Boulton Paul Defiant
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.
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.
escort fighter
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'.
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'.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not the aicrafts fault
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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.
As regards other turret fighters, the Me410 had remotely steerable side "turrets", presumably as a more flexible implementation of the schrage-music armament.
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.
"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 .
I'd bet money the thought process was "it's a Bomber - it MUST have a turret somewhere!"
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?