Author Topic: Armor Plate and Glass On U.S. Rides (Read 708 times)

Stoney74 · « **on:** March 21, 2007, 09:09:32 AM »

How effective was the plating and glass, i.e. what was the specification for it. I know the thicknesses but I can't seem to find the specification. I'm just curious as I got pilot wounded in a P-47 the other night from a Ju-88 7mm round from behind me. I know it annecdotal, but Robert Johnson survived a 190 unloading 7mm into his jug for example, by the armor plate.

bozon · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2007, 10:20:38 AM »

you weren't hit by the JU88.
There was a second shooter in the grassy knoll.

TimRas · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2007, 12:58:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bozon
There was a second shooter in the grassy knoll.

If you don't have anything to say, guess what, you don't have to say anything.
The question was good, was the protection levels of the aircraft usually specified in any way ( by the BuAer, Air Ministry, RLM etc.), or was it left to designer ?

Puck · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2007, 01:33:41 PM »

It was left ENTIRELY to HiTech, which is the disconnect between USAAF protection specs in a P47 and getting a pilot wound from a Ju88.

Having said that, even out in the wild pilots got wounded from rounds that bypassed the armor. It's all about angle, not whether or not the aircraft is "behind me". Robert Johnson was something BEYOND lucky. You know about that incident because it was so remarkable, and you didn't see TWO fighters that shot up come home.

Back to the topic at hand, that is an EXCELLENT question, and the answer would be interesting. It makes you wonder if the "bullet proof glass" specs were even remotely similar between countries; pretty much everyone put armored glass in cockpits.

I have anecdotal evidence that the panels were supposed to stop three or five rounds before they started to fail. In bomber turrets the glass armor was attached by pins that could be removed and the glass slid out of the way if it became so fractured you could not gun through it. The source of this information was not enthusiastic about removing that layer of protection after it has already saved his hide.

Krusty · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2007, 01:41:31 PM »

Only the front panel of the glass was armored. The rest was simply perseplex. The big metal plate behind you was the protection from the rear.

The real question is: Does head position get factored into whether a bullet hits you or not? Like if you're looking around the armor to track the bomber and you get a PW, is that because you were leaning over? Would it have happened if you'd left yourself in the default position?

I've had some direct-six pilot wounds that went through armor. You have to remember that even the .303s and 7mm rounds would still pass through armor during the BOB. It stopped a lot of them, but not all. I'm guessing that small number (5%? 10%??) is what gave you the PW.

bozon · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2007, 01:43:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TimRas
If you don't have anything to say, guess what, you don't have to say anything.

Actually, I did have something to say that related to the "magical bullet" debate. The bullet doesn't have to penetrate the armor to hit you. They ricochet or you can be hit by debris. If a cannon round shot from behind hits the wing root, the cockpit can still be hit by shrapnels. Extreme "magical bullet" scenario would be a bullet shot from behind, hits the front armored glass and ricochet back to the pilot's face.

I have no idea how AH handles this. In the mossie you seem to be prone to pilot wounds. Maybe the total area of cockpit has something to do with it.

Johnson was actually (lightly) wounded by the bullets.

Stoney74 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2007, 09:02:40 PM »

[The P-47 (and P-51 for that matter) POH shows the firewall between engine and cockpit, the flat front canopy glass, and the plate behind the seat as the armor protection for the pilot. I know enough about armor plating and sustained MG fire against it to know that its not a panacea. So, again, I'm just curious as to what the spec was. I know there was a spec because the U.S. government purchased the plane, and they spec everything they buy--even the type of **** paper that goes in an M.R.E.

It should say something like "armor plating installed shall be capable of withstanding...", "armored glass shall be capable of withstanding...". Then the USAAC and USN would have tested it in some manner to ensure it met specification.

Again, since it's the U.S. government, the testing would have been written in a 487 page, single spaced document, with a one paragraph summary at the top that stated everything that mattered.

Krusty · « **Reply #7 on:** March 21, 2007, 11:43:25 PM »

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't have that answer for you.

Stoney74 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 21, 2007, 11:48:33 PM »

And, for those of you keeping score at home...

Firewall and Rear Fuselage plates were 3/8th's inch thick hardened face steel. Glass was 1 1/2 inch thick "bulletproof" glass.

Murdr · « **Reply #9 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:45:41 AM »

I dont think the damage model is quite specific enough for testing hit/miss armor and penetrate/not penetrate armor. I'd be interested in finding out if this were the case.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #10 on:** March 23, 2007, 02:50:34 PM »

I can't give you a source, I'm afraid, but I've seen a U.S. document stating that the armor in some fighter would stop .303 and under. While I am sure that it could often stop larger bullets (including the remains of twenty millimeter cannon which had detonated against the skin of the airplane), I don't think it was guaranteed against it.

Stoney74 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 23, 2007, 08:03:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Benny Moore
I can't give you a source, I'm afraid, but I've seen a U.S. document stating that the armor in some fighter would stop .303 and under. While I am sure that it could often stop larger bullets (including the remains of twenty millimeter cannon which had detonated against the skin of the airplane), I don't think it was guaranteed against it.

I'd say that's pretty consistent with my expectations. As long as it was fragments, I'd say they'd be caught as well. Don't think direct hits would have much trouble penetrating, but then a direct hit against the plate (other than the glass) would be pretty rare.