Japanese Armor

[Stormdag]

I thought Japanese planes had no armor and were easily dispatched with a good shot. . . yet recently I noticed the KIs seem to acquire a good amount of damage and still fly home.  Has anyone else notice this?   

[Soulyss]

The Ki-61 had armor behind the pilot and self sealing fuel tanks.

[Lusche]

I thought Japanese planes had no armor

This was true mostly for early war planes only. Even A6M's were later on upgraded with self-sealing fuel tanks and armor, other designs incorporated such features from the start.

[Karnak]

The N1K and Ki-84 have protection that is comparable to other aircraft in their class.  Japanese self sealing tanks weren't as effective as American ones, but they still had them.

The only completely unarmored Japanese aircraft in AH are the A6M2, B5N2 and D3A1.  The A6M5b only has an armored windscreen, so it is essentially unarmored.  The Ki-61, Ki-67, Ki-84 and N1K2-J have self sealing tanks and pilot armor.

When we get the Ki-43 it will be unarmored, or mostly so.  The G4M 'Betty' will also be unprotected unless, highly unlikely, we get the G4M3 version which was fully protected.

[Stormdag]

Thanks for the info guys!

[Kweassa]

 Actually, when one considers the word "armour" in terms of overall protection to the plane, and not just specific parts, no WW2 plane ever had any real armour in the first place. A sheet of thin metal was the only thing between inside and out - and no exceptions to this, whether be it US planes or JP planes.

[cattb]

p-40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40

[Karnak]

Spitfires, Hurricanes and Bf109s were just getting a bit of armor as the Battle of France ended.  The Japanese were not that far behind putting armor on their fighters in terms of time, it was just that the events that happened during that lag period were so significant.

p-40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40

You should add some comments to your link as it has no context.

Are you saying it had more armor than Kweassa said, or are you pointing out that the Flying Tigers never fought Zeros, or are you supporting Kweassa's comments about aircraft armor in WWII, or are you trying to make a different point altogether?

[cattb]

the comment on thin  metal, the p-40 had amour around engine, cockpit...was known to go at japenese fighters head on in a fight coz of the damage they could take.
I was once reading a real life pilot tell of his experience of flying p-40 (reading many years ago)..he had a japenese plane diving at him, it wasn't a zero don't remember what it was, and earlier in ther war. the pilot knowing of his avantage in armour and his positon he was in with the plane diving at him he went nose up and went head on and fired (HO)..he won the fight. The planed vibrated and shook as he flew back, after landing, through inspection found many bullets stuck in his prop.(made the prop imbalanced)
thin metal makes me think of sheet metal.

[Karnak]

I'd have to see the armor diagram, but I would bet it has the pretty much same engine armor a Spitfire Mk IX does, just the area behind the spinner.  If you did armor it like you are describing, it would be meat on the table for any other fighter due to the performance hit it would take with all the extra weight.

Very few WWII aircraft had more than a bit in front of the engine, armored glass, behind and below the pilot, self sealing tanks and perhaps a plate or two elsewhere.  Spitfires had a plate on the leading edge of the cannon ammo box for example.

The thin metal that Kweassa was talking about is the aluminum skin, which even on the Il-2 is all that there is for most parts of the aircraft.


Going head to head with Japanese fighters happened for a number of reasons, not all of them true for the entire war.