Thanks for posting this up. My Dad who's 87 now was invloved in some of the design work to this plane. He'll be really glad to see it when I show him. :)
Very interesting video. The defiant tends to be overlooked because of other more famous types of aircraft from WWII, so it's nice to see a film dedicated to it. Thanks for sharing that with us, bomberguy. Keep up the good work.
Their was also a proposed variant called P.94 that didn't have a turret and was going to be armed with either 12 .303s or 4 hispano 20mm cannons and 4 .303s and had a projected speed of 360 mph however by that point in 1940 their was sufficient production of hurricanes and spitfires it was decided that another single-seat fighter wasn't needed at that point
Because if it cannot fulfill it's purpose anyway with tactical efficiency, and something else can do, unless another compelling use is found for it (as sort of happened with the Typhoon, it was never envisaged as high potency CAS fighter-bomber, it was to be a high speed low altitude interceptor full-stop) then, why have scarce industrial and human resources tied down building it? If they do not work, and Spitfires and Hurricanes apparently do, wouldn't you phase down the Defiant, relegate it as it can be relegated existing aircraft, and move on with existing designs whilst looking for new ones?
With great difficulty. The sliding rear quadrant of the turret cover was the only exit, and it was a tight squeeze. The gunner wore a 'rhino suit' with self-contained parachute and dinghy, which was an improvement on a separate parachute pack - but not much. And believe it or not, it was possible to take off and land in a Defiant, even on a combat mission. As I said, read a book...
I wonder how many German pilots gave the hurricane a wide birth thinking it was a Defiant???? It possibly saved lives without leaving the ground.... If the Defiant had top cover like it should of then more brave pilots and gunners would possibly survived...... Brilliant footage..
Interesting film.My dad was a rear gunner in Wellingtons and lancasters also Boltimore bombers during the war,he had a friend who was a gunner in Defiants who took part in a dylight raid over france in the early part of the war.He survived although he did have a metal plate in his head from injuries he sustained on that day.
there is also an escape hatch below and to the rear of the turret,it could only be accessed if the turret was facing forward,the gunner would have to stand up fold his seat and climb down backwards and out through the hatch to the rear of the wing,not easy but it gave him an another option.
As a 7 yr old kid in 1940, t had many models of British aircraft, but was always fascinated by the Defiant, because it looked so compact and heavily armed with turret. (I liked the Blenheim too) Even to my juvenile eye, the Fairey Swordfish looked quaint and obsolete, but what a job those pilots did anyway! I will ALWAYS be proud of my British cousins!
looking like the Hawker Hurricane, although it was at least 1,500 lb (680 kg) heavier. A clean, simple and compact monoplane structure had been achieved with main landing gear retracting into a broad mainplane section. The pilot's cockpit and rear turret were faired into a streamlined upper fuselage section. Fuel was carried in the wing centre section along with a large ventral radiator that completed the resemblance to the Hawker fighter. With a 1,030 hp (768 kW) Rolls-Royce Merlin I,
As turrets go that was a small, compact design that managed to get four guns and a gunner into as small a space as possible. It also later found use on early B-24 Liberator`s used by the RAF and later marks of Halifax bombers. Only drawback was the difficulty getting out of it in an emergency on the Defiant.
"shot down 37 fighters and bombers without loss" that guy maybe went a bit too far. Nevertheless, really nice material. This aircraft remains largely unknown for the general public.
I only just found out about it after seeing it on the Memorial Wall at Capel-Le-Ferne. I'd been aware of Spitfires and Hurricanes since being knee high to a grasshopper nut the Defiant was a new one on me.
That is true, at first it was thought to be an Hurry by the krauts so they attacked from astern. Once they woke up they made frontal attacks and as the turret was useless through the Prop arc and with no wing cannon they were shot down. However during the Blitz they could slip under a bomber and effectively dispose of it.
+Thomas Buettner it did mainly because the Luftwaffe mistook it for a Hurricane which it had a very similar profile and tried to bounce it from behind and got a nasty surprise the squadron that achieved this was 264 squadron who also had a tactic of forming a descending circle to protect from the lack of forward firepower (known as the Luftbury circle) however when 141 squadron were committed to the battle of Britain they ignored the recommendations of 264 squadron and suffered heavy casualties which resulted in the Defiant being withdrawn from daytime service
The Germans first mistook it for a Hurricane, then jumped it from behind. All the 109s were destroyed. Later the Germans realised that it was woefully slow...and defenseless from the front. If only there had been a 303 in each wing root...
@Giselle76502 the 1st P-40 flew with an 1830 C.I. pratt and whitney 14 cyl,twin radial engine,soon replaced by a 1710 C.I.allison V-12. later variants flew with the PACKHARD-merlin(1650 C.I.)
@Giselle76502 About 30 aircraft types used Merlin's including the Halifax, Wellington, Mosquito, Sterling, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation CA-15 (Australia), Bf109 (model 1112-M1L) built in Spain in 1954, the last BF109's built. Ironically the very first Bf109 prototype used a Rolls Royce Kestrel (from which the Merlin was developed) as no German engine was available.
the Lancaster rear turret was similar to the Defiant, but slightly taller I believe... I saw the City of Lincoln in 1969, when I was a kid of 17.... even then, I could not have spent time in there! Rear gunners are an underrated group of men.
@Bronzewhaler82 The Stirling was hobbled by an Air Ministry requrement that the wingspan be no more than100 feet an extra ten - fifteen feet of wing would have made an enormous difference especially in service ceiling and payload
There is a great chapter on this fighter in William Green's "Famous Fighters of WW2" first copyrighted in 1957 in GB. I see in this video a Defiant II fitted with the tropical intake filter and Merlin XX.
In 1936 the Air Ministry fell in love with the French specs for "Multiplace D'Combat" calling for warplanes with turrets everywhere. Please note that 1936 only the maiden debut of the Me-109 in Spain- they should have been aware of the Messerschmidt's ability to chew up to chew up Russian I-15 Ratas to anticipate the war of the future. Throwing out the Defiant's turret and fitting it with forward firing armament would only have produced another Hurricane.
Defiant's found a good role in the top secret missions testing radar and jamming Advancement's right up to 1943 and then getting on in age were replaced by Mosquito's. You can't nock the good these planes did in the war.
The Defiant was never out of date, it was designed as a bomber formation destroyer, and when used in this role was a resounding success, Sadly the concept was a flawed one and the defiant was demoted quite rapidly when circumstance allowed, but she did her rather useful bit and I for one am glad that she was there to defend our little bit of green.
Interesting sidenote: The Blackburn Roc, a similar concept, but designed for the navy as a carrier based fighter, was also built by Boulton Paul. The plane was based on the Skua, but used the same turret as the Defiant. The production run actually delayed the production of the Defiant, which was a far superior aircraft. This shows us the "benefit" of bureaucracy to its utmost extent ^^
The initial P-51 was purchased in large numbers with the Allison engine (along with the P-38) as a ground attack aircraft, and it did a good job (over 400 mph),the Merlin made it a fantastic escort fighter, which the Brits did NOT have,Packard made numerous additions to the Merlin making it a more reliable engine.. The Wldcat (Martlet) was a equal if not better aircraft then the Zero if flown right, proved over the Pacific. And by the way, I have 2500 hours PIC time in aircraft, you have??? SFB
Hmm, interesting point. Looks like an access panel for ground crew maintenance - I'm not convinced that a gunner encumbered by a rhino suit would get through it in a hurry!
Thanks for your courteous reply-my late father in law was a rear gunner on Lancasters and didn't have a high opinion of the Defiant,come to think of it he was only about 5 feet three inches tall-perhaps that was part of the selection criteria for gunners?
The saddest thing about the one remaining one is the damage done to it by the museum staff. I walked away from it when I found the taper collet wing pins had been sawn off to remove them, damaging the spar fittings in the process. The coolant pipes running through the cockpit had been flattened by the boots of countless cadets. Yes, I did cry.
Actually the early P-51 (A30) was a "ground attack fighter" (can you believe it!) not really wanted by the USAAC, but the RAF saw its potential. It was as manoverable (or more so) than Spits,But it was SUPERCHARGERS that was the Allison's downfall, a Single stage, vs the two stage for the Spits, hence a 15-17 thousand optimal height for fighting, far below ME-109 spit,FW-190.. Aha!! the RAF said, lets put a Merlin in it!! Ta-Da, P-51.. The best of both worlds, British Engine, USAAC fighter!!!
The flaw with the Defiant was the lack of forward firing armament. However, with experience the crews developed effective night-fighter tactics but the aircraft was withdrawn from service soon after. It had an incidental deterrent factor in that it was at first glance sometimes mistaken for a Hurricane. It is good to see the less "glamorous" marks being brought to mind. The Battle of Britain was fought not just by the Hurricane, Spitfire and Gladiator but included were the Defiant, Blenheim (hastily pressed into service as a fighter), the Westland Whirlwind (one of the fastest and the most heavily armed RAF fighter at the outbreak of war, but only two squadrons went into service) and even the Miles Master was armed as an emergency fighter (though did not see action). There were, of course other marks involved.
that's probably like saying the flaw with German Zerstorer fighters was the lack of forward-firing armament...except...they had plenty of forward-firing armament and it still wasn't the answer because that was not most of the problem. Ditto the Defiant...so you put 303 or 20mm forward-firing on it somehow, if you can..you keep the turret and gunner, or OTOH maybe you get rid of it/him. Either way? What do you particularly have now? Some kind of bomber-destroyer...which is still in about as much trouble as it ever was, vs opposing SS SE interceptors? Remind me what the point was in the first place? the lesson was already being learned in WW1, that the heavy daylight fighter , just did not really work..they got the Brisfit, which was a disaster in action at first, until they changed flying tactics with it and flew it like a single seater instead of twin...ok, it from there, there was some turnabout, it held it's own, maybe even did well in bursts because of it's increased versatility and possibly because the balance of crew experience and skill between the RFC/RAF and the Huns probably tilted a little in favor of the British in 1918..when you read WW1 memoirs, most major Allied aces who comment on it, say the aircraft was a hairbrained pigheaded denial of lessons already hard and bloodily learned. Now between 1918, and 1939, the lesson was simply unlearned again...and the lessons were even truer in 1940, than they had been in 1918...the chasm had widened between any heavy 2 seat aircraft trying to fight SSs on their own terms.
Well, if it is incomprehensible , how did you manage to formulate a reply to it at all? Two seat single-engined heavy fighters were a failed concept, that's been explained to you.It became a token makeshift night-fighter precisely because there was not much else left to do with that failed concept.
The Defiant failed initially and ironically, as I have explained twice already, started to become successful as a night-fighter as tactics were perfected. With that development and forward firing armament the Defiant may well have been a very successful aircraft. Simple, but you are determined not to understand clear English! Just as you failed to understand the clear explanation in the video narrative that the Defiant was a purpose designed night-fighter, so not a failed day operator relegated to night warfare. Fuckwit!
The Defiant worked well enough when close formation discipline was practiced, in a descending Lufbury. Later day sorties ignored this advice and were slaughtered.
A handsome plane, but the turret makes it look deceptively safe when it was actually quite vulnerable. While it did well as a nightfighter I think it could potentially still have been used as a daytime bomber interceptor over London. The 109's didnt get to stay much time over London due to their limited range. Would have left the hurricanes and spitfires more time to concentrate on taking down the remaining fighters such as the bf110's.
Some terrible misconceptions here. The Defiant was designed to intercept *unescorted* bombers, using the turret to attack from outside the arc of the bombers defensive fire. It was not made to face single-seat fighters and it was not anticipated that France would be over-run so early on thus granting the Luftwaffe fighter bases within reach of the British mainland.
I suppose when it was conceived no one at the Air Ministry could envisage the situation where Fighter Command would have have to tackle single engined enemy fighters over the south east of England it was a fallacy that would lead to the flawed tactic of rigid area fighting attacks by Spitfires and Hurricanes that were designed to tackle bombers but made little allowance for enemy fighters,the fall of France challenged many of the assumptions made by pre-war planners .
Paul boulton Defiant Had a weeker earlier type of Merlin "only made about 1,000hp" and could have been fitted with foreward firing wing mouned machine guns, the ball turret wasnt a bad idea, the small week engine and lack of forward firing wing mounted guns? Had they equiped it with the same wing mounted arsenal and engin upgrade as the Hurricane and spitfire? It mite have lasted.
"Between the wars both sides forgot a lot of hard won tactical lessons..." J. Johnson. Surprising that no one noticed earlier the flaw in a "fighter" that needed to wait to be attacked in order to actually start fighting. Most probably the result of some faulty conclusions drawn from RAF exercises during "peace time" with Demons and such lead to the misconception. Still a lovely aircraft, though, and I would probably have some teeth pulled for the chance to fly one.
Once they came up against the Me 109's & Bf 110's, I think the top brass realised that it was a doomed design. Not much point in adding 2 x 0.303's in the wings (probably the lightest weight option) for the good it would do. Someone also wrote that this would have reduced the fuel tank capacity anyway. As others have said, it was a handy plane to have a few of until production of better more suitable aircraft came on stream.
+Purwa Adiyasa The .303 Browning fired between 10 and 13 rounds per second. It wasn’t possible to harmonise 4 of them to fire through a 3-blade propellor.
I note the comment below about the guns' fire being interrupted by the tail, which makes sense but I also saw in two or three photos the guns laid forward along the fuselage, aimed straight at the propellor. Since there is no mention of them being used in that position, one presumes an interruptor for four guns firing through the prop was an unpractible proposition. They really should have fitted two or four 20mm cannon on the wings as they did with the latter Spitfires. Come to think of it, the turret should have had two 20mm cannon instead of the four .303s. My father flew mid-upper turret on Halifaxes and they were also fitted with the four machine gun set up. .50 cal. were always a better bet, in my mind, than the .303s. Different approaches between UK and US.
adding all that extra hardware adds so much weight and upsets balance so much, probably, that there is really no point in a 2 seat single-engined fighter with guns firing forward and a turret firing all around at the back..the aircraft is then overloaded and performance, which is marginal as it is, is further degraded..the point was that the whole concept was non-viable...except perhaps in night-fighting, which the Defiant was never really designed for either.
you're missing the point, when they got in amongst bombers they created havoc, with the turret being able to turn through 180 deg maybe more.the best team, barker and thorn shot down 13 confirmed enemy aircraft.
Thats a good question. I dont really know the answer, if it were synchronised it would have helped a bit though the gunner would be firing blind on the pilots order which whilst odd could probably have worked. Im inclined to think it wasnt designed to fire that way and thats just how they rolled out the factory but it would be interesting to know.
It was moderately successful early but only because inexperienced German pilot mistook it for a Hurricane. Aside from it was useless as a day fighter. It did better as a stop-gap night fighter at least until the Beaufighter came along.
yes, but that was done by the Germans with Schrage Musik, without some poor slob trapped in a ridiculous turret death-trap trying to train the guns straight up to attack from below..
From what I understand , they didn't, is the short answer...if a Defiant was shot down, failing miracles, the TAG went where the aircraft went and shared it's fate...
With the guns level, the gunner would swing the guns 90 degrees to the side, a panel of perspex could be rolled to side, and he could step from there to the wing. {The sliding panel being 180 degrees opposite the guns.
+Darren Nicol Are you sure? From the picture at the top, the turret looks to be almost aft of the wings trailing edge with the fillet joining the fuselage below. With a bulky parachute, how did the TAG get out?
the cockpit was a very small place to work in... the turret entrance was via canvas curtains, and no way can I get into it!! The Polish flyers operating the aircraft were selective about the size of crew... a skinny lad under 5foot tall was needed. Not much room for ammunition either... you have to see to believe how cramped it all was. Floor is covered in wires, coolant tubes to rad under floor... drop a spanner, it's gone... Popping a single 20mm cannon turret into a Mustang would have worked
I've heard about that. I was referring more to the BF110 however. Which were sometimes used to escort bombers to the areas the BF109 couldnt reach. I still think the twin engined BF110 would have won, but it wouldnt have been such a walkover.
I pretty much agree with you but it was never used in the role they originally intended it for. A specialised interceptor against large undefended bomber formations. How it would have performed in that situation will remain unanswered. Although with the advent of the BF110 long range fighter they probably should have cancelled the project. As 110's would likely have made short work of defiants.
great stuff. I think the voice is Australian, odd that he mentions the SW Pacific in relation to Defiant. Ive always had a feeling they probably exaggerated how many Germans they got over Dunkirk a bit.
I love the propaganda about seeing in the dark, no mention of the radar. The guys that flew it showed amazing courage and the number of aircraft that they destroyed made a real difference.
When 264 Sqn was posted to the same airfield as 141, it resulted in a punch-up. 264's crews felt that 141's inexperience had been their downfall, and that they were losing more aircrew to night-flying accidents than they had flying day missions against the Luftwaffe. As for your final comment, glass houses spring to mind... ;¬)
It certainly looks like it. A friend's father in the Fleet Air Arm flew Defiants in Sierra Leone during 1944, which would have needed the Vokes filter, I'll know more when I get copies of his log book, but what the FAA were doing there I have no idea. Information about this is pretty much non-existent but we're working on it.
Would there ever have been a point in having a 2nd man in a single engine fighter? Say the Defiant lost the heavy turret, put some guns in the wings, but kept a man in the back to look out for fighters.
Hold on yourself, the tenet that an enemy aircraft would fly in a nice line, for you to pull up and shoot is crazy, most german fighter pilots thought it was a hurricane, once they realized no foward gun (laughable for a fighter) they were shot down in large numbers. And the 110 tried the Carcocelle manuever, again a manuever which does nothing to control airspace or do any kind of attack
The Defiant was a flawed concept - based on the ideas of WW1 rather then what was needed in WW2. However, its main problem was that a 1,000 hp Merlin was not man enough to horse around a two man aircraft AND a hydraulic powered turret. The Royal Naval equivalent, the Blackburn Roc, was even worse.
Given the Defiant's reputation as a failure.....I wonder about if there is any more objective - or anecdotal evidence of the great victory at Dunkirk where they downed 37 enemies in a day???
'...where they downed 37 enemies in a day???...' The actual number of German aircraft CLAIMED as destroyed was 39. The Germans did not lose 39 aircraft in total on 29th May 1940. At best, the number that can be attributed to 264 Squadron is around 4-5. See the book, 'Dunkirk Combat Archive' published by Red Kite for confirmation of this.
Defiant's weight from dorsal turret degraded its dogfighting capabilities to the extent that adding more front -firing armament would have been even more of a disadvantage. Its an embarrassment the the Air Ministry ever considered the Defiant as a front line fighter.
Sometimes but it wasn`t easy. there was an escape panel directly below the gunner and he wore a special type of form-fitting parachute to help him bail out. A lot of Defiant gunners did die however.
![The Defiant's Failed Successor | Boulton-Paul P.92 [Aircraft Overview #93]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ru2MVpyr9ks/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for posting this up. My Dad who's 87 now was invloved in some of the design work to this plane. He'll be really glad to see it when I show him. :)
a aeroplane worthy of the brave crews who fought in them...I doff my cap to the gallant defiant crews...outstanding gentleman all.
This was my first Airfix kit model in the 1960's.
Very interesting video. The defiant tends to be overlooked because of other more famous types of aircraft from WWII, so it's nice to see a film dedicated to it. Thanks for sharing that with us, bomberguy. Keep up the good work.
Their was also a proposed variant called P.94 that didn't have a turret and was going to be armed with either 12 .303s or 4 hispano 20mm cannons and 4 .303s and had a projected speed of 360 mph however by that point in 1940 their was sufficient production of hurricanes and spitfires it was decided that another single-seat fighter wasn't needed at that point
Interesting. I've wondered why they didn't repurpose the airframe as a conventional fighter or fighter-bomber to make use of the production capacity.
Because if it cannot fulfill it's purpose anyway with tactical efficiency, and something else can do, unless another compelling use is found for it (as sort of happened with the Typhoon, it was never envisaged as high potency CAS fighter-bomber, it was to be a high speed low altitude interceptor full-stop) then, why have scarce industrial and human resources tied down building it?
If they do not work, and Spitfires and Hurricanes apparently do, wouldn't you phase down the Defiant, relegate it as it can be relegated existing aircraft, and move on with existing designs whilst looking for new ones?
its showed with the turret facing forward, guns either side of the cockpit. but its not interrupted to fire through the propeller.
With great difficulty. The sliding rear quadrant of the turret cover was the only exit, and it was a tight squeeze. The gunner wore a 'rhino suit' with self-contained parachute and dinghy, which was an improvement on a separate parachute pack - but not much.
And believe it or not, it was possible to take off and land in a Defiant, even on a combat mission. As I said, read a book...
I wonder how many German pilots gave the hurricane a wide birth thinking it was a Defiant???? It possibly saved lives without leaving the ground.... If the Defiant had top cover like it should of then more brave pilots and gunners would possibly survived...... Brilliant footage..
Yea
Interesting film.My dad was a rear gunner in Wellingtons and lancasters also Boltimore bombers during the war,he had a friend who was a gunner in Defiants who took part in a dylight raid over france in the early part of the war.He survived although he did have a metal plate in his head from injuries he sustained on that day.
there is also an escape hatch below and to the rear of the turret,it could only be accessed if the turret was facing forward,the gunner would have to stand up fold his seat and climb down backwards and out through the hatch to the rear of the wing,not easy but it gave him an another option.
As a 7 yr old kid in 1940, t had many models of British aircraft, but was always fascinated by the Defiant, because it looked so compact and heavily armed with turret. (I liked the Blenheim too) Even to my juvenile eye, the Fairey Swordfish looked quaint and obsolete, but what a job those pilots did anyway!
I will ALWAYS be proud of my British cousins!
My great uncle was a rear gunner in one of these, and I believe he survived the war as well!
Excellent work, yet again!
Thanks Bomberguy!!!
looking like the Hawker Hurricane, although it was at least 1,500 lb (680 kg) heavier. A clean, simple and compact monoplane structure had been achieved with main landing gear retracting into a broad mainplane section. The pilot's cockpit and rear turret were faired into a streamlined upper fuselage section. Fuel was carried in the wing centre section along with a large ventral radiator that completed the resemblance to the Hawker fighter. With a 1,030 hp (768 kW) Rolls-Royce Merlin I,
Everytime that pilot flew inverted, I was waiting for the massive turret to fall off the plane...
As turrets go that was a small, compact design that managed to get four guns and a gunner into as small a space as possible. It also later found use on early B-24 Liberator`s used by the RAF and later marks of Halifax bombers. Only drawback was the difficulty getting out of it in an emergency on the Defiant.
and unfortunately, emergencies became more and more likely...
.
There's one thing that is bad about the Defiant in my eyes: There's only one left.
One of my favourite Airfix kits , BP Defiant 👌🏻😎
"shot down 37 fighters and bombers without loss" that guy maybe went a bit too far. Nevertheless, really nice material. This aircraft remains largely unknown for the general public.
I only just found out about it after seeing it on the Memorial Wall at Capel-Le-Ferne. I'd been aware of Spitfires and Hurricanes since being knee high to a grasshopper nut the Defiant was a new one on me.
That is true, at first it was thought to be an Hurry by the krauts so they attacked from astern. Once they woke up they made frontal attacks and as the turret was useless through the Prop arc and with no wing cannon they were shot down.
However during the Blitz they could slip under a bomber and effectively dispose of it.
Richardsen i laughed. No propaganda we swear! 37! Sure it did...
+Thomas Buettner it did mainly because the Luftwaffe mistook it for a Hurricane which it had a very similar profile and tried to bounce it from behind and got a nasty surprise the squadron that achieved this was 264 squadron who also had a tactic of forming a descending circle to protect from the lack of forward firepower (known as the Luftbury circle) however when 141 squadron were committed to the battle of Britain they ignored the recommendations of 264 squadron and suffered heavy casualties which resulted in the Defiant being withdrawn from daytime service
Does any one know if wing guns were retro-fitted or not?
The Germans first mistook it for a Hurricane, then jumped it from behind. All the 109s were destroyed. Later the Germans realised that it was woefully slow...and defenseless from the front. If only there had been a 303 in each wing root...
thank you i NEEDED this video for my school project
@Giselle76502 the 1st P-40 flew with an 1830 C.I. pratt and whitney 14 cyl,twin radial engine,soon replaced by a 1710 C.I.allison V-12.
later variants flew with the PACKHARD-merlin(1650 C.I.)
They should have added at least 2 forward firing machineguns. I also love that plane and nice vid!
Hey Bomberguy you've done it again!!! Excellent video, very rare!!! 5/5 rated!
Who needs night vision technology when you can see in the dark?! Bet the crews had a good laugh when they saw this. Brave men all of them.
Absolutely superb video- thank you
@Giselle76502 About 30 aircraft types used Merlin's including the Halifax, Wellington, Mosquito, Sterling, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation CA-15 (Australia), Bf109 (model 1112-M1L) built in Spain in 1954, the last BF109's built. Ironically the very first Bf109 prototype used a Rolls Royce Kestrel (from which the Merlin was developed) as no German engine was available.
the Lancaster rear turret was similar to the Defiant, but slightly taller I believe... I saw the City of Lincoln in 1969, when I was a kid of 17.... even then, I could not have spent time in there! Rear gunners are an underrated group of men.
@Bronzewhaler82 The Stirling was hobbled by an Air Ministry requrement that the wingspan be no more than100 feet an extra ten - fifteen feet of wing would have made an enormous difference especially in service ceiling and payload
There is a great chapter on this fighter in William Green's "Famous Fighters of WW2" first copyrighted in 1957 in GB. I see in this video a Defiant II fitted with the tropical intake filter and Merlin XX.
Good clip of a poorish aircraft.
I liked the boogie-woogie, it added a bit of contemporaneous musical atmosphere.
In 1936 the Air Ministry fell in love with the French specs for "Multiplace D'Combat" calling for warplanes with turrets everywhere. Please note that 1936 only the maiden debut of the Me-109 in Spain- they should have been aware of the Messerschmidt's ability to chew up to chew up Russian I-15 Ratas to anticipate the war of the future. Throwing out the Defiant's turret and fitting it with forward firing armament would only have produced another Hurricane.
Defiant's found a good role in the top secret missions testing radar and jamming Advancement's right up to 1943 and then getting on in age were replaced by Mosquito's. You can't nock the good these planes did in the war.
Barrie Tamkin no apostrophe for simple plurals! Don’t mean to knock you though.
MusicMadMaurice and an apostrophe is not needed in a simple plural.
I had been given the idea it was a failure but now as a night fighter, it has it's place. Again, thanks BG
The Defiant was never out of date, it was designed as a bomber formation destroyer, and when used in this role was a resounding success, Sadly the concept was a flawed one and the defiant was demoted quite rapidly when circumstance allowed, but she did her rather useful bit and I for one am glad that she was there to defend our little bit of green.
Superb footage
Interesting sidenote: The Blackburn Roc, a similar concept, but designed for the navy as a carrier based fighter, was also built by Boulton Paul. The plane was based on the Skua, but used the same turret as the Defiant. The production run actually delayed the production of the Defiant, which was a far superior aircraft. This shows us the "benefit" of bureaucracy to its utmost extent ^^
Ummm ... no ... the Roc was built by Blackburn, not Boulton Paul
The initial P-51 was purchased in large numbers with the Allison engine (along with the P-38) as a ground attack aircraft, and it did a good job (over 400 mph),the Merlin made it a fantastic escort fighter, which the Brits did NOT have,Packard made numerous additions to the Merlin making it a more reliable engine.. The Wldcat (Martlet) was a equal if not better aircraft then the Zero if flown right, proved over the Pacific. And by the way, I have 2500 hours PIC time in aircraft, you have??? SFB
Hmm, interesting point. Looks like an access panel for ground crew maintenance - I'm not convinced that a gunner encumbered by a rhino suit would get through it in a hurry!
Thanks for your courteous reply-my late father in law was a rear gunner on Lancasters and didn't have a high opinion of the Defiant,come to think of it he was only about 5 feet three inches tall-perhaps that was part of the selection criteria for gunners?
The saddest thing about the one remaining one is the damage done to it by the museum staff. I walked away from it when I found the taper collet wing pins had been sawn off to remove them, damaging the spar fittings in the process. The coolant pipes running through the cockpit had been flattened by the boots of countless cadets. Yes, I did cry.
Actually the early P-51 (A30) was a "ground attack fighter" (can you believe it!) not really wanted by the USAAC, but the RAF saw its potential. It was as manoverable (or more so) than Spits,But it was SUPERCHARGERS that was the Allison's downfall, a Single stage, vs the two stage for the Spits, hence a 15-17 thousand optimal height for fighting, far below ME-109 spit,FW-190.. Aha!! the RAF said, lets put a Merlin in it!! Ta-Da, P-51.. The best of both worlds, British Engine, USAAC fighter!!!
The flaw with the Defiant was the lack of forward firing armament. However, with experience the crews developed effective night-fighter tactics but the aircraft was withdrawn from service soon after. It had an incidental deterrent factor in that it was at first glance sometimes mistaken for a Hurricane. It is good to see the less "glamorous" marks being brought to mind. The Battle of Britain was fought not just by the Hurricane, Spitfire and Gladiator but included were the Defiant, Blenheim (hastily pressed into service as a fighter), the Westland Whirlwind (one of the fastest and the most heavily armed RAF fighter at the outbreak of war, but only two squadrons went into service) and even the Miles Master was armed as an emergency fighter (though did not see action). There were, of course other marks involved.
that's probably like saying the flaw with German Zerstorer fighters was the lack of forward-firing armament...except...they had plenty of forward-firing armament and it still wasn't the answer because that was not most of the problem.
Ditto the Defiant...so you put 303 or 20mm forward-firing on it somehow, if you can..you keep the turret and gunner, or OTOH maybe you get rid of it/him.
Either way?
What do you particularly have now?
Some kind of bomber-destroyer...which is still in about as much trouble as it ever was, vs opposing SS SE interceptors?
Remind me what the point was in the first place?
the lesson was already being learned in WW1, that the heavy daylight fighter , just did not really work..they got the Brisfit, which was a disaster in action at first, until they changed flying tactics with it and flew it like a single seater instead of twin...ok, it from there, there was some turnabout, it held it's own, maybe even did well in bursts because of it's increased versatility and possibly because the balance of crew experience and skill between the RFC/RAF and the Huns probably tilted a little in favor of the British in 1918..when you read WW1 memoirs, most major Allied aces who comment on it, say the aircraft was a hairbrained pigheaded denial of lessons already hard and bloodily learned.
Now between 1918, and 1939, the lesson was simply unlearned again...and the lessons were even truer in 1940, than they had been in 1918...the chasm had widened between any heavy 2 seat aircraft trying to fight SSs on their own terms.
What an incoherent, incomprehensible load of drivel. The Defiant was proving to be effective at the time of its withdrawal from service.
Well, if it is incomprehensible , how did you manage to formulate a reply to it at all?
Two seat single-engined heavy fighters were a failed concept, that's been explained to you.It became a token makeshift night-fighter precisely because there was not much else left to do with that failed concept.
The Defiant failed initially and ironically, as I have explained twice already, started to become successful as a night-fighter as tactics were perfected. With that development and forward firing armament the Defiant may well have been a very successful aircraft. Simple, but you are determined not to understand clear English! Just as you failed to understand the clear explanation in the video narrative that the Defiant was a purpose designed night-fighter, so not a failed day operator relegated to night warfare. Fuckwit!
Fucking ranting infant...fuck yourself.
The Defiant worked well enough when close formation discipline was practiced, in a descending Lufbury. Later day sorties ignored this advice and were slaughtered.
What's a makes you such an effing know-it-all ?
Seeing one of these up close at Hendon was really interesting.
A handsome plane, but the turret makes it look deceptively safe when it was actually quite vulnerable.
While it did well as a nightfighter I think it could potentially still have been used as a daytime bomber interceptor over London. The 109's didnt get to stay much time over London due to their limited range.
Would have left the hurricanes and spitfires more time to concentrate on taking down the remaining fighters such as the bf110's.
Some terrible misconceptions here. The Defiant was designed to intercept *unescorted* bombers, using the turret to attack from outside the arc of the bombers defensive fire. It was not made to face single-seat fighters and it was not anticipated that France would be over-run so early on thus granting the Luftwaffe fighter bases within reach of the British mainland.
Remember to include the Fairey Battle ground attack craft with its horrendous casualty rate over the Sedan bridgeheads.
I suppose when it was conceived no one at the Air Ministry could envisage the situation where Fighter Command would have have to tackle single engined enemy fighters over the south east of England it was a fallacy that would lead to the flawed tactic of rigid area fighting attacks by Spitfires and Hurricanes that were designed to tackle bombers but made little allowance for enemy fighters,the fall of France challenged many of the assumptions made by pre-war planners .
once again BomberGuy mate you have done an excelent job!well done.. (where do you get these films from?)5 starts from me!
Behold the powerful Boulton-Paul Defiant and bask in its glory.
Great video.. :) Interesting history.
Paul boulton Defiant Had a weeker earlier type of Merlin "only made about 1,000hp" and could have been fitted with foreward firing wing mouned machine guns, the ball turret wasnt a bad idea, the small week engine and lack of forward firing wing mounted guns? Had they equiped it with the same wing mounted arsenal and engin upgrade as the Hurricane and spitfire? It mite have lasted.
"Between the wars both sides forgot a lot of hard won tactical lessons..." J. Johnson.
Surprising that no one noticed earlier the flaw in a "fighter" that needed to wait to be attacked in order to actually start fighting. Most probably the result of some faulty conclusions drawn from RAF exercises during "peace time" with Demons and such lead to the misconception. Still a lovely aircraft, though, and I would probably have some teeth pulled for the chance to fly one.
Once they came up against the Me 109's & Bf 110's, I think the top brass realised that it was a doomed design. Not much point in adding 2 x 0.303's in the wings (probably the lightest weight option) for the good it would do. Someone also wrote that this would have reduced the fuel tank capacity anyway. As others have said, it was a handy plane to have a few of until production of better more suitable aircraft came on stream.
would they have been any use flying under bomber formations and using the turret
Its currently in the RAF Museum Hendon, in its Night Fighter colours of a Polsih Sqn.
Danny
Fantastic site...best on the net!!!!
Big thanks, Bomberguy !!!
can the turret aim forward? if so is there some sort of prop sync device to allowed it to shoot through propeller?
+Purwa Adiyasa It could be aimed forwards, but it had to be pointed upwards by 19 degrees to avoid the prop.
+Purwa Adiyasa The .303 Browning fired between 10 and 13 rounds per second. It wasn’t possible to harmonise 4 of them to fire through a 3-blade propellor.
woulda been nice to have 2 sychronisized machine guns 303. in the front of the cockpit
i really like the boulton paul, just because the turret
The pilot had the ability to fire the guns when they were laid both sides of the canopy.
Would this have been a competative day fighter had it had no turret and wing mounted guns but otherwise much the same ?
How on earth did you acquire such detailed knowledge on an often reviled aircraft and did it deserve to be reviled (this is a genuine enquiry)
David
There was a more conventional, single seat version made later. Speed was a bit low so it was dropped I believe.
I note the comment below about the guns' fire being interrupted by the tail, which makes sense but I also saw in two or three photos the guns laid forward along the fuselage, aimed straight at the propellor. Since there is no mention of them being used in that position, one presumes an interruptor for four guns firing through the prop was an unpractible proposition. They really should have fitted two or four 20mm cannon on the wings as they did with the latter Spitfires. Come to think of it, the turret should have had two 20mm cannon instead of the four .303s.
My father flew mid-upper turret on Halifaxes and they were also fitted with the four machine gun set up. .50 cal. were always a better bet, in my mind, than the .303s. Different approaches between UK and US.
+deltavee2 would they had "two or four 20mm cannon on the wings" and the a/c would not leave the ground...
+Vasco Ribeiro The guns and ammo would not weigh enough to pose a problem, I'm sure.
The performance was already pedestrian...too old concept. They had Hurricanes and Spitfires among others.
adding all that extra hardware adds so much weight and upsets balance so much, probably, that there is really no point in a 2 seat single-engined fighter with guns firing forward and a turret firing all around at the back..the aircraft is then overloaded and performance, which is marginal as it is, is further degraded..the point was that the whole concept was non-viable...except perhaps in night-fighting, which the Defiant was never really designed for either.
you're missing the point, when they got in amongst bombers they created havoc, with the turret being able to turn through 180 deg maybe more.the best team, barker and thorn shot down 13 confirmed enemy aircraft.
Intriguing idea. Such a shame it didn't have some forward firing armament though. May have changed its success somewhat.
Thats a good question. I dont really know the answer, if it were synchronised it would have helped a bit though the gunner would be firing blind on the pilots order which whilst odd could probably have worked. Im inclined to think it wasnt designed to fire that way and thats just how they rolled out the factory but it would be interesting to know.
It was moderately successful early but only because inexperienced German pilot mistook it for a Hurricane. Aside from it was useless as a day fighter. It did better as a stop-gap night fighter at least until the Beaufighter came along.
As a night fighter it's perfect because you sneak up on the bombers and swing the turret around on all of them
yes, but that was done by the Germans with Schrage Musik, without some poor slob trapped in a ridiculous turret death-trap trying to train the guns straight up to attack from below..
+Countdown70s I have two models of the Defiant. Looking at it, how did the gunner get out?
From what I understand , they didn't, is the short answer...if a Defiant was shot down, failing miracles, the TAG went where the aircraft went and shared it's fate...
With the guns level, the gunner would swing the guns 90 degrees to the side, a panel of perspex could be rolled to side, and he could step from there to the wing. {The sliding panel being 180 degrees opposite the guns.
+Darren Nicol Are you sure? From the picture at the top, the turret looks to be almost aft of the wings trailing edge with the fillet joining the fuselage below. With a bulky parachute, how did the TAG get out?
I can only imagine if the RAF of 1939 / 1940 had a large supply of 0.50cal Brownings rather than .303....
some Lancaster's had their rear turret converted in May 1944 to use twin .50 cals instead of the 4 X 303's
Sort of like a cross between a Hurricane and a Spitfire?😎
But I have a question: is there any Supermarine Spiteful video in your "library"? There isn't anything like that anywhere I have looked...
the cockpit was a very small place to work in... the turret entrance was via canvas curtains, and no way can I get into it!! The Polish flyers operating the aircraft were selective about the size of crew... a skinny lad under 5foot tall was needed. Not much room for ammunition either... you have to see to believe how cramped it all was. Floor is covered in wires, coolant tubes to rad under floor... drop a spanner, it's gone...
Popping a single 20mm cannon turret into a Mustang would have worked
I've heard about that. I was referring more to the BF110 however. Which were sometimes used to escort bombers to the areas the BF109 couldnt reach. I still think the twin engined BF110 would have won, but it wouldnt have been such a walkover.
Were rear-facing turrets designed so they automatically stopped firing when aimed at the tail ?
I pretty much agree with you but it was never used in the role they originally intended it for. A specialised interceptor against large undefended bomber formations. How it would have performed in that situation will remain unanswered. Although with the advent of the BF110 long range fighter they probably should have cancelled the project. As 110's would likely have made short work of defiants.
great stuff.
I think the voice is Australian, odd that he mentions the SW Pacific in relation to Defiant.
Ive always had a feeling they probably exaggerated how many Germans they got over Dunkirk a bit.
I love the propaganda about seeing in the dark, no mention of the radar. The guys that flew it showed amazing courage and the number of aircraft that they destroyed made a real difference.
When 264 Sqn was posted to the same airfield as 141, it resulted in a punch-up. 264's crews felt that 141's inexperience had been their downfall, and that they were losing more aircrew to night-flying accidents than they had flying day missions against the Luftwaffe.
As for your final comment, glass houses spring to mind... ;¬)
Utter rubbish.
I think its a good looking plane and has the looks of a spitfire minus the gun turret of course.
the defiant was death machine it was scrapped very quickly after active duty ,!
it was good looking, sturdy, and had good handling.
Er... the Defiant had an interrupter cam to prevent shooting off the tail...
Is that a Hurricane-type vokes filter under the nose?
It certainly looks like it. A friend's father in the Fleet Air Arm flew Defiants in Sierra Leone during 1944, which would have needed the Vokes filter, I'll know more when I get copies of his log book, but what the FAA were doing there I have no idea. Information about this is pretty much non-existent but we're working on it.
Would there ever have been a point in having a 2nd man in a single engine fighter? Say the Defiant lost the heavy turret, put some guns in the wings, but kept a man in the back to look out for fighters.
An Beaufighter.
Bomberguy, keep up the good work, please!
would be quite usefull as u circle troops on the ground u could fire continuously at them or fly under a bomber formation.
If only they put twin Brownings and Hispano cannons forward facing and beefed up the powerplant then that would have made it something really special.
well put together video';-)
Beautiful example at RAF Hendon museum.
The plane is featured in Rowans Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain 2, unfortunatly not as a flyable craft.
I made the Airfix model as well!
@UKkid19 yes at dunkirk, start, they were not fooled after,in july and august 40.
listed at the end of the video
Hold on yourself, the tenet that an enemy aircraft would fly in a nice line, for you to pull up and shoot is crazy, most german fighter pilots thought it was a hurricane, once they realized no foward gun (laughable for a fighter) they were shot down in large numbers. And the 110 tried the Carcocelle manuever, again a manuever which does nothing to control airspace or do any kind of attack
Men who were pointlessly sacrificed.
The Defiant was a flawed concept - based on the ideas of WW1 rather then what was needed in WW2. However, its main problem was that a 1,000 hp Merlin was not man enough to horse around a two man aircraft AND a hydraulic powered turret.
The Royal Naval equivalent, the Blackburn Roc, was even worse.
The later Defiants had the Merlin XX engine, 1480 hp.
@@chrisrichards2544 Too late by then. Yes - I'm still around after 14 years.
I think more Airfix models were produced than the actual aircraft.
Think Boulton and franc Defiant is very singolar Wat is the different ??
How do you say "Meat on the table" in German?
Given the Defiant's reputation as a failure.....I wonder about if there is any more objective - or anecdotal evidence of the great victory at Dunkirk where they downed 37 enemies in a day???
'...where they downed 37 enemies in a day???...' The actual number of German aircraft CLAIMED as destroyed was 39. The Germans did not lose 39 aircraft in total on 29th May 1940. At best, the number that can be attributed to 264 Squadron is around 4-5. See the book, 'Dunkirk Combat Archive' published by Red Kite for confirmation of this.
it was actually the A-36 Apache.
Defiant's weight from dorsal turret degraded its dogfighting capabilities to the extent that adding more front -firing armament would have been even more of a disadvantage. Its an embarrassment the the Air Ministry ever considered the Defiant as a front line fighter.
Did any gunners ever escape?
Sometimes but it wasn`t easy. there was an escape panel directly below the gunner and he wore a special type of form-fitting parachute to help him bail out. A lot of Defiant gunners did die however.