Because I frequently look up military aircraft a lot on Wikipedia, and time and time again, I keep hearing how bombers are slower and less maneuverable than either fighters, attackers, or multirole aircraft. So does that mean that bombers are more heavily armored than the other three types of military aircraft? If not, and armor just weighs down *any* plane, why are bombers the largest, slowest, and leave maneuverable of the military aircraft, anyway?
In: 258
Most planes are unarmored these days due to relying on speed and altitude. In WW2, armoring certain areas on planes was fairly common. Planes were never armored like you’d imagine a tank or ship being armored though. Typically it was just a relatively thin plate of armor protecting either the pilot or the engine. They typically also wouldn’t stop much beyond a rifle-caliber bullet.
The Soviet IL-2 was one of, if not the first plane to feature an armored “tub” to protect the pilot from ground fire. This is now famous for being a feature on the A-10 today.
Typically however the main reason bombers are so much less fast or maneuverable is due to the bomb load itself, and the increased fuel needed for higher ranges and to feed an increased number of engines. Armor plays little into that.
Latest Answers