Spitfire seat armor

[Chuck1945]

At least in 1/72, most kits of early Spitfires omit the armor behind the pilot's seat. I know the earliest Spitfire Is didn't have the armor, but it began being used in 1940 (I think it was 1940 and not late '39). Anyway, the Airfix Spit I, in common with others, is missing this armor and I am building one from around June-July 1940. I am assuming the armor should be there, correct?

[Miggers]

I think you're right Chuck.

All I can find on the subject(after a quick look) is that early in the war the value of some armour was recognised.

The aircraft had 73lbs of armour plate behind seat to give some protection,the 3mm thick light alloy fuel tank cover ahead

of the cockpit and the famous "bullet-proof" windscreen.

The screen and thicker light alloy fuel tank cover were fitted before the armour plate.

IIRC,Bob Tuck's book (Fly for Your Life)mentions having the armour plate fitted by a gang of workmen(obviously either

RAF or Supermarine's fitters,not some navvies off the streets)either just before or very early on in the B of B actually

out on the dispersals.

You could do with Edgar or gingerbob appearing and giving you the the dates of the A.P mod numbers and when the

timeframe was to be for it to be retro-fitted to Squadron aircraft.

Mark.

[Edgar]

Spitfires had headrest armour from around February, 1940, but no Spitfire had armour behind the seat before May of that year. When the first 150 sets became available, orders were issued that 11 Group airfields were to be given priority, with 12 Group being offered what was left. Armour caused problems with the CofG, for instance Hurricanes with wooden props couldn't have it, and it led to the deletion of one of the flare tubes in the Spitfire. Add in the IFF Mk.II, and the Spitfire lost the remaining tube.

Edgar

P.S. Regarding the perceived value of the armour, I have a pre-BoB statement, by Sholto-Douglas, who said that, because the Spitfire was the fastest thing in the air, nothing could get behind it, so armour wasn't necessary. How's that for complacency?

[Chuck1945]

... P.S. Regarding the perceived value of the armour, I have a pre-BoB statement, by Sholto-Douglas, who said that, because the Spitfire was the fastest thing in the air, nothing could get behind it, so armour wasn't necessary. How's that for complacency?

Obviously Sholto-Douglas had not been in a Spitfire (or Hurricane) being shot at by a 109. That no doubt would have changed his tune.

[Fernando]

Besides, there is a report from Malaya stating that a Hurricane pilot KIA would have survived, though actually shot down, had he simply flied in a straight line instead of trying to shake off his pursuer by turning, because he would have been protected by the armor. From Bloody Shambles. I can search the details if someone is interested.

Fernando

[Edgar]

During the debate over the "C" v "E" wing armament, there was a strong body of opinion that 4 x .303" Brownings, pumping out more lead, and faster, than 2 x .5" gave a better chance of disabling the enemy pilot, on a deflection shot.

Edgar

[Miggers]

During the debate over the "C" v "E" wing armament, there was a strong body of opinion that 4 x .303" Brownings, pumping out more lead, and faster, than 2 x .5" gave a better chance of disabling the enemy pilot, on a deflection shot.

Edgar

It's a cert,you'd need to be much more accurate with the .50's than with the .303's.

Mark

[3DStewart]

It's a cert,you'd need to be much more accurate with the .50's than with the .303's.

Mark

Except that the .50s had a greater range, were considerably more destructive and would punch through all but the heaviest (by aircraft standards) armour plate.

Time and time again experience showed that bigger calibre guns were they way to go.

[Edgar]

Not strictly true; 17-1-43 the Air Ministry found, after extensive trials against an He.111 and Me.109F "which confirmed the earlier decision that the .5 had no pronounced advantage over the .303 and in view of the extra weight of the former (80 lbs) there was no justification for making the change."

Another, earlier, finding (8-6-42)was "An assessment of the results of extensive firing trials indicated that the 4 x .303 secondary armament was at least as good as the 2 x .5 since the .5 was comparitively ineffective in attacks made from directly astern and at larger deflection angles was not much superior to .303." I take the bit, which I've italicised, to mean that the .5" couldn't necessarily go through the standard armour, not just the heaviest.

This debate rumbled on, until November 1943, when the Air Ministry finally conceded that the .5" was now better than the .303", but only because of the greatly improved sighting accuracy available from the new gyro gun sight, which rather confirms what Mark said, I think.

Edgar

Edited December 17, 2010 by Edgar