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
You’ve pretty much answered your own question, yes. A lighter plane could fly better than a heavy one.
Another thing to consider is fuel and ammo. The lighter a plane, the more fuel and ammo they could carry, and thus the longer they could stay in the air and fight. Airstrips were often not that close to the battlefields, so the plane had to use a good amount of fuel to get there and back. Planes would be somewhat useless if they were so heavy, that they could only engage in combat for a couple of minutes, then turn back. Or, they only had enough ammo to shoot for a few seconds.
It is much easier to refuel and resupply a tank during combat. If a tank ran out of fuel, it could still shoot and provide cover, and at least draw fire from the enemy. Also, a plane that runs out of fuel crashes. A tank that runs out of fuel only become a better target, but isn’t guaranteed destruction. All it would take is a truck to come up to the tank in the fuel to refuel it and re-arm it, and now they are good to go again.
Latest Answers