Talk:Fulmar/@comment-5046483-20170811001945/@comment-14.192.214.111-20170904191657

just as a note, WW2 aircraft do not in general have any armour on the surface.

if one checks the schematic of Bf 109, 110, Spitfire, or the american's Mustang, Thunderbolt, Hellcat etc and try to find their armor placement you'll find that they have armour in one place...

yes ONE place only...

that being the seat the pilot is on.

They also usually place an armored glass on the front (not anywhere else) to give a chance to stop bullet (not cannon shells) from direct front engagement but that's it.

WW2 aircraft with some exception (such as IL-2 which is ACTUALLY armored on the surface though even they only cover most critical parts, as well as some of the ground attack aircraft) generally only have armor so small they are concentrated to protect the pilot and it makes sense because aircraft, especially fighters... CANNOT afford to carry armor in any kind of significant amount due to prohibitive weight. So they placed the minimum armor possible to protect the most important part on a plane... ie: the pilot and ONLY from the most likely direction of attack (which is usually from the back)

the rest of the aircraft surface (including the engine) has ZERO armor whatsoever.

The main reason why some WW2 aircraft are very durable especially to rifle caliber MG is more to do with their secondary safety features and structural integrity (as well as how likely their engine are to fail when it sustain damage) and NOT because they have some sort of armor protecting them because their armor only protects the pilot, and NOTHING else.