Hawker Hurricane Armour/Protection

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I think it's pretty much inevitable that if the current Il-2 can keep going, that we are going to see a Hurricane at some Point, be it in Burma or Russia, I want some in depth Information about it's Protection Details, wether it be Standard or Add-On Armor, Glass etc. I've been Googling but I can't find anything tangible.

[Finkeren]

Don't have the details you're looking for, but IIRC the Hurricane entered production with no armour protection at all but quickly introduced the basic pilot protection that became standard in most fighters og the day (armored seat, backrest and windscreen)based on early combat experiences in 1939-40.

[unreasonable]

http://picclick.co.uk/WWII-Battle-of-Britain-Hawker-Hurricane-Armour-Plate-322276402509.html

 

Only a mounting bracket, unfortunately.

 

 

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-ar.html

 

A little about it here too, but may not be specific enough for you.

Edited January 27, 2017 by unreasonable

[Dakpilot]

On Eastern front Russians had their own way of increasing protection 

 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Dak, that photo of the Hurri converted to an artillery spotter/recce aircraft pretty much sums up the way the VVS felt about the Hurricane, and all it was good for in their eyes.

[EAF19_Marsh]

As a side note, there is a long debate about the degree to which the front tanks vs the wing tanks were more vulnerable / contrived to pilot burns injuries.

 

Dak, that photo of the Hurri converted to an artillery spotter/recce aircraft pretty much sums up the way the VVS felt about the Hurricane, and all it was good for in their eyes

 

 

 

Poor Hurri; it was not the latest and greatest 1941-42 but it had its uses when the VVS were up against it. Nor sure if Soviet POL played any part in degrading its performance.

[unreasonable]

Dak, that photo of the Hurri converted to an artillery spotter/recce aircraft pretty much sums up the way the VVS felt about the Hurricane, and all it was good for in their eyes.

 

Beggars can't be choosers. 

 

Actually it also made a decent night-fighter for various reasons, although that was PVO rather than VVS.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Not defending the VVS here, just stating that they didn't like the Hurricane.

 

They didn't like the Spitfire or the P47 either.

 

No accounting for taste I guess.

 

[Trooper117]

There was more than one soviet ace that said that the most important component in successful air combat was radio communications.

Couple that with good use of radio procedure, also the need for brevity whilst using it.

 

Now, what did the Hurricane have at a time when most Russian aircraft did not?...  Not all Russians had a dislike for the Hurricane. It was praised for it's ability to withstand quite a bit of punishment, and also it had a radio.

[unreasonable]

It was also easy to turn-fight in; just as well since it cannot do anything else; since it gave plenty of notice of the stall, unlike Soviet designs. Quite a useful attribute given the very low quality of training of most Soviet pilots. 

[Ace_Pilto]

The introduction of back armour happened during the Battle of France when some pilots thought it would be smart to grab some armour plating from a crashed Dornier and have it jury rigged into place behind the seat. It was pooh poohed by command because command is filled with chairborne know it alls who belong in academic forums and not positions of responsibility where practical ramifications put actual lives at risk. After an RAF pilot flew his modified Hurricane to their HQ and did a low level beat up that demonstrated no adverse effects on the aircraft they reluctantly approved the practice of introducing slabs of bullet stopping metal to protect the pilots.

 

(I think Cobber Kain had something to do with the process if memory serves, ironically he was later killed doing a low level beat up. Lest we Forget)

 

After that I can only imagine that the process was standardised when Fighter Command made the astounding discovery that pilots perform better when not riddled with bullets. As to the actual dimensions and specifications of the armour, I believe it was variable and detachable. It would have been difficult, at that stage, to adjust the manufacturing procedure to include armour instantaneously so brackets that allowed the retrofitting of armour to aircraft in the field would need to have been added. Lated Mk's would of course have had it included as standard along with cup holders, DVD players and bobble head figurines of Hermann Goering.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Ace_Pilto

[unreasonable]

" bobble head figurines of Hermann Goering."

 

Now that would be something worth unlocking....

[Trooper117]

After that I can only imagine that the process was standardised when Fighter Command made the astounding discovery that pilots perform better when not riddled with bullets. 

 

 

Wiping coffee off my laptop screen   

[DD_Arthur]

As a side note, there is a long debate about the degree to which the front tanks vs the wing tanks were more vulnerable / contrived to pilot burns injuries.

 

I've read an account recently from an ex-RAF Hurricane pilot that the main problem was not the vulnerability of the gravity tank 'twixt engine and cockpit but the wing tanks.  There were no bulkheads or divisions fitted between the cockpit flooring and the wings where they join the fuselage. 

 

If the wing tanks were hit and caught fire = instant blowtorch up into the cockpit from the floor.  Nasty.

Edited January 27, 2017 by DD_Arthur

[Ace_Pilto]

On a side note I'd speculate that armour was retrofitted in a lot of cases, especially concerning aircraft operating in the Mediterranean and North Africa where, oftentimes, these aircraft had to be ferried to the front over long distances or by carrier and flown out from extreme range. The obvious weight penalty would make having a heavy chunk of steel that is doing nothing particularly useful for the entire flight a liability. 

 

Pure speculation though but I would consider it to be a "modification" more than a "floor model feature" in many instances. I might take a gander at my little library though and see if I can find some more specific references.

 

Edit: Couldn't find my "Big Book of Hawker Hurricane Factoids" unfortunately. I must have given it away.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Ace_Pilto

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

On a side note I'd speculate that armour was retrofitted in a lot of cases, especially concerning aircraft operating in the Mediterranean and North Africa where, oftentimes, these aircraft had to be ferried to the front over long distances or by carrier and flown out from extreme range. The obvious weight penalty would make having a heavy chunk of steel that is doing nothing particularly useful for the entire flight a liability. 

 

Pure speculation though but I would consider it to be a "modification" more than a "floor model feature" in many instances. I might take a gander at my little library though and see if I can find some more specific references.

 

Edit: Couldn't find my "Big Book of Hawker Hurricane Factoids" unfortunately. I must have given it away.

I'm most interested in how well Protected they were against Fighters as well as Ground Fire, so: Seat, Cockpit Floor, Head, Glass (Thickness?) Radiators, Wing Ammunition etc.

[Ace_Pilto]

I'm most interested in how well Protected they were against Fighters as well as Ground Fire, so: Seat, Cockpit Floor, Head, Glass (Thickness?) Radiators, Wing Ammunition etc.

I don't think this kind of thing happened from a production standpoint until the Hurricane IV which was a dedicated ground attack variant. 

 

Here's a book you might like to scan through: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_HY7CQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

And another from the Russian perspective: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=nOO6CwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edited January 27, 2017 by Ace_Pilto

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I don't think this kind of thing happened from a production standpoint until the Hurricane IV which was a dedicated ground attack variant. 

 

Here's a book you might like to scan through: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_HY7CQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

And another from the Russian perspective: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=nOO6CwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bookmarked. Thx. 

[unreasonable]

I don't think this kind of thing happened from a production standpoint until the Hurricane IV which was a dedicated ground attack variant.

 

That seems incredibly unlikely: by the BoB I expect rear armour for the pilot and a bullet proof(ish) screen were standard production items - this was nearly a year after the BoF, and it is not really that difficult to produce them as standard once the decision that armour is "a good thing" has been made. 

 

I know the gears of British bureaucracy grind slowly, but they were not that bad. (A great deal better than those of the Germans, for the most part).

[Ace_Pilto]

Several industrial factors come into play.

 

It was apparent early on that the Hurricane was an inadequate fighter and not worthy of much investment. It was also earmarked for export. Britain was also experiencing a material shortage. 

 

It's speculation on my part but, economically the incentives to significantly up-armour the Hurricane don't exist, the RAF had resolved its manpower shortage via the Empire Air Scheme, what they needed was production capacity. The Air Ministry was looking for alternative designs and mechanics in the field were capable of providing basic armour protection. I doubt the Air Ministry would allow expensive modifications to be made to an what was essentially an export fighter and a domestic stop-gap when Hawker and other designers were already better employed working on the future replacements for this aircraft.

 

The Russian account I posted mentions that Hurricanes were "Inadequately armoured", suggesting that no great provision was made to improve the armour protection of the aircraft and its' mediocre performance also implies a reluctance on the part of any sensible designer to further weigh it down.

 

Pure speculation though, take it as you will.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Ace_Pilto

[unreasonable]

It is difficult to get the facts online, but AFAIK by the BoB all Fighter Command aircraft had armour plate behind the seat and an armoured glass windscreen. 

 

It is much easier to do this as part of the production run than as field modifications. Britain did not have materials shortages in WW2 (except for food, after the US cut off lend lease at the end of the war and rations had to be cut sharply). It had both the merchant marine to import them and, at that time (BoB) the credit to buy whatever it needed.  Both steel plate and glass were manufactured domestically. What the UK lacked was manufacturing capacity in aircraft and vehicles in particular, hence the huge US orders. But small steel plates and glass panels are trivial compared to, for instance, battleships, which the UK was still building.

 

I find it highly unlikely that the BoB era protections were not fitted in factory as standard. This is far more efficient than shipping the parts to squadrons and expecting the ground crew to do it.

 

As per the Russian experience: "inadequately armoured" for what? What you need for ground attack is different from what would serve if you are an interceptor attacking bombers, which is what the Hurricane was originally designed to do.

 

I agree this is speculation - perhaps someone can find a definitive source.

[Ace_Pilto]

You know that volunteers were going around begging for pots, pans and other scrap metal in 1940 right? This is indicative of a material shortage, not a desire to amass a collection of interesting kitchenware. They had an entire armed forces to equip, they had no tanks worth a tinker's cuss. Every resource is precious in wartime and every delay costs lives.

 

As for Inadequately armoured, what did they use the damn thing for? It was inadequately armoured for their purposes.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Ace_Pilto

[unreasonable]

You know that volunteers were going around begging for pots, pans and other scrap metal in 1940 right? This is indicative of a material shortage, not a desire to amass a collection of interesting kitchenware. They had an entire armed forces to equip, they had no tanks worth a tinker's cuss. Every resource is precious in wartime and every delay costs lives.

 

As for Inadequately armoured, what did they use the damn thing for? It was inadequately armoured for their purposes.

 

Actually, almost all of the materials raised from these kinds of drives had to be quietly disposed of, since it was not practical to recycle waste aluminium into aircraft grade metal at a sensible cost with the technology available at the time. It was not even necessary to discourage civilian consumption of these materials since production of them was controlled by the state, not by market forces, as soon as the war started.

 

Same with the famous cutting down of the railings around the London parks - the north of the UK is virtually made of iron, there was no need to do this, it was purely a propaganda effort to drive home to the people that this was for real. The railings were dumped in the sea or used as ballast. The idea that a few thousand small steel plates would represent any kind of material problem is, frankly, absurd.

 

There might have been a couple of occasions where production of some military equipment in the UK was constrained by materials shortages, but these were rare and temporary, since the UK had the means to get access to materials from all over the world. Their case was quite different from that of the Germans, blockaded on a resource poor continent. UK production was constrained by issues like outdated plant and infrastructure, skilled labour shortages, uneducated industrial management and bolshie unions.

 

 OT but related: much the same is true of War Bond sales drives - they do not actually "raise money", unless people pay for them in gold, and they could not since they were generally forbidden to own any. Instead what they did was withdraw liquid purchasing power from the civilian economy in order to reduce inflationary pressures as civilian production was scaled back by decree, while simultaneously acting as a propaganda campaign.

Edited January 28, 2017 by unreasonable

[Trooper117]

The 'pots and pans' collection was more for the civilian population to make them believe they were helping the war effort, and of course for moral reasons.

It was believed that these mountains of stock pilled pans etc stood idle for years as they were made of the wrong kind of metals for war needs...

 

I think I read this in 'The Most Dangerous Enemy' or one of my other WWII books.

[Ace_Pilto]

Did they give them back? Some of that kitchenware could be valuable antiques.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

happened during the Battle of France when some pilots thought it would be smart to grab some armour plating from a crashed Dornier and have it jury rigged into place behind the seat.

I heard they used a armorplate from a fairly Battle

But anyway the reason for it not being added was  a assumption that a amor plate would change the centre of gravity and there for it was dismissed . So Crane sent one pilot with the fitted armorplate to prove that the performance was not suffering in a noticeable degree