Originally posted by Charge
I find strange the alledged lack of armour and the armourless fuel tank?
I think I have a very simple explanation for this, which I already told to George who supplied this report and he liked the explanation quite a bit.
If you look at the serial no. of this G-14, you will notice it`s from the same 41x xxx series block as the G-6/U2 the Brits also caputured. Now the /u2 suffix means it`s a factory mod for GM-1 carrying, ie. it was intended as a special high alt variant. Quite often those ones were lightened quite a bit, removing the heavier s-s tank and putting a light alloy fuel tank in it`s place. Not sure about, but perhaps the rear armor plates were removed as well. Since these fighters were supposed to do task like intercepting high flying bombers, or unarmed FRs, the armor wasn`t a neccesity, just a burden. So what I think this early G-14 was a conversion from an older G-6/U2, which was easy as those already had the piping, and an easily convertable rear tank for the MW50. The 'lightened' tank and removed? armor was kept, probably. Of course newly built G-14s would have a normal level of armor, as described below.
What was the standard armour on these machines after all? There is the layered thick duraluminum bulkhead between pilot and fuel tank but despite that?
[/B]
If you mean the standard fighter G-14, not these hybrid expceptions, it was 90mm built-in armor glass on the windshield, a 60mm armored glass in the headrest enclosed in a 10mm steel frame, a 8mm back armor plate behind the dural/wood pilot seat, and 4mm armor seat starting under the butt-level of the pilot reaching until the cocpit floor.
The 25mm multi-layer dural plate that was further behind and protecting the fuel tank (and the pilot as well of course) was removed on the MW50 carrying 109s, to make space for the 115 liter MW tank. However, I guess the MW tank itself provided a considerable level of protection, especially vs. incendinary rounds, being quite large in itself, and filled with water mixture which would slow down bullets just like fuel tanks, a bit better in fact, since water was more dense. I wonder how it related to the 25mm layer itself in protection value(which, as per reports, could provide complete immunity for the fuel tank itself from .303 fire, and a rather safe protection to the pilot from .50cal AP, as it had to pass the bulkhead, the fuel tank itself, the pilot`s 8mm armor, the pilot seat, plus whatever got in the way in the fusalage itself). .
So I think we can say a 109 pilot was protected against enemy shots well above the avarage fighter protection level.
AFAIK the fuel tank had a rubber sack inside the aluminum cover so when the fuel was drained there was not dangerous space left for air which would have made a single hit of incendiary lethal. So those fuel tanks were not usually armoured at all but considered as armour themselves. Can anyone confirm?
[/B]
IIRC the 109`s self sealing tank was a large piece of rubber, and was kept from bulging out by a plywood filling between it and fuselage. Putting metal near the fuel tank is generally a bad idea, `cos even richocheting hits from metal can create sparks and ignite fuel fumes..
