called Carrier Combat. A pilot flying a Seafire L.III (equivalent to the Spitfire Mk.V) during the Torch landings in French North Africa. He had just strafed a French airfield then out of the corner of his eye he saw a D.520 French fighter coming at him at 90 degrees, no time to react then felt a thud as a 20mm cannon round hit his plane.
Being an experienced pilot he tested the controls of his Seafire and it seemed to be working fine and flew back to his carrier, at which point he realised his hydraulics for the plane's flaps and also the radio were unresponsive but he managed to land anyway. Once on the carrier deck a group of sailors all started to gather around his plane with amazement and he got out to find a large hole right behind his seat which was dripping battery acid from his obliterated radio and the controls to his tail were hanging on by a single wire. The armour plate behind his seat had been peppered with shrapnel and he then realised just how lucky he had been. He later calculated that if the cannon shell had struck his plane a couple of milliseconds earlier it would have went straight through his cockpit and probably killed him, also if it hadn't been for the armour plate behind the pilot, the shrapnel would have probably killed him also. A very lucky man.
Armour? That's a brand of canned meat in the US.
Although maybe the planes were the cans and the pilots were the meat all along. ???
So that's why it's that tough to chew......;)
Yeah the US have never been able to spell
So does that mean all countries (That speak English) languages have to be the same?
I mean why isn't Mexican Spanish the same as Spaniard?
I mean it comes down to culture and the way a country evolves doesn't it?
Come back to me when you can explain ;)
Something that made the P47 more rugged is that it had a very powerful motor that allowed it to be ridiculously over engineered = larger size and mass allowing it to absorb more damage, relative to more lightly built aircraft
UA-cam is probably going to demonetize this video because of 4:15 D:
Really? I wonder if UA-cam would do that to a video containing pictures of Latvian and/or Finnish air force markings from interwar period? Both had swastikas, but had nothing to do with Nazis (well, Finns, sort of became allied with Germany later, but that's another story which has no connection here).
TotalRookie_LV UA-cam doesn't care, unfortunaly :/
Unfortunately?
This guy is providing one of a kind history lessons for thousands. And your telling me he doesn't deserve a sliver of the of the revenue?
You do know that when youtube declares a video "advertiser unfriendly." They still put advertisements in it. The only difference is that they take all the revenue for themselves
@@DuelJ007 I think you misunderstood
@@DuelJ007 He meant UA-cam doesn't care about the historical value of swastikas and just thinks sWaStIkA bAd all the time.
Yep same thing as modern aircraft. I worked on Blackhawks and the only armor is removable armor deck plates the pilot/copilot seats and side shields for the pilot/co pilot. The rest was a tough airframe, bullet resistant glass, kevlar composite,high grade aluminum, self sealing fuel tanks and a onboard fire suppression system.
Bismarck i have a question for you. If germans got their hands on the french navy, completely intact, and they won the battle of britain,would it be possible to invade britain in theory.
Along with the help of the Italian Navy...that's an excellent question.
Not really. The greatest problem the Germans faced were not the deficiencies of the surface fleet, but their complete lack of suitable landing craft - they even wanted to use requisitioned river barges on the treacherous waters of the English Channel. It's doubtful all of them would've made the hazardous journey intact, there would be many losses along the way.
Before Normandy nobody had ever tried anything like that before, and the Allies had plenty of practice before they hit northern France (Morocco, Algeria, Sicily, Southern Italy) along with the naval, aerial and logistical support to carry such an operation to a succesful conclusion.
In terms of German allies, Italy was out of the question as they had Mediterranean sea lanes to maintain to be able to supply Libya and Ethiopia. Their ships would've been far away from their home bases, with no logistical support except for what could be carried aboard or by train to Belgium or Germany (not to mention the need to travel through the straits of Gibraltar, all the way around Britain and through the Norwegian sea to reach Germany proper, attacked along the way by the RAF, Coastal Command and the RN with no support of their own, unless they were to be based in France). The French navy would've had a limited effect - remember, almost every single one of their military components was non-standard for the Germans, and a lot of their ships had equipment deficiencies or were simply not ready for combat. The same logistical difficulties would've applied to them too, although to a lesser extent. It would've taken years for the Germans to have a full complement of trained crew for all the necessary ships, and time was not on their side with the invasion of the USSR looming.
Besides, even if the operation had been carried out with reasonable success its land phase would've been very difficult for the attackers. In the 1970s the Brits actually carried out war games at the Sandhurst Military Academy simulating a German invasion, with WW2 veterans including Adolf Galland in command of their respective forces. The result was unanimously declared to be a decisive British victory.
I think if they had a good Navy surface fleet, combined with the good U-boat fleet they might have wone the Battle of the Atlantic too. That might have forced Britain to its knees without a German boot ever landing in England.
no, all their transports were flat bottom rhine barges which would have wound up at the bottom of the channel in the slightest swell. have a look into the games/ tests sandhurst have run involving the invasion. the germans never make it all the way into london no matter what is tried.
Correction: before Normandy two semi-modern landings were conducted: Alhucemas landing in 1925, and a Japanese one against the Chinese around 1933.
Hello Bismarck, very instructive and interesting video as always.Thank you very much.
The American planes like the hellcat and p-47 had comprehensive armor. Though I will mention gaigin has quietly been adding armor plates to planes as time goes on without announcing it
Tom Sanders I did. But there was some armor mostly on American planes
Tom Sanders mostly the thunderbolt and p-40.
Warthunder is actualy adding armor plates to them so
Tom Sanders the facts. Gaigin clearly agrees as well. Not everything in this video is correct
Tom Sanders armored around the pilot of course
There is a story about armor for the B-17.
Many examples of planes shot to pieces but making it home were known, and bomber command wanted to put armor in all the places where there were holes.
They thought that seeing daylight through a wing was unsightly.
A statistician went through and painted areas of these crippled planes that had no bullet holes, and after ten or so planes, a pattern emerged.
No plane shot in the painted areas made it back, planes shot anywhere else had a chance of making it home.
So a few little armored boxes were installed for critical systems, and Robert is you parents sibling.
War thunder looks real
All other similarity with real ends there.
that's il-2 not war thunder
Thank you for this video! It was very interesting and well done.
There's another critical factor you didn't mention: engine design. Specifically, radial engines versus in-line engines. The P-47 is perhaps the most famous example of this, being built around a huge radial engine. Radial engines could take hits and keep operating--I can't remember if it was cylinders or pistons, but a radial engine could lost some or even most of them and keep operating, while an in-line engine could easily be fatally damaged by just a single hit. German fighters almost exclusively used in-line engines, IIRC.
Self-sealing fuel tanks were a very big deal, though. It's why Japanese fighters had such a reputation for poor protection--a single good hit to the fuel tank with incendiary machine gun rounds could turn the aircraft into a flying torch, while American fighters (aside from very early versions of the Wildcat) didn't have this weakness.
Additionally, Japanese fighters (and German fighters, IIRC) used a mix of rifle-caliber machine guns and cannons, while American fighters almost exclusively used a universal array of heavy-machine-gun caliber bullets (which were big enough to use a variety of round types). The rifle-caliber machine guns on Japanese and German planes were usually insufficient to fatally damage American fighters without lucky hits, making them reliant on hitting American fighters with cannon rounds. This was a significant problem for Japanese fighters, which carried very limited amounts of ammo for their cannons--just sixty rounds in total for a Zero (30 for each cannon).
But it's more than that. American and British (but especially American) AA guns were superb, far better than their German (and especially Japanese) counterparts. Combined with vastly superior fire control and greater amounts of AA firepower, you got a result where Japanese aircraft frequently suffered fatal damage against American AA while American fighters fared far better against Japanese AA.
Japanese fighters, in particular, were built to be light and nimble, rather than rugged. This is perhaps exemplified by how much the Zero's performance suffered in high speed turns--the airframe simply wasn't designed to handle that level of strain. Maximizing efficiency and weight reduction (both for increased flight performance and range and to save strategic resources) meant that their airframes were built like glass cannons.
Bombers like the B-17 gained such a reputation for being tough targets for understandable reasons. Four engines meant that you needed to take out at least two of them to bring them down that way. A big, rugged airframe, combined with self-sealing fuel tanks and its actual armor plating meant that rifle-caliber rounds just didn't cut it, necessitating cannon hits. Bristling with machine guns meant that attacking them wasn't easy or safe, especially if doing anything other than a high-speed pass. And their flying in close formations meant that the number of guns you faced was truly daunting. The Germans and Japanese simply had no equivalent.
Difference between radial and inline was actually in the original script but as it goes into what is essentially a topic for itself, I will be making a dedicated video on it.
"their flying in close formations meant that the number of guns you faced was truly daunting"
Combine that with the exhaustion the german pilots must have felt with the fact that as soon as the B17's finnished their missions for the day, the lancaster/mosquito formations would take over and bomb them during the night.
SaltyWaffles
RAF pilots during the Battle of Britain, did note how a bomber could be absolutely riddled with machine gun bullets and yet would not be brought down.
Unfortunately by the time they added all that to the Zero airframe it was no longer the nimble fighter it used to be, and slow compared with the allied aircraft.
SaltyWaffles You forgot to mention proximity fuses.
Excellent video. as an engineer who is closely involved in defining maneuvering envelopes and airframe structural strength criteria, I run into a lot of misconceptions about how durable aerostructures can be. Even today, it is not easy to hit good payload margins. The Adam A500 is a sad example of a recent aircraft that failed to do this: in production form, it could only achieve full fuel payload of 160 pounds! Designed in the computer age, without a hint of combat survival requirement. You can see why I find such massive respect for those wartime engineers. The idea of adding armor plating to widespread portions of the airframe would simply render a nonflying aircraft.
I remember looking at the armor of a plane in War Thunder and I saw a single plate behind the pilot. I thought they were crazy, but now I know they were right in simulating plane armor.
Eric Hartman was the highest scoring ace of all time, anywhere, in any war. He scored 352 confirmed air-to-air combat victories on the Russian Front in WW II. He flew a Bf-109G through most of the war and many of his victories were over the IL-2. He hated them and described them as very difficult to shoot down. They could accept a lot of hammering.
Very thorough and informative. Thanks!
I have an old Air Force cartoon book 'There I was, flat on my back!' which goes into some of the allied air forces aircraft and tactics. When it mentions the IL-2, the tongue in cheek defense tactic that they assigned to it was to 'let the enemy fighter shoot into the back of the plane until it ran out of ammo'.
I did read that some B17s were fitted with more armour and extra guns, their purpose being to fly with the bomber stream and provide extra protection. However it was found they had difficulty in keeping up due to the extra weight and the idea was abandoned.
I have seen a photo of a Wellington where the entire rear gunner's position was shot away along with most of the fin and it still made it back to base.
In one of my books there is an account by a 109 pilot who, with another plane, made several runs at an IL2 and noted how their bullets were just bouncing off.
Look up YB-40.
USAAF Col. Neal Kirby, a famous P-47 Thunderbolt ace in the Pacific War, was shot down and killed by a Japanese Ki-43. I often wondered, "HOW ON EARTH DID THAT HAPPEN!?" This video explains how something like that could happen and was helpful. Good job Bismarck, wonderful video. :)
I always thought of it as it being a case of making a plane with a large volume is good because it means there are more places that can be hit without seriously cripling the plane. The B-17 had a lot of empty spaces (compared to other aircraft) which weren't critical so it could take a beating.
Ah, I remember that from 'A piece of Cake' a novel written about an RAF squadron flying during the phony war, French Campaign & the early part of the BOB; 'Skull Skelton' the squadron's Intel officer commented on how the larger German bombers like the HE 111 had lots of empty space; the standard .303 rounds basically poked holes in sheetmetal & rarely caused fatal damage unless they hit something 'important'.
My grandfather actually piloted a Wellington during the Siege of Malta, and he attested to the strength of the plane's design. The geodesic fuselage of the Wellington meant that enemy fire typically passed harmlessly through its fabric shell without compromising structural integrity (AND without sending shrapnel bouncing around the plane's interior). This also made it easy to repair superficial damage, as you could practically just tape over the holes.
The design was also so study that - even if noticeable chunks of fuselage were blown away - the rest of the airframe would still usually hold together. The greatest risk to the aircraft was the canvas shell catching fire. No-one wants to be 10,000ft in the air when one's aircraft has been reduced to a flaming skeleton. I believe the Wellington shown in the video had suffered fire damage, which is why the aircraft's shell is so tattered while the frame is intact.
Study though they were, Wellingtons were terrifying to fly, as the crew mostly had little more than fabric between themselves and enemy fire. My grandfather lost his fair share of comrades this way.
As in all cases, the easiest way to survive being shot at is to not get hit in the first place. The second easiest way is to be a tough enough son of a mother that you can just carry on in spite of your injury. This is the design philosophy which WW2 aircraft adhere to most strongly.
I spoke to an ex RAF fireman who worked at a Wellington base at an airshow a few years ago- He told me that they called them 'Widowmakers' because when they force landed it was almost impossible to get anyone out
I met a WW2 p-38 lightning pilot. He told a story of when they first installed the armor plates behind the pilots seat the very next mission he felt the plane lurch forward in flight and it had been a bullet that hit the armor plate, it would have killed him
Thanks for the history stuff! Great video!
Ki-43 is Literally a Free Kill NPC, but when it comes to Chase, its like you're having a difficulty of killing a Fly.
People tend to forget that men are the most expensive and irreplaceable weapons, great video man very informative
Bismark i really enjoy your content I hope you do well and your chanel goes far.
BF109 pilots had ground crews retrofit a chunk of thick glass behind the pilots unarmored head, the glass was scrounged from the view ports of disabled Panzers and called it 'Tiger Glass,
I literally just read a book on mathematics and a chapter was devoted to Armor on planes during WW2. It was found that it was impractical of course to put armor everywhere and based on statistics they put armor protecting systems mostly not people. The theory was if the system would survive the airmen would survive.
The P-47 is helped by being one of the heaviest, perhaps the heaviest single engine fighter of WW II. It weighed 10,000 lbs empty, 12, 731 lbs loaded, and 17, 500 lbs maximum take off.
that was a lot better than expected , great job explaining "armored" planes!
very well explained and illustrated- congratulations, well done !
One time I saw a doc about a TunderBolt pilot that was attached by a FW190 piloted by a Ace ,the reporter who was running the show says the Fokker open fire with 4 20mm ato cannon but didn't get a kill, don't know if I believed that he supposed that he hit his mark but Thunder Bolt kept on flying. After landing the plane hade over 70 holes in hire
Excellent information. Thank you for this post!
When I was younger I worked with a WW2 flying fortress pilot. He told me he sat on 2 flak jackets while flying missions to give some added protection from anti aircraft flak.
An overlay showing just how small a portion of the aircraft the actual critical structural spars and control systems are might do a good job of illustrating why heavy armor over the entire aircraft wasn't really necessary.
In Vietnam there was actually a case where a C-47 was carrying an American high-profile official and the troops decided to armor the plane. The plane crashed at the end of the runway because the armor was too heavy and the people installing it not only had no business doing so but had no idea what they were doing from an aviation perspective.
Aye! Wilhelm Moritz! There is also an armored panel behind his legs, standard on the 190A8/R2 Sturmböcks.
The Mosquito Tsetse had almost half a ton of armour around the engines, nose and under the cockpit. Pretty impressive for a -small fighter bomber- ....flying anti-tank gun
Makes sense, as the crew and especially the pilots are the most valuable and important thing in the whole plane. A few holes in the radiator aren't an immediate problem, the plane might even continue operation for a short time. A few holes in the tank are only a drama when the plane is a long way from friendly landable ground or if there's a chance that the fuel will catch fire. But a few holes in the pilot usually mean the plane is lost (there's a story about a Japanese pilot who got shot and managed to fly back and land despite slipping out of conciousness several times due to the blood loss, but he's the exception, not the rule). And of course pilots are harder to replace. There are ways to lower production times or volumes for planes, but there aren't many ways to lower "production time" for pilots without lowering your standards.
I really enjoy those aircraft graphics like the b17 one. I don't think I've anything like this in a video format before. Kind of suprising because it is great for visualizing, in this case, ie. how little armour the plane had.
Fascinating as always. I cannot help but think of those poor guys in the Great War.... especially when strafing. Or the film Flight of the Intruder... that golden BB! And how much armour does a JSF jock get? Hmm.
I did fall in love with your videos and your wisdom .... All the best mate.
The Ki-43 was an Army plane, a better comparison would have been with a Navy plane. And remember that there were different versions even of the Zero. It was the Navy, not the Army, that did everything possible to reduce weight to gain greater range.
And I've read that armor was added to Wildcats in the early days of the war in the field. Though just behind the pilot, like you say.
I might add that little, at the time, could withstand 50 BMG rounds. They always were meant
as anti-armor ammo. Even today they are still quite relevant in war. THAT is why zeros were blasted out of the sky and their lack of self-sealing tanks only helped that happen by immediately catching fire and often exploding.
I love this video, I suggested the Bugatti p100 as a WT plane. Whether or not its a good fit is regardless. The reason some gave as a reason not to add was that it had no armor.. And I was just thinking "yeah no crap, that's pretty much all fighters in ww2" some people just have little practical experience is all I can chalk it up to..
Part of the "ruggedness" of the thunderbolt has to do with its radial engine compared to the inline engines of p51, spitfire, etc, that required water cooling. As soon as the water cooling stopped (taken hits from enemy) the engine overheated and stopped working. Not to mention the fact that a radial engine can have multiple pistons non functioning from damage and still make it home, where that is mostly not the case with inline engines.
One thing that people need to remember about aircraft is they need to be able to fly with a payload. If you increase its density with armour, it will be cumbersome, or may not even get off the ground. Maneuverability and skill keep pilots alive.
I really enjoy your postings-particularly those that 'explain" some accepted "fact".
Unfortunately the verbal messages are not always clear. The speaker is too fast, particularly for us old guys. Also a bit more cadence would help and the last few words in a sentence are often critical but can be decipherable if the commentator drops the volume of his voice and if at the same time speaks faster AT THE END OF A SENTENCE. These comments apply here.
Most of us are listening on a computer. I bought $100 Bose speakers which give a beautiful result with many of these computer postings but not if the original recording is poor in quality, volume and speed of speaking .
Your material is often excellent and perhaps you could consider rerecording some of these.
Please keep up the good work.
Another brilliant video. Thank you.
These are really really high quality videos - Keep it up!
Late in the war explosive cannon shells potentially made armour detrimental. Often canvas wouldn't trigger the explosive but you bet hitting 10mm of armour would trigger it sending shrapnel through everything, just as the shell was meant to do.
3:14 The plane on the top is not a P-47, but a F3F or F4F, which is a naval fighter from the same time. Still a very excellent video, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Edit: changed word "left" to "top".
Nice vid... thanks for all the work you did.
Hay Bismarck I love your new back drop, also great video