Boulton Paul Defiant

[abeaumont]

Gentlemen...

May someone who was never anything more than a limited ground hugging pongo please ask a question of you....

In relation to the Boulton Paul Defiant of years past.

It could rotate its turret fully forward, putting its four guns either side of the pilots canopy, with the pilot able to fire the guns. But with the guns unable to fire directly ahead, only at a minimum angle of something like 19 degrees above horizontal and with no gunsight for the pilot, I wonder if it was a practical proposition to use it as a fighter, given that it had no other fixed forward firing armament.

I know someone who takes the view that it could operate as a conventional fighter aircraft of the day, and that the real problem it had was that the pilot was over the wing rather than pretty much behind it, so had a big blind spot beneath. I would have thought rolling the aircraft would have helped, and with the turret gunner providing a second set of eyes able to look in a different direction, located pretty much behind the wing visibility would not be such a problem.

Can anyone offer wise counsel to the ignorant but interested?

[Pontius Navigator]

ab, I don't know anything directly about the Defiant but it was more a bomber destroyer than a fighter. As a fighter it lack the svelte shape of the single engine fighters of the day and was thus slower and less manoeuvrable.

As for the turret gunner, other aircraft had similar gunners but few would have been quite as agile as the Defiant.

The following article would explain things better.

Boulton Paul Defiant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant)

[Buster Hyman]

Decent radar equipped night fighter judging by some articles...

[ORAC]

Schräge Musik (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-uf.html)

[percyprune]

Try getting a copy of Flypast for November, there is an interesting article about the Defiant and 141 Squadron's slaughter in 1940.

The aeroplane was very similar to the Hurricane to look at in the air and it had initial success when attacked from the rear as the attackers thought they were taking on Hurricanes, but the Luftwaffe quickly learned to attack from below and the rear, the guns couldn't bear and the rest is history.

It went on to be a reasonably sucessful night fighter.

The last survivor N1671 is on display at the RAF Museum Hendon.

Brave men giving all in extraordinary days.

[Gainesy]

The rationale was, as Pontius says, to use it as a bomber destroyer, the German fighters not having the range to reach UK from Germany, except perhaps the 110.

Anyone see the flaw in this splendid plan?

[BEagle]

How was the MkII used as a night fighter?

I assume that the AI MkIV was in the back and the gunner turned the turret to the 'Schräge Musik position, completed the intercept, then had to get his night vision back before shooting at the target?

Or was there a repeater display in the front?

Whichever way, it must have been very difficult.

My brother's godfather was a wartime FAA pilot. He once described to me how he nearly flicked out of control in a Defiant whilst trying to land behind a Swordfish at some shore station - it seems the Defiant had quite a high wing loading and wasn't very forgiving at the stall.....:uhoh:

[bakseetblatherer]

Nope, I see no flaw


;)


My 10 minimum characters here :hmm:

[The Equivocator]

Can't claim any experience, but I did speak to a BP Defiant pilot who was on the staff (either Duxford or Hendon) and he had a few types under his belt.

He suggested that the BPD was a pig and that in the limited times he had engaged, he just spent a long time on the other side of the circle trying to shoot upwards!

DOn't believe the hype about it's success at night either...Didn't it get moved into that role because the daylight utility was poor?

[Wader2]

he just spent a long time on the other side of the circle trying to shoot upwards!

DOn't believe the hype about it's success at night either...Didn't it get moved into that role because the daylight utility was poor?

If you read the wikipedia article it will become clear. The circle was a defensive or protective manoeuvre adopted by 264.

At night it was highly effective given we didn't have any other night fighter :}. Once we had the Blenheim and Beaufighter . . . but that is in the same article.

You may recall the other night-fighter was the Hurricane with a Leigh light. Reading recent posts one wonders :)

[angels]

It got moved to nights because it was blatted out of the skies once the Luftwaffe realised it wasn't a Hurri.

The weight of the turret -- as related above -- made it a bugger to fly and slowed it up as well. Seem to recall a problem with it when it came to ditching as well.

The above is as IIRC and does not mean I don't have huge respect for the folk that were given the job of flying them at any time of the day.

[The Equivocator]

Thanks Wader, had missed the link to the Wikipedia article. Confirms that I must have been chatting to one of the ex-drivers at Hendon.

Rather them than me!

[Tiger_mate]

The last survivor N1671 is on display at the RAF Museum Hendon.


Boulton Paul are restoring one in Wolverhampton IIRC. It has been that way for a number of years.

AL1: Its a full size replica, copyright as per photo.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/markansell/bpa/defiant/l70304a.jpg

[cazatou]

BEagle

Are you sure it was a Defiant?

The RN had the Blackburn Roc which was the same concept as the Defiant but based on the Blackburn Skua. It was considerably slower than the Defiant - which is saying something.

[The SSK]

Pardon an idiot posting, but it didn't look that bad an aeroplane (you know the saying) except for that triangular tailplane ...

Second or third Airfix kit I ever constructed ...

[BEagle]

caz, yes. The FAA used the Defiant as a target tug and brother's godfather borrowed one to take him wherever it was he was going.

[Jimmy Macintosh]

Patrick Bishops Fighter Boys, covers it pretty well and sums up the usefullness of the Defiant as limited at the beginning of the war, later on it was useless and I think he deemed it as essentially sending the crews up to get killed

[cazatou]

We should, at least, be grateful that it was the Defiant which was chosen as the standardbearer for this particular aircraft specification. The alternative was the Hawker Hotspur, the selection of which would have had a deletirious effect on Hurricane production and development prior to the Battle of Britain.

[GPMG]

Most reports that I have read state that the Defiant was a dreadful aircraft and only showed early promise whilst the Luftwaffe pilots confused it with the Hurricane and got a 4 gun shock whilst attacking from the rear.

Below is the Gloster entry for the same competition that the Hurricane won. It is a shame that it wasn't picked up at the same time as the Hurri. One thing that I would like to know is.....Did one of the Gloster engineers have a Japanese uncle who worked at Mitsubishi?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Gloster_f5-34.jpg

[cazatou]

GPMG

The aircraft that were chosen all had one thing in common - the Rolls Royce "Merlin" engine. Don't forget it was a case of playing "catch up" after years of appeasement. Different engines for each type would have meant several different supply chains all competing for funds - not to mention the training of specialist Technical Personnel for each type of engine.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Below is the Gloster entry for the same competition that the Hurricane won. What is the engine in that? Looks like a radial..

[Gainesy]

Friday 19 July 1940

Twelve 141Sqn Defiants were moved from West Malling, still under construction, to Hawkinge. They were unused to flying in larger numbers than Section or Flight formations. At 12.23 they were ordered to launch as a Squadron (12 aircraft) but three had engine problems so only nine got off to patrol a line 20nm S of Folkestone.

With no warning from GCI they were bounced from below and behind by ten Bf-109s from II/JG. “Richthofen Geschwader”. A few seconds later another set of 109s hit the breaking formation from 12 high. Four Defiants went down in this pair of attacks, one pilot survived, wounded. Another Defiant was hit and crashed in Dover. Of the four left one crashed in Hawkinge village and of the three that landed, one was struck off charge immediately, being so shot up, this aircraft’s gunner had baled out at some point but was never seen again.


Above notes culled from Francis Mason’s Battle Over Britain

[green granite]

What is the engine in that? Looks like a radial..

F5/34 design was powered by a 840hp Mercury and with this engine reached around 316mph

[cazatou]

GG

That speed is the same as that quoted for the Hurricane Mk 1 equipped with armour plating and carrying full fuel and weapon load.

One must also remember that Gloster was committed in respect of Gauntlets and Gladiators in the UK and Middle East and for Sea Gladiators for the FAA. It was, in fact, a Gauntlet of No 32 Sqn which carried out the first ever intercept controlled by ground radar in November 1937.

[tornadoken]

This design has been traduced because of misuse of the word "fighter". RAF/1930s bought no "fighter" because UK was to rely on the Maginot Line: Luftwaffe Army-support types - He.111/Do.17, transport-derived -would trundle beyond escort range towards Expeditionary RAF bases, to be taken out from below/astern after visual intercept. No GCI, no nightwork, on either side. Payload/endurance was sought: no single-engined type burdened by turret+its gunner could take on a nimble dasher: but Defiant would not meet one, short-range, immured beyond the Rhine.

Hurricane, Spitfire, Whirlwind, Bf.109, Bf.110 (Zerstorer) were similarly intended to be bomber-destroyers. Defence Policy has failed if our lot are within range of no-endurance, point-defence sprinters. RAF's 1936 name-change, Air Defence of G.B to Fighter Command was a budget-jerking wheeze: politicos wanted to concentrate spend on bombers.

cazatou's points re Gloster/Hawker: Air Ministry "owned" Design Rights in everything we paid for; design parents had no right to production. A.M left Defiant in BPA (and put Blackburn Roc there too, as BPA supplied the French-origin turret). BPA also built Hawker Demon and Fairey Barracuda; Gloster built 2,750 Hurricanes.

[Brewster Buffalo]

A book I have gives some detail on 96 Squadron formed in early 1941 and based in Cheshire defending Liverpool & the Northwest. At its peak they had 21 Defiants on charge.

During their tour there they had five confirmed Defiant kills (3 x He111 and 2 x Ju88) before the transfer of the Luftwaffe eastwards reduced their opportunities of combat.

As counter-balance about the same number of Defiants were lost in accidents...

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/in-defence-of-the-feeble-defiant-x8wvxcmkg

In defence of the ‘feeble’ Defiant

It was described as a “peculiar” aircraft by its own crews and derided by German aces as a feeble kill compared with a Hurricane, let alone a Spitfire. Now an author has claimed that the Boulton Paul Defiant was more deadly than its reputation suggests, and that the Battle of Britain (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/paul-farnes-last-battle-of-britain-ace-dies-aged-101-thxl6k2vn)could have been an even greater victory if the aircraft had been given a fair chance.

The Defiant is remembered, if at all, as a design failure. Resembling the Hawker Hurricane with the addition of a gun turret behind the cockpit, it was intended to approach underneath or alongside bombers, where the gunner could devote his full attention to raking them with rounds from four .303in Browning machineguns. The design was conceived in the mid-1930s when Air Ministry officials anticipated having to defend Britain against large unescorted formations of enemy bombers. To ensure that pilots focused on getting their gunner into the best position, and for reasons of weight, it had no fixed forward-facing guns.

Its early champions included Winston Churchill (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-churchill-turned-a-car-accident-into-a-money-spinner-9qfxkv3rg), who predicted in 1938 that the turret fighter design would be “paramount” in any conflict. However, after heavy losses in the Battle of Britain, it has often been viewed as an unmitigated death trap.

In Defiant: The Untold Story of the Battle of Britain, Robert Verkaik argues that standard accounts have underplayed the heroism and successes of the aircraft’s two-man crews and disregarded leadership decisions influencing its later underperformance. He said perhaps the greatest omission was the “awkward” fact that a Defiant squadron still holds the record for shooting down the most enemy aircraft in one day.

This was on May 29, 1940, when the Luftwaffe mounted five large attacks on ships evacuating soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dunkirk-veteran-101-hits-gym-for-two-hours-a-day-07c72b268). The German planes were met by two successive RAF patrols of four fighter squadrons, including 264 Squadron, a Defiant squadron commanded by Philip Hunter. On each patrol the Defiants and one squadron of Hurricanes or Spitfires, were tasked with downing the enemy bombers while other Hurricanes flew above to take on fighters.

Nevertheless, during the first sortie six Messerschmitt Me 109 fighters broke away from the Hurricanes that had engaged them and swept on to the Defiants’ tails from out of the sun. Rather than picking off the slower aircraft, the Germans found themselves hurtling into a hail of lead and tracer. The Defiants’ gunners continued to hammer away as the Me 109s were followed by 22 Messerschmitt Me 110 heavy fighters. By the end of the sortie, 264 Squadron had claimed two Me 109s, 15 Me 110s and a Junkers Ju 87 “Stuka” dive bomber, without losing a single aircraft.

And they weren’t done. In the second patrol that afternoon they caught a force of Stukas and Junkers Ju 88s bombing ships. While Hurricanes tackled German fighters above, the Defiants found that the Stukas were “easy meat”, Eric Barwell, a pilot, recalled.

In total that day the squadron claimed 38 enemy aircraft were destroyed. This remains a record, and, although it was likely to be an overestimate, Verkaik said it gave Britons a sorely needed morale boost. Flight Lieutenant Nicholas Cooke and his gunner Acting Corporal Albert Lippett had five kills, making them the first RAF “aces in one day” of the Second World War.

Two days later, the Defiants were involved in the RAF’s heaviest fighting of the Dunkirk campaign, claiming four Me 109s and five Heinkel He 111s. It came at a heavy price of five Defiants lost and five airmen dead, including Cooke and Lippett.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1383x901/image_24f88a3e330c259e1f7625a173ccfdaa85816afb.png



Verkaik writes: “There is little doubt that the two patrols involving the Defiants, which met the full force of the Luftwaffe attacks, blunted the enemy’s strikes against the Royal Navy ships which had been targeted by more than 300 enemy aircraft. That day the navy lost just two ships [minesweepers] while evacuating nearly 68,000 men from the Dunkirk beaches — the greatest number in a single day during Operation Dynamo.”

From May 12 to 31, when 264 Squadron served on the front line in the lead up to and during the Dunkirk evacuation, its Defiants shot down 65 enemy aircraft, more than any other RAF squadron.

This pre-eminence was not to last, however. On July 19, early in the Battle of Britain, Defiants of 141 Squadron at Hawkinge in Kent were scrambled to intercept German raiders. The aircraft, none of whose pilots had combat experience, were sent without fighter cover. As Verkaik recounts, they were “caught napping” by two Staffels of Me 109s, which swooped from above and behind to pick off six out of nine aircraft as airmen watched horrified from the ground.

Philip Hunter, whose 264 Squadron had performed so well at Dunkirk, was killed the next month when his squadron was sent to Manston airfield in Kent as part of the first line of defence.

Some people have argued that if the commanders Hugh Dowding and Keith Park had not resisted the Air Ministry’s ambition of equipping one third of Fighter Command with Defiant squadrons the RAF would have lost the Battle of Britain.

On the contrary, Verkaik believes that with proper fighter protection, the Defiant would have acquitted itself well and the Luftwaffe might have lost more bombers more quickly than it did. Instead he said it was “miscast” as an independent fighter, rather than a bomber destroyer operating in tandem with Hurricanes and Spitfires. He disagrees with claims that its early successes were only down to hapless German pilots mistaking it for the Hurricane and running into its guns.

Even during the Battle of Britain, the performance of the relatively small number of Defiants took a toll on the Luftwaffe. In the ten days to August 28, 264 Squadron claimed 19 kills, albeit with a loss of 11 aircraft and 13 air crew.

After the battle, the Defiant served as the most successful RAF night fighter during the Blitz before it was retired from frontline combat service after 1942.......

[Wyvernfan]

That’s a great piece on the Defiant, thanks for posting it up.

Its the one Aircraft type from the Battle of Britain that is claimed to be a restored tribute to its crews that is sadly missing from our skies today IMO!



Rob

[BSD]

If you walk out along the east side of "the pit" past the sailing club dinghy park at Blakeney, in Norfolk, there is a white concrete post, a marker of some sort, which has a brass commemorative plaque attached to it. It is a tribute to F/L Nicholas Cooke (the pilot mentioned in the article) who prior to the war was a champion sailor in the international 14 class sailing dinghy. I think he was F/L Nicholas Cooke DFC. I've always wanted to know more of his story. I assume he either was a Norfolk chap, or had some association with that part of the country, maybe the Blakeney sailing club. It would have needed considerable courage to fly a Defiant in the Battle of Britain and considerable skill to sail an International 14 well.

[treadigraph]

Its the one Aircraft type from the Battle of Britain that is claimed to be a restored tribute to its crews that is sadly missing from our skies today IMO!

I think the only surviving complete BP types are the Defiant and Sea Balliol in the RAF Museum, 2 Balliols in Sri Lanka and the BP111 at Coventry...

[Asturias56]

"On the contrary, Verkaik believes that with proper fighter protection, "

So the RAF would have had to provide fighter cover for "fighters" - just like Bf-110 :ugh:

The article also repeats claims for kills made by the Defiant crews - as Wikipedia says:-

"Although 264 Squadron claimed 48 kills in eight days over Dunkirk, the cost was high with 14 Defiants lost. Actual German losses were no more than 12–15 enemy aircraft; the turret's wide angle of fire meant that several Defiants could engage the same target at one time, leading to multiple claims."

It was a dog and no amount of optimistic writing 80 years on changes that

[OUAQUKGF Ops]

If you walk out along the east side of "the pit" past the sailing club dinghy park at Blakeney, in Norfolk, there is a white concrete post, a marker of some sort, which has a brass commemorative plaque attached to it. It is a tribute to F/L Nicholas Cooke (the pilot mentioned in the article) who prior to the war was a champion sailor in the international 14 class sailing dinghy. I think he was F/L Nicholas Cooke DFC. I've always wanted to know more of his story. I assume he either was a Norfolk chap, or had some association with that part of the country, maybe the Blakeney sailing club. It would have needed considerable courage to fly a Defiant in the Battle of Britain and considerable skill to sail an International 14 well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Gresham_Cooke


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/644x274/screenshot_2020_05_26_aces_high_221279c7ded171cbcaaa102c4c4c 6f45cacca416.png

Extract from 'Aces High' Shores and Williams.

http://memorials.rmg.co.uk/m6458/

[BSD]

Many thanks 'GF Ops,

I'd got as far as discovering he was lost in the Defiant, but hadn't uncovered anything more. I see we are very nearly at the anniversary of their loss, nealy 80 years ago.

Should we be sufficiently "unlocked" to get up to Blakeney I'll go and take a look.

BSD.

[OUAQUKGF Ops]

Lovely church at Blakeney, well worth a visit. On the north-western side of the church-yard you will find the grave of Air Commodore H.G. Brackley, a pioneer of Imperial Airways Flying Boat routes. The grave used to be kept in pristine order by his son, the Church Warden who died in 2010. Since then it has become rather neglected.
In November 1948 Brackley, then working for BSAA, drowned whilst bathing at Rio de Janeiro. Prior to the funeral his body was flown up to the airfield at nearby Langham in a BSAA York.

[JENKINS]

Also at Blakeney is a 234 Squadron window. Re-Defiant, one in the family of my wife commanded a Defiant squadron during its conversion from Defiant to Beaufighter.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

During their work-up on the new fighter, 264’s Boss, Sqn Ldr Hunter flew in mock combat against a Spitfire of 65 Sqn flown by one Flg Off Tuck! Hunter flew on a course from Northolt to White Waltham and Tuck attacked when and how he liked. Hunter went into a steep turn followed by the Spitfire. In an engagement that lasted 10 minutes, the Defiant gunner expended all his cine film, but Tuck expended none as he could not bring his sights to bear. He was often able to turn inside the Defiant but this only enabled the gunner to fire on him across the arc. On one occasion Hunter managed to get on the tail of the Spitfire, slightly below so that the gunner could fire forward and upwards. This engagement showed that a well-flown Defiant, which circled when attacked by a single seat fighter could adequately defend itself, provided its speed did not drop below 160 mph, which usually involved a spiral dive. On the other hand, 141 Sqn’s boss, on a visit to 264, claimed the ac was a death trap and that he had no faith in it; a clear case of a self fulling prophecy, unfortunately, but shows a clear case of Leadership and morale being an important factor.

The Defiant wasn’t a bad aeroplane; it was simply badly misused, as there were no alternatives and desperate times called for desperate measures, but they should never have been used as single Sqns in the heat of the BoB. If, as it was intended, it had been used in conjunction with other fighters (Hurricanes and Spitfires - eg 264 Sqn integrated into Bader's Big Wing in lieu of one of the Hurricane Sqns?) it could be extremely effective. Alternatively, 264 and 141 should have been based in 13 Gp where they might have performed well against Luftflotte's 5 raid across the North Sea on 15 Aug 40. The 'Dunkirk fable' needs to be put to rest, it was never as claimed, BUT the Defiants of 264 Sqn did put up a good show when they intercepted Ju 87 and He 111 attacks on the beaches.

Acknowledgements to Alec Brew, author of ‘The Defiant File’ and Andrew Thomas - "Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces" that appear to be rather more balanced views of this particular aeroplanes' effectiveness.

[Brewster Buffalo]

The one thing lacking was a forward firing gun. Bit of a problem if attacking a fighter. I suppose you could try to creep up underneath or if diving down with a speed advantage fly in front and hope you can open fire first!
Did better a night fighter but did it have radar.?

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Yes, the -A variants were equipped with AI. (Mk V?)

[Asturias56]

IIRC Mason - in British Fighters- reckoned the Battle & the Defiant were there for two reasons - initially because they replaced biplanes with similar crew configuration so it was replace like with like - and secondly because they were all that they had to put through the "shadow" factories to start with. The Spitfire was too complex for people starting out

In my opinion it was criminal for the Air Staff to send out aircraft in 1940 without a front gun and only 4 in a turret when as early as 1934 they'd agreed the future fighter (s) would need 8 forward firing guns

[BSD]

Blakeny church is indeed worth a visit - walk up to the top of the tower for a fabulous view.

id seen the stained glass but didn’t realise the significance.

Facinating to think of the BSAA York Lansing at Langham.

BSD.

[chevvron]

F5/34 design was powered by a 840hp Mercury and with this engine reached around 316mph
The Blackburn Roc also had the Boulton & Paul 4 gun turret with no forward facing guns; it was powered by a Bristol Perseus radial of 890hp and according to Wiki, was much slower than the Defiant with a cruise speed of 135mph (max 223 mph) compared to the Defiant's cruise of 175 mph (max 304 mph) with the 1030hp Merlin 111. In addition to the gun turret however, the Roc had bomb racks under the wings which could carry up to 4 x 250 lb bombs.
Rocs were built by Boulton and Paul at Pendeford, thus delaying Defiant production!
Wiki only mentions one 'kill' by a Roc, a Ju88 which was attacking a convoy off Ostende.
Another design with the Boulton and Paul turret was the Hawker Hotspur which additionally had one forward facing Vickers machine gun however this design did not get past the single prototype which flew in 1938, after the Defiant but slightly before the Roc..

[Asturias56]

Letter in today's "Times" from the Director of the RAF Museum from 1988-2010. He states

"Verkaik's book makes a revisionist case for an aircraft that was a death trap for those that flew in it. In the 1980's I interviewed several Defiant "survivors" all of whom were fiercely loyal to the aircraft. However their stories of poor performance, speed and the difficulties of bailing out of the rear turret were salutary."

[Wyvernfan]

“Poor performance and speed” pretty much sums it up, but they were not the types fault. If you stick a decently powerful donk on the front of any aircraft then it has a far better chance of realising its expectations.

The Roc for instance with a crew of two and a four gun turret and having a sub 1000hp engine is a joke tbh!


Rob

[staircase]

If one goes back to history I wonder if the person that initiated the requirement was an ex Bristol fighter man.


How can you be aggressive if you have to run away to bring the guns to bear? Even if you get into a position to win the fight the enemy can break off the fight at will. How can you be as good as the other fellow if your aeroplane is that much heavier with more drag than the enemy?

It was a flawed concept and should never have been considered for production.

[NutLoose]

I seem to remember the Flypast article saying it was wholesale slaughter in France of the type and when the final ones reached the U.K. the LAC gunner was stunned to find that the gunners in the U.K. were now paid Sgts.

Nice idea, but like the flamethrowers in the tail the Germans tried, ultimately they proved to be a failure.

[NutLoose]

https://flypast.keypublishing.com/2018/10/05/feature-boulton-paul-defiants-spoof-enemy-radar/

[Load Toad]

Times: In Defence of the Defiant (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/in-defence-of-the-feeble-defiant-x8wvxcmkg)

[Asturias56]

I also never understood why it would be so good at shooting down bombers - with the gun at the back you'd have to fly in front off, or beside the enemy, to get a shot in - you'd be firing 4 MG's and they'd be firing back with MG's as well - both with the same range - not a recipe for a long life I'd have thought.................................

[NutLoose]

Nope, agreed....... the Germans thought sticking a flamethrower in the tail would put off attacking fighters, what happened was the fighters thought they were causing damage so pressed home the attacks. They soon ditched that idea.

[chevvron]

Nope, agreed....... the Germans thought sticking a flamethrower in the tail would put off attacking fighters, what happened was the fighters thought they were causing damage so pressed home the attacks. They soon ditched that idea.
The F111 had a flamethower in the tail and that was found to be pretty effective.

[Buster11]

The Defiant is mentioned in yesterday's episode of Invasion on BBC4. As the presenter sits in the aircraft's four-gun turret he intones "This aircraft is one of my favourites, the Defiant bomber". Does nobody check this stuff before it's let loose on the public?

[treadigraph]

The F111 had a flamethower in the tail and that was found to be pretty effective.

For warming up a chilled audience at wet airshows!

[BSD]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x480/img_6086_7d94382493a1826237dc3bf9b93e90a8ca11223f.jpg
Taken today, 29/May/2020, the plaque at Blakeney, commemorating F/L Nicholas Cooke DFC, with the spire of Balkeney church in the background.

[BSD]

For some reason (which is beyond me) I can't upload the photo I took of the plaque itself. If you can't read it, it states:In Memory of
Flt. Lt. Nicholas Gresham Cooke, D.F.C.
A Keen sailor In Blakeney Harbour.
British 14ft Dinghy Team 1934.
Killed In Action Over The North Sea
May 31st 1940 Aged 26.

[POBJOY]

When I joined the Air Cadets at Kenley (1960) we had an ex Defiant gunner as a CI. I recall he was a bit miffed that no one really knew of the type (Compared with the Hurricane and Spitfire) but I well remember his comments regarding the job in the turret. The placing of the guns forward was to be the gunners 'final' action if he was unable to operate the turret in the normal way due injury, and apparently enabled the pilot to have some limited forward fire option. It is not surprising that the type was forgotten as no airframes were on display as gate guards and it did not feature in the post war Battle of Britain accounts/films/books. At the time '1960' there were only a couple of Hurricanes and half a dozen Spitfires that were still flying but those types were evident as Gate Guards countrywide. As a night fighter it was only as successful as technology at the time allowed, and would not have had the facility (or space) to fit the eventual radar equipment. Our defences in 1940 were not geared up to having an enemy only 20 miles away, and the Defiant should never had been used to deal with 'fighter escorted bombers' for obvious reasons. Reflecting on the situation decades later i was quite lucky to have actually spoken to a surviving Defiant gunner, as there could have only been a few around by 1960.

[FlightlessParrot]

SNIP
Our defences in 1940 were not geared up to having an enemy only 20 miles away, and the Defiant should never had been used to deal with 'fighter escorted bombers' for obvious reasons.
SNIP

I wonder if anybody's defences were really ready for 'fighter escorted bombers'? Most air forces seem to have assumed that bombers would be able to operate unescorted, protected either by their speed or defensive armament. Perhaps also there was an overestimation of the effectiveness of bombing, so people were not prepared for the long attritional campaigns in which a loss rate of, say, 6% or more was a losing proposition, even though the bombers were certainly getting through.

Before the experience of 1940 the task looked different, simply fighter vs bomber, and as the bomber forces had great confidence of the effectiveness of the four-gun turret, the Defiant evidently looked like a good idea; attacking from below was already well established from WW I, and turned out to be still a good tactic in WW II (hence Schraege Muzik, anticipated by the Sopwith Dolphin).

Things turned out differently, and the Defiant turned out to not be a good idea, though neither was it a scandal for it to have been built (although Colin Sinnott in The RAF and Aircraft Design 1923-39 records adverse reaction to the proposal to build it without forward armament). Perhaps the crews reported that they liked the aircraft because it was a good implementation of an idea that turned out not to meet the circumstances. It wasn't much slower than a Hurricane, and was surely a lot better than the Blackburn Roc. Presumably most of the aircraft that ended up as target tugs were not bad aircraft, just aircraft without any more useful aggressive role.

[Asturias56]

"Most air forces seem to have assumed that bombers would be able to operate unescorted, protected either by their speed or defensive armament. Perhaps also there was an overestimation of the effectiveness of bombing, "

read any history of the Bomber Command in WW2

[FlightlessParrot]

"Most air forces seem to have assumed that bombers would be able to operate unescorted, protected either by their speed or defensive armament. Perhaps also there was an overestimation of the effectiveness of bombing, "

read any history of the Bomber Command in WW2

I have read a few. I am specifically not talking about the experience of 1939 when the RAF quickly discovered that unescorted formations of bombers were unable to bomb naval bases in daylight. What I am referring to is the thinking of the mid-1930s, the relevant period for the design and procurement of the Defiant: the period when bombers were being designed (and introduced) that were faster than the fighters then in service, and when multi-gun turrets were replacing single rifle-calibre machine guns as defensive armament. In this period new (interceptor) fighters were being designed and introduced, and very good they were, but they were all relatively short ranged, and not suitable for escorting bombers: the Messerchmitt Bf 109 was notoriously marginal even for the short range of the raids of 1940. As far as I know, and I could well be wrong, the first aircraft introduced by a major power as an escort fighter was the Mitsubishi A6M "Zero," and that was slightly later than the European 1,000hp monoplane fighters.

What I am asking (and expecting the answer "No" but prepared to learn) was whether any planners, in the mid-1930s when the Defiant was specified, were expecting large formations of bombers with fighter escorts.

[POBJOY]

FP the answer is NO as far as GB was concerned. Remember we had the only organised air defence system in Europe, and this was designed with defending against machines from Germany. One of the reasons that the BEF and AASF lost so many aircraft in France was because there was no effective French system to operate with and is one of the reasons the German advance was so rapid.
It was always assumed that the 'Bomber would get through' (which they did) and were armed to deal with interception. However interception was far from perfect and of course there was always a limit of machines to intercept.(even less after the French campaign).
When you consider the Defiant was lugging two crew and a heavy turret all on an early Merlin its performance was always going to be less than sparkling compared with its 8 gun sisters.
It could have played a part against unescorted machines but the game had dramatically changed by 1940 and its use suspect for daylight ops.

[Asturias56]

Popjoy is correct - the Air Staff never looked at escort fighters - in fact I don't think the British (RFC, RNAS & RAF) ever really had an escort fighter. It wasn't as if the Defiant had a significantly longer range than the 8 gun fighters - it would have been better to reequip with Blenheim's I think

[Brewster Buffalo]

The RAF acquired about1,000 of these the last being delivered in February 1942. Surprised production wasn't switched to something else once its weaknesses were exposed.
Looking at its performance as a night fighter for the period July 1940 to May 1941 some 100 Luftwaffe bombers were shot down by aircraft. The bulk fell to the Beaufighter - 46 with the Defiant accounting for 29.
One book says that the gunner was the commander of the aircraft which sounds unlikely to me.

[POBJOY]

Ironically it was the British that 'enabled' one of the best long range fighters albeit not designed for that purpose.
The Allied purchasing commission ordered the North American P51 (with Allison engine) and utilised it as a low altitude tac recon machine as the engine was not designed to be 'blown' for altitude work.
When a Rolls Royce liaison pilot flew one of the original early models he immediately identified its potential if fitted with the new high altitude Merlin.
The Mustang with its new Merlin soared into history as the best single engine long range escort of its time, able to escort American bombers deep into Germany and reduce the appalling previous losses of bomber crews. Such is the way that legends are born 'eventually'.

[FlightlessParrot]

It could have played a part against unescorted machines but the game had dramatically changed by 1940 and its use suspect for daylight ops.

Thank you, Pobjoy, that is what I'd thought, and it means that the Defiant wasn't so much a bad design for the situation it was specified for; just that, somewhat to the surprise of most people, it didn't turn out like that when war happened.

On the topic of escort fighters, some sources (on the internet, so ...) say the Me/Bf 110 was designed in part as an escort fighter, other sources not. Either way, it didn't work out in that role.

I have read that the continued production of the Defiant after its inadequacies were known was to keep factories in production; this is often said of various obsolescent types, and I wonder if it was really so? There were ways in which Defiants could be used, as target tugs and gunnery trainers, so I suppose it wasn't all waste, but I would have thought that keeping obsolete aircraft in production was merely postponing the necessary halt in output for retooling, which might have been better taken earlier; but it would be a mistake to think the planners hadn't thought of that. I'd be really glad of information about this, or a pointer to a book on aircraft production in WW II that would cover such matters.

[longer ron]

Aircraft manufacturing contracts were sometimes just taken to completion of the order as it was 'easier' than cancelling the contracts apparently,Quite a few a/c types went straight from factory to scrapping.
Defiants were also used in the ASR/SAR role.
As you say - not really a bad aircraft but it had the misfortune to be built to a bad specification.

[pr00ne]

Brewster Buffalo,

The reason that types like the Defiant, and the Blenheim and the Battle amongst others, continued in production for so long is that the Ministry Of Aircraft Production instigated a priority programme in which numbers were key. IF you had replaced the Defiant, Battle and Blenheim, to name just three, with other types then there would have been a long hiatus during which factories of Bristol, Boulton Paul and Fairey, along with their Shadow factory brethren, would have been manufacturing nothing while they dismantled existing production lines, designed and built tooling then assembled new production lines, trained up the work force and started to build the new types. That was seen as being unacceptable during the priority programme when the country was in desperate straits. To have had empty assembly plants at the height of the Battle of Britain would have failed the Daily Mail headline test at the first attempt!

FlightlessParrot,

Ironically it was the Bf110 which sounded the death knell of unescorted daylight raids by the Handley Page Hampden. Sticking to the then doctrine that the disciplined bomber formation will get through, the Bf110's merely cruised alongside the Hampdens, trained their twin machine guns in the rear cockpit on the Hampden pilot, and calmly took them out, totally unhindered by the non maneuvering Hampdens that could not bring a single gun to bear. Tragic waste.

[DHfan]

It seems a shame in some ways as I think the Defiant was accepted as being a pretty good airframe, just designed for a purpose that turned out to not exist.
I'd wondered in the past whether anything could have been done - a Griffon and a 20mm cannon or two in the wings - but it would have been pointless. The heavy twin-engined fighters were at advanced design stage so it would have been too late anyway.

[POBJOY]

Like its 'bomber' counterpart the Fairey Battle, the Defiant had been ordered to suit the requirement of the day. (several years earlier).
The Battle had replaced the likes of the Hart with no contemplation of the German flack or fighters. and the Defiant was in the same mould designed to take out Bombers (which did not employ escorts then).
Both performed as designed, unfortunately the enemy had changed the rules by then.

[evansb]

Yes, the aircraft performed as required and were obsolescent whilst being produced., yet intelligence gathered before their production was indeed forwarded regarding Nazi Germany's goals. was ignored or minimised.
In late 1930's, Germany's mass production of U-boats was well known yet the King's RN Admiralty chose to minimise, ignore or just have another brandy and puff on a Dutch or Havana cigar, revelling in the successes of WW.I.

[chevvron]

Defiants were also used in the ASR/SAR role.

Not forgetting the first Martin Baker ejector seat live trials took place from a Defiant.

[FlightlessParrot]

FlightlessParrot,

Ironically it was the Bf110 which sounded the death knell of unescorted daylight raids by the Handley Page Hampden. Sticking to the then doctrine that the disciplined bomber formation will get through, the Bf110's merely cruised alongside the Hampdens, trained their twin machine guns in the rear cockpit on the Hampden pilot, and calmly took them out, totally unhindered by the non maneuvering Hampdens that could not bring a single gun to bear. Tragic waste.

So the 110s were, in effect, operating as turret fighters. That is really ironic.

[FlightlessParrot]

As you say - not really a bad aircraft but it had the misfortune to be built to a bad specification.
I was wondering whether exactly a bad specification, or one that got overtaken by developments, so I looked to see who else was interested in turret fighters. I have found so far the Arado E.500, which was never built, the Arado 240, which seems to have been mostly used unarmed for reconnaissance, and the Northrop P-61 Black Widow, which was modestly successful. However, according to everyone's favourite source of dubious information, Wikipedia, the work which ended up as the P-61 began in response to a British request for a turret fighter, and the first P-61s to enter service did not have the turret fitted.

To be alone in serious interest in turret fighters suggests that the UK was either visionary or mistaken. Given that the Defiant seems to have been a pretty competent implementation of the idea, it looks like the idea was a mistake.

[DHfan]

Well somebody, presumably in the Air Ministry, still hadn't completely given up with the idea. There's a photograph of an early Mosquito prototype - W4052, I think - with a mockup of a turret.

[chevvron]

To be alone in serious interest in turret fighters suggests that the UK was either visionary or mistaken. Given that the Defiant seems to have been a pretty competent implementation of the idea, it looks like the idea was a mistake.
The main flaw seems to be the lack of forward firing armament operated by the pilot; the Roc had a single Vickers .303 machine gun and the Battle had a .303 Browning for this purpose but something larger would have been more effective buried in that thick Hurricane like wing; maybe a pair of 20mm cannon?

[Rory57]

When the Defiant was used (with a modicum of success) as a night fighter, what was the method of attack? What was the approach to the target, from below as used by the Luftwaffe later on?

As regards other turret fighters, the Me410 had remotely steerable side "turrets", presumably as a more flexible implementation of the schrage-music armament.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Found these here De Havilland Mosquito (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=300.50)

Nothing on when or why ...defence against Me 262?
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/796x468/mossie_turret_1_128ac0744e7836adfb84a14ef90d07ee4e0ea8c8.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/801x465/mossie_turret_2_58175cef59e2f70fa43daee7949f12e070730e0e.jpg

[DHfan]

They predate the Me262 by quite a long way. According to "Mosquito" turrets were abandoned at the end of 1941 after 2 aircraft had been built. The second had a mockup but the book appears to suggest that W4053 had an actual turret.

[Asturias56]

"something larger would have been more effective buried in that thick Hurricane like wing; maybe a pair of 20mm cannon?" problem is weight - plus of course people will start flying it like a 2 gun Hurricane carrying the guy in the back as an oversight - that's what happened to the Bristol F2 in WW! - turned it into a great fighter .

[Asturias56]

Well somebody, presumably in the Air Ministry, still hadn't completely given up with the idea. There's a photograph of an early Mosquito prototype - W4052, I think - with a mockup of a turret.


I'd bet money the thought process was "it's a Bomber - it MUST have a turret somewhere!"

[nvubu]

And here is the turret.
https://youtu.be/6wXHnSduf7g

[FlightlessParrot]

As regards other turret fighters, the Me410 had remotely steerable side "turrets", presumably as a more flexible implementation of the schrage-music armament.
The remotely controlled turrets on the Me 310 and 410 seem to have been rearward firing, under the control of the rear gunner, and so presumably defensive. The 410 does not seem to have been used as a night fighter, which is, I think, where Schraege Muzik was mostly used.

Offensive armament in a turret seems to be almost exclusively a British idea, though I think in the 1940s the US experimented with steerable nose guns?

[chevvron]

The RAF acquired about1,000 of these the last being delivered in February 1942. Surprised production wasn't switched to something else once its weaknesses were exposed.
Defiant production was delayed when the government decided to give priority to the already obsolescent Blackburn Roc which B-P were building; so why wasn't Roc production curtailed too?

[skydiver69]

I just saw this on YouTube and thought that some of the contributors here might find it interesting. https://youtu.be/kUWq4ymz8Yw

[Asturias56]

People can write revisionist articles as much as they want but the guys in WW2 always thought it was deadly dog

[megan]

One crew had a successful time on the type.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Thorn_(RAF_officer)

[POBJOY]

People can write revisionist articles as much as they want but the guys in WW2 always thought it was deadly dog

I can see that point as the Pilot is almost a passenger in that he has to respond to the Gunners requirements which it not a normal situation if you are attacked. (unless in bomber command).
Big difference in popping up under a JU 52 and filling it full of holes to trying to evade a 109. Did any Defiant Pilots manage to get on to single seaters !!!