What a video Dilip.... I've been a bit Quixotic in my long defence of the Defiant over the years in YT.... A thankless task trying to convey the purpose of its design and subsequent misuse in a comments forum where the average attention span is exceeded by that of goldfish. I feel at long last vindicated in my efforts. Here's my much used comment that I copy and past in its defence wherever necessary. "A much maligned aircraft, the BP Defiant was NEVER meant to operate against ESCORTED bombers. At the time the British air ministry issued its original specification for a "turreted fighter" in 1935, the luftwaffe was operating from airbases within mainland Germany, and even from the closest bases to Britain the luftwaffe fighters did not possess the range to escort the bombers that far. This being the case the BP Defiant was designed to operate against unescorted bombers attacking Britain from across the North sea, a role that it would have handled admirably. The idea for the Defiant was NOT as an "air superiority" dogfighter, but it was instead designed as a "bomber Destroyer" that did NOT attack bombers from the most dangerous position for the attacking aircraft, that is from astern where the maximum degree of defensive fire on a bomber was directed, but was instead intended to fly ALONGSIDE the unescorted bombers and "hose" then from relative safety. A method of attack that it was ADMIRABLY suited to. Now fast forward to 1940. After the Wehrmacht had crushed the French they now possessed airbases a LOT closer to Britain than in 1935, meaning that German bombers WOULD now be escorted in the skies over Britain... and THAT was were the mistake was made, as it was decided to operate the Defiant against the now ESCORTED bomber formations, though it was quickly withdrawn from the role after resultant heavy losses. The fall of France and the stationing of the Luftwaffe fighters on airfields in the Pas de Calais COMPLETELY sank the idea of a heavy "bomber destroyer" fighter. It was simply desperation & crass stupidity by the British air ministry that they were then commited to daylight operations in the south of England in Summer 1940, BUT the original concept was sound at the time it was conceived. Though it did later operate with some success as a night fighter and then as a pioneering ECM aircraft and finally as a target tug for training air gunners." I'll be rewriting it and making a more fulsome answer in light of the information in yet another of your excellent productions. Keep up the good work, Mr Sarkar !!!
Hi Dilip, just revisited this fascinating podcast and wondered if you are referring to “Defiant - Forgotten Heroes of the BoB” when you say towards the end that there is a ‘recent’ book littered with mistakes? I ask becos I found it a good read (with helpful footnotes) when I wanted to learn more about the Defiant a few years ago. Meanwhile, can’t wait to read Andy’s book…👍
The fall of France in 6 weeks SHOCKED Europe ,people were speechless. The original concept was to fly under enemy bombers, to shoot it in the "soft" under belly. But German bombers had belly gunners. Strangely enough, Germany did use "under belly" tactics later on against British heavy bombers, very successfully. v
It was designed to fly alongside the enemy bombers, not so much underneath, to be out of their limited gun firing arcs, which were mainly front & rear, & a lot less cover on the sides. RAF bombers later had no 'belly' (ventral) gunner, so it made sense to attack from that direction, as less likely to be both seen & fired on.
There were four approved attack formations to be used by Defiant squadrons, such as a flanking attack, and one where a formation is followed on either side, and the Defiants overtake at the head of the enemy in a cross over. With no imagination, they were called Attacks 1 to 4.
Interested in how, other than being turret equipped, efficient and advanced was the design of the Boulton Paul fighter. In many way more advances than the Hurricane, being as I understand it, fully metal skinned,m and not that much slower dispite the extra weight and crew.
It was very stable, and despite the higher weight could be thrown about like a fighter, but as some pilots noted this was pretty hard work. It was also solid, with only two suffering mid-air break ups, and one of those was due to a botched repair on battle damage.
Whoever based 141 novice Defiant Sqn at Hawking , on the front line , was huge mistake. Defiant sqns should have been for London defense only, further back. n
Defiants were supposed to have fighter escort in their tactics, if in the range of enemy fighters. They did this in France, & proved reasonably successful, sometimes even more so than single seat fighters, as the fighter cover gave them an opportunity to fight in their designed role. 141 was sent to Hawkinge, as it was at full strength, & still a 'modern' fighter squadron, & was seen as giving depleted squadrons a chance to recover. At this point, the Defiant squadrons still saw themselves as good as single seater squadrons, & wanted to prove their worth. RAF High High Command should have reviewed their deployment though, after 242 squadron feedback. It should be remembered what happened to 141 could have happened to any single seater squadron, especially with being outnumbered as they were, by veteran pilots, & being bounced. It was the luck of the draw. Many single seat squadrons also got bounced & took losses (both Allied & German). That said, I agree it would have been far better to keep it back over London, especially as they weren't getting the upgrades the single seat squadrons were.
@@eric-wb7gj One big advantage the Defiant did have, was that it was very difficult to sneak up on one, whereas many single seater pilots lost their lives never seeing the "Hunn at 6 Hi" k
@@RemusKingOfRome Yes, true. The nature of air combat means the threat is never far away. Both 242's & 141's heaviest losses were when bounced by far larger forces. Defiant's get a bad press, but forget what the odds were (& context) when they got bounced. In those situations, single seat squadrons 'may' have fared even worse.
![The 'Great Fighter' That Became A Great Disappointment | Yakovlev Yak-2 [Aircraft Overview #22]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JKZ8mQmKQQU/mqdefault.jpg)
What a video Dilip.... I've been a bit Quixotic in my long defence of the Defiant over the years in YT.... A thankless task trying to convey the purpose of its design and subsequent misuse in a comments forum where the average attention span is exceeded by that of goldfish. I feel at long last vindicated in my efforts. Here's my much used comment that I copy and past in its defence wherever necessary.
"A much maligned aircraft, the BP Defiant was NEVER meant to operate against ESCORTED bombers. At the time the British air ministry issued its original specification for a "turreted fighter" in 1935, the luftwaffe was operating from airbases within mainland Germany, and even from the closest bases to Britain the luftwaffe fighters did not possess the range to escort the bombers that far. This being the case the BP Defiant was designed to operate against unescorted bombers attacking Britain from across the North sea, a role that it would have handled admirably.
The idea for the Defiant was NOT as an "air superiority" dogfighter, but it was instead designed as a "bomber Destroyer" that did NOT attack bombers from the most dangerous position for the attacking aircraft, that is from astern where the maximum degree of defensive fire on a bomber was directed, but was instead intended to fly ALONGSIDE the unescorted bombers and "hose" then from relative safety. A method of attack that it was ADMIRABLY suited to.
Now fast forward to 1940. After the Wehrmacht had crushed the French they now possessed airbases a LOT closer to Britain than in 1935, meaning that German bombers WOULD now be escorted in the skies over Britain... and THAT was were the mistake was made, as it was decided to operate the Defiant against the now ESCORTED bomber formations, though it was quickly withdrawn from the role after resultant heavy losses. The fall of France and the stationing of the Luftwaffe fighters on airfields in the Pas de Calais COMPLETELY sank the idea of a heavy "bomber destroyer" fighter. It was simply desperation & crass stupidity by the British air ministry that they were then commited to daylight operations in the south of England in Summer 1940, BUT the original concept was sound at the time it was conceived.
Though it did later operate with some success as a night fighter and then as a pioneering ECM aircraft and finally as a target tug for training air gunners."
I'll be rewriting it and making a more fulsome answer in light of the information in yet another of your excellent productions.
Keep up the good work, Mr Sarkar !!!
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 agree with all you say but my ‘brother’ Andy Long is the expert - more pods on the Defiant coming soon.
Thanks for the video
Hi Dilip, just revisited this fascinating podcast and wondered if you are referring to “Defiant - Forgotten Heroes of the BoB” when you say towards the end that there is a ‘recent’ book littered with mistakes? I ask becos I found it a good read (with helpful footnotes) when I wanted to learn more about the Defiant a few years ago. Meanwhile, can’t wait to read Andy’s book…👍
@@alanruyten8226 I don’t think it was that title but came out several years ago. Andy should review it, whatever it is!
It’s a pity that this series cannot be found on Apple podcasts.
@@woodyw9798 all in good time.
TY 🙏🙏
The fall of France in 6 weeks SHOCKED Europe ,people were speechless.
The original concept was to fly under enemy bombers, to shoot it in the "soft" under belly. But German bombers had belly gunners. Strangely enough, Germany did use "under belly" tactics later on against British heavy bombers, very successfully. v
It was designed to fly alongside the enemy bombers, not so much underneath, to be out of their limited gun firing arcs, which were mainly front & rear, & a lot less cover on the sides. RAF bombers later had no 'belly' (ventral) gunner, so it made sense to attack from that direction, as less likely to be both seen & fired on.
There were four approved attack formations to be used by Defiant squadrons, such as a flanking attack, and one where a formation is followed on either side, and the Defiants overtake at the head of the enemy in a cross over. With no imagination, they were called Attacks 1 to 4.
Interested in how, other than being turret equipped, efficient and advanced was the design of the Boulton Paul fighter. In many way more advances than the Hurricane, being as I understand it, fully metal skinned,m and not that much slower dispite the extra weight and crew.
It was very stable, and despite the higher weight could be thrown about like a fighter, but as some pilots noted this was pretty hard work. It was also solid, with only two suffering mid-air break ups, and one of those was due to a botched repair on battle damage.
Whoever based 141 novice Defiant Sqn at Hawking , on the front line , was huge mistake. Defiant sqns should have been for London defense only, further back. n
Defiants were supposed to have fighter escort in their tactics, if in the range of enemy fighters. They did this in France, & proved reasonably successful, sometimes even more so than single seat fighters, as the fighter cover gave them an opportunity to fight in their designed role.
141 was sent to Hawkinge, as it was at full strength, & still a 'modern' fighter squadron, & was seen as giving depleted squadrons a chance to recover. At this point, the Defiant squadrons still saw themselves as good as single seater squadrons, & wanted to prove their worth. RAF High High Command should have reviewed their deployment though, after 242 squadron feedback. It should be remembered what happened to 141 could have happened to any single seater squadron, especially with being outnumbered as they were, by veteran pilots, & being bounced. It was the luck of the draw. Many single seat squadrons also got bounced & took losses (both Allied & German).
That said, I agree it would have been far better to keep it back over London, especially as they weren't getting the upgrades the single seat squadrons were.
@@eric-wb7gj Thanks, good points. Cannot wait for this new book.
@@eric-wb7gj One big advantage the Defiant did have, was that it was very difficult to sneak up on one, whereas many single seater pilots lost their lives never seeing the "Hunn at 6 Hi" k
@@RemusKingOfRome Yes, true. The nature of air combat means the threat is never far away. Both 242's & 141's heaviest losses were when bounced by far larger forces. Defiant's get a bad press, but forget what the odds were (& context) when they got bounced. In those situations, single seat squadrons 'may' have fared even worse.
Sorry, 264 squadron, not 242.