In my case, I think it probably has to do with the fact that they’re flying in the air, and they need to be as lightweight as humanly possible in order to fly high and better, and that adding armor just weighs them down. Tanks, on the other hand, are ground vehicles, so they’re not as encumbered by their own armor as warplanes and whatever armor they could have equipped themselves with.
Right?
In: Engineering
There were some planes that had armor, but for most planes speed is life and the armor isn’t helpful against dedicated fighters. If a fighter with 4 20mm cannons, or one with a 37mm or bigger gets on your tail and you can’t shake them then it doesn’t particularly matter how much armor you have, you’re going to lose so its more important to be able to get away from the enemy fighter than to take the hits. Ground attack planes are generally armored because they’re going to make a quick swing through enemy fire and then be out of it, they just need to last for their strafing run, not through sustained fire that’s chasing them
Tanks are slow with a slow fire rate. Evasion isn’t particularly feasible when 100 tanks have to roll across a field into enemy fire so you want the front to be able to take the hit, but even on tanks there are limits to how much armor you can put on it and still have a good tank. Tanks are usually fairly lightly armored on top and in the rear with a decent reduction in armor on the sides. The thickest parts of the armor are going to be the mantle(the big part around the cannon), the front of the turret, and the front glacis plate(the pointy front end) as these are the most likely places for the tank to get hit, but its still only feasible to armor those points against most, but not all threats.
Latest Answers