Boulton Paul Defiant

[HealzDevo]

Yes, it did. I suppose it formed a good temporary night-fighter until the RAF could pull its finger out and get their beaufighters with radar online. It was not bad but it was just caught up by events. However, if the RAF had switched it to night attack earlier it could have provided a building up of night tactics that could have proved useful earlier in stopping Luftwaffe night visits...

[merlin]

Firstly, to answer the orginal question regarding forward firing of the turreted machine-guns.
I quote from Tony Buttler's 'British Secret Projests: Fighters & Bombers' p.52
"Boulton and Paul P.82
This project had a completely rotating turret behind the pilot's cockpit fitted with four 0.303in(7.7mm) Browning machine guns, which covered a field of fire equal to nearly the whole of the upper hemishere. Firing forward over the airscrew and backward and alongside the rudder was made possible by retracting local portions of fairing fore and aft of the turret."
It can be seen from this that use of any 'interupter gear' to protect the propeller was irrelevant.

Secondly, in reply to Civettone's comment on the P.94, I again I quote p.55/56 :
Boulton Paul P.94
Prototype Defiant K8320 eventually had its turret removed and in August 1940 was flown as an unarmed flying demonstrator for a fixed-gun version called P.94, which was intended for rapid production using many complete Defiant components. The P.94 had the turret replaced by twelve 0.303in (7.7mm)Brwning machine guns disposed in each side of the wing centre section in nests of six.
P.94 had a 1,100 hp (820kW) Merlin XX which offered a maximum speed of 360mph (579km/h) at 21,700 ft (6,614m), a sea level rate of climb of 3,235ft/min and would get the aircraft to 25,000ft in 8.1 minutes.
Some 'stopgap aircraft'. A vast improvement over the Defiant's performance of 304mph!
Yet Tony states: "In April 1940 the Air Council agreed that, as an operational type, the Defiant had entered service two years too late and was thus verging on obsolescence."
Yes, in late August and September, the problem in the Battle of Britain was the shortage of pilots, but it seems to me the 'window of opportunity' was there for the P.94 to be available at the start, and what's more - with that performance to join with the Spifires in combating the 109's.
And who knows if there were enough of them, maybe the surplus Hurricanes may have been converted to hurri-bombers in time for the invasion !!

[Graeme]

Worthwhile mentioning the Hawker Hotspur. Designed to the same specification F.9/35.

Hawker Hotspur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flew some ten months after the Defiant. Compared with the Defiant the Hotspur was somewhat smaller and lighter and, when fitted with a similar Merlin, proved to be faster by about a dozen miles per hour.
Four gun turret PLUS a single forward firing Vickers gun.
However the Hotspur was considered by Camm more as an insurance against any unforeseen difficulties with the Hurricane. Never happened.

Regarding the purpose of the Defiant. Francis Mason in 'The British fighter' mentions that the Defiant was introduced to replace the Hawker Demon. The trouble with the Specification lay not so much in the constantly changing requirements but in the conflicting views as to whether the two-seat interceptor had any place at all in the fighter defence system, for it should be recalled the the Demon had only been introduced with one purpose in mind - that of intercepting it's related light bomber version, the Hart. Such an aircraft posed no strategic threat to Britain and the manner in which Boulton Paul and Hawker interpreted the requirement brought forth aeroplanes that were hopelessly inept.

[Catch22]

Originally Posted by Aggie08

Being a Defiant pilot is like winning ten cents in the lottery. You're a fighter pilot sure enough but you don't get to shoot anything.

I think it's more that you have to pay the lottery company 10 cents.

[bomber]

Originally Posted by Wildblue1972

It does beg the question though, if the people who came up with the idea for the Defiant could see the hazards of a blindspot on a bomber's defences, why wasn't more done to provide bristish bombers with better all round defences?

The simple answer is it wasn't required...

It's not a design flaw in British bombers that they didn't have ball turrets.. One might think that they'd feel safer having a ball turret, possibly 2 waist gunners, an observers gun, maybe 2 chin guns... but then you'd have the B17.. and you'd also feel safer with an elastic band wrapped around your wrist, your lucky underpants on and a small teddy in your flight jacket...

The facts are the ball turret fired bugger all rounds and the visibility was wowfull... the noise it make might be comforting mind..

I'm not against a ball turret in the B17 and B24, it's position and weight helps to 'anchor' the CoG of the plane within correct tollerances whilst at the same time allowing more 0.5" ammo for the tail turret.. Also bear in mind how much futher forward the upper turret is on a B17/B24 so far forward it's in front to the verticle datum line this helps massively with the design descision to include a ball turret... It might actually have been the case that without a ball turret, ballast would have to have been fitted (this is a guess) to maintain the planes correct handling characteristics, and it's better to fit a gun surely...

Consider the position of the upper turret on the early B24's without ball turrets used by the RAF.

On the subject of the defiants turret I'm not sure it was a complete failure as a mossie prototype with a similiar turret was built... even if this was rejected it shows that there were 'pros' and well as 'cons' to be considered.

Regards

Simon

[Glider]

I think its fair to say that there was nothing wrong with the Defiants Turret, just that it was designed to carry one limiting its adaptability. There was no excuse on behalf of the RAF command over this waste of men and resources. The most successful two man fighter of all time, the The Bristol Fighter of WW1 didn't do all well until the pilots learnt to stop trying to position the plane for the rear gunner and fight it like a normal fighter. Leaving the rear gunner to keep the tail clear and take what oppertunities arose. By giving the Defiant no front guns they made it useless for day fighting.
Its also worth remembering that Wellingtons, Lancasters and Halifax's were designed with a ventral turret, they just didn't work.

[HealzDevo]

Ok, fascinating look at history. What do you think about that fact that if the Defiant had been shifted to Night-Fighting role earlier it might have prevented more of the earlier German night raids on England? Would it have been successful at that or just as bad...

[Glider]

Nightfighting depends on Radar. They may have shot down one or two more German bombers but they still would have been stumbling around in the dark and had little impact overall.

[bomber]

I agree with Glider on this...

I expect the losses due to ground crashes would have outweighed the numbers of enemy shot down.....

reading up on it nightflying scared the pants off of pilots.

Simon

[The Basket]

One pilot who flew the Defiant said it was a good flying machine. But the turret idea was its downfall. He said that it could have made a fine ground attack platform without the turret but bad showing in the BoB ruined its reputation.

Also the Wilde Sau missions didn't have airborne radar so it is possible to be effective without.

[Glider]

I doubt that Wilde Sau would have really worked over the UK in 1940. To really work well the ground needed to be a sea of flame for the bombers to be seen against and a large number of bombers needed to be in the sky at more or less the same time.
German Bomber raids were a lot smaller than the British night raids normally in the dozens, not hundreds and were spread out over a long time.

[Marcel]

The wilde Sau was also not so very effective, only succeeded a few times, but most of the time it was a failure. Just a stopgap when the germans needed all to stem the tide.

[The Basket]

TBH I do have a soft spot for the Defiant. Not a bad aircraft but never made the team. The concept was outdated and never worked in battle. But the turretless was faster than a Hurricane and may have made a grand attacker in the North African desert.

Maybe there were better places for a RR Merlin.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

The Defiant wasn’t a bad aeroplane; it was just misused, as there were no alternatives and desperate times called for desperate measures. If, as it was intended, it had been used in conjunction with other fighters (eg Hurricanes and Spitfires) it could be extremely effective.

The Defiant’s ‘hour of glory’ came on 29 May 1940, when it was employed correctly. Twelve Defiants of 264 Sqn headed for Dunkirk at relatively low altitude looking for bombers while Nos 56, 151 & 213 Sqns of Hurricanes flew top cover. The formation was attacked by Bf 109s and 6 109s penetrated to the Defiants where 3 of them were shot down by the Defiants and a further 1 damaged; 1 Defiant was damaged and the gunner bailed out, but was lost in the English Channel. The aircraft did make it back to England, the pilot safe. 264 pressed on to the beaches and attacked He 111s. During this meleé a formation of Ju 87s and Bf 110s was spotted and the 110s attacked the Defiants with little effect. During this battle I understand 7 x 110s were claimed, as well as 4 more 109s and a Ju 87.

The same afternoon 264 returned to Dunkirk, again escorted by Hurricanes and, again, were intercepted by 109s. A ‘bitter battle’ ensued between the Hurricanes and the 109s but the Hurricanes kept the 109s off the Defiants, allowing the Defiants to attack a large formation of Ju 87s that were striking the beaches. A one sided running battle developed just above the waves as the Defiants did what they were designed for - attacking bombers. It was a Turkey Shoot for the Defiants; one team (Plt Off Cooke & Plt Off Kay) claimed 5 Ju 87s by engaging the bombers from underneath and firing into the unprotected bellies of the Stukas – a foretaste of Sträge Musik? 264 then ‘went’ for a formation of Ju 88s. At the end of the day 264 claimed: 8 x 109s, 9 x 110s, 19 x Ju 87s, 1 x Ju 88 and another 3 ‘probables’.

This record (OK, the claims were over the top, but that always happens) shows what the Defiant could achieve when employed correctly with top cover to ward off the escorting fighters and aggressive leadership; the OC 264 (Sqn Ldr Hunter) was revered by his crews evidently.

The above shows that if ever an aircraft should have been employed in Bader’s Big Wing, it was the Defiant – although the reaction of ‘Himself’ is best left to the imagination! If 264 and 141 had been part of the Duxford wing with 3 other Hurricane/Spitfire Sqns they could have made a positive contribution to the Battle, without becoming the sacrificial lambs they were, when used in isolation within 11 Gp. It just goes to show that there are Horses for Courses. Acknowledgements to Alec Brew, author of ‘The Defiant File’.

[trackend]

Never knew that, good post DW.