My grandfather was a defiant gunner. He had 3 kills plus an unconfirmed. They moved him to Halifaxes after they discontinued the defiants. I still have his RCAF navigational computer/slide rule.

@richardsawyer5428

2 жыл бұрын

The Yorkshire Air Museum is in the site of a former Halifax base. It was home to the Free French heavy bomber force. Worth a visit should you be exploring that part very scenic part of the world.

@davidh6300

2 жыл бұрын

Good job to get 3 kills.

@WarblesOnALot

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidh6300 G'day, Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE. That claim absolutely DEFIES imagination The RAF records do not show ANY Defiant Gunner with 3 Kills from any Defiant in Daylight..., and at night they struggled to find any Enemy Bombers - let alone hit them. Grandpappy might perhaps possibly have TRAINED on Defiants, as part of the Empire Aircrew Training Scheme ; and then claimed 3 & a half kills from a Turret in a Halifax...? But not from a Defiant. My guess is that either someone has stretched the truth, or someone else has misunderconstumbled the story..., after many retellings. Such is life. Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

@AtheAetheling

2 жыл бұрын

@@WarblesOnALot dude. Did a Defiant sleep with your wife?

@AbelMcTalisker

2 жыл бұрын

If he was an upper-turret gunner then that would make a lot of sense as the later versions of the Halifax used the Defiant turret in that position.

Big props to the Defiant gunner who became the first ace in a day. 5 fighters shot down from the rear turret is some going I'm sure a couple of Defiant gunners shot down 11 apiece

PS. During the London blitz in 1940 I saw a Defiant fying low over Tuffnell Park at about 500 feet. It showed up as a dark sillhouette against the orange tinted night sky, with the roundels clearly visible. I had just got out from an Anderson shelter at the time.

I was amused at the footage of post war North American Harvard trainers in West German markings. I love your videos, but please double check the footage you use. As I sit here writing this, I can see my model kit stash: in amongst them are an old Airfix Boulton Paul Defiant, and a Hobby Boss NA Harvard, almost next to one another. Thanks for making this video about a much maligned RAF aircraft, a favourite of mine for more years than I care to remember. 👍👍👍

@lancerevell5979

2 жыл бұрын

Hehe.... Gotta watch those wiley AT-6 trainers. They'll get ya. 😆

@RemusKingOfRome

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/g3qAzdSris66d6Q.html

@richardsawyer5428

2 жыл бұрын

@@lancerevell5979 Harvards have had bombs fitted in the past so your comment is more relevant than you might think.👍We've just found another subject for Dark Skies to explore.

@ironbomb6753

2 жыл бұрын

@@richardsawyer5428 no, please don't, lol

@alwayscensored6871

2 жыл бұрын

That confused me too. Thrown in a few times, wtf.

1:16 indeed shows post WWII material. These are Harvards of the West German Luftwaffe after 1956. They purchased 135 used ones from Canada for 1 Deutsche Mark each.

I'm surprised that they didn't add weights when they were performance testing these planes before the turrets were ready. They had to know roughly what the turrets would weigh and what a turret gunner would weigh. If they had added that weight in the right place, they could have known what the real performance would be when the plane was finished.

@dirus3142

2 жыл бұрын

I was thing the same thing.

I like to think I'm reasonably knowledgeable on British military aircraft (relatively speaking) but I had never heard of this aircraft until today. Thank you for the lesson.

@sechi731

2 жыл бұрын

*Only for fans over 18 years old* ▄︻̷̿┻̿═━一 SUGESTION.LIVE mañas no se la Megan: "Hotter" Hopi: "Sweeter" Joonie: "Cooler" Yoongi: "Butter Asi con toy y sus mañas no se la lease que escriba bien mamon hay nomas pa ra reirse un rato y no estar triste y estresado.por la vida dura que se vive hoy . Köz karaş: ''Taŋ kaldım'' Erinder: ''Sezimdüü'' Jılmayuu: ''Tattuuraak'' Dene: ''Muzdak'' Jizn, kak krasivaya melodiya, tolko pesni pereputalis. Aç köz arstan Bul ukmuştuuday ısık kün bolçu, jana arstan abdan açka bolgon. Uyunan çıgıp, tigi jer-jerdi izdedi. Al kiçinekey koyondu gana taba algan. Al bir az oylonboy koyondu karmadı. ''Bul koyon menin kursagımdı toyguza albayt'' dep oylodu arstan. Arstan koyondu öltüröyün dep jatkanda, bir kiyik tigi tarapka çurkadı. Arstan aç köz bolup kaldı. Kiçine koyondu emes, çoŋ kiyikti jegen jakşı dep oylodu.#垃圾 Son unos de los mejores conciertos , no puede ir pero de tan solo verlos desde pantalla, se que estuvo sorprendente :yt::ytg::yt::ytg::yt:

@bubbablake3983

2 жыл бұрын

It's fairly infamous for it's failures. Sometimes being called the worst fighter of the war by Brits themselves once the Jerry's figured out it couldn't shoot straight ahead and suffered heavy losses

@tonyroberts7481

2 жыл бұрын

Me as well. Neat to learn about something completely new.

@lukewarmwater6412

2 жыл бұрын

really is a good channel, isnt it? I didnt know they made half of the aircraft I have seen here!

@RemusKingOfRome

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/g3qAzdSris66d6Q.html

The best thing about Bolton Paul is when the factory in Norwich was knocked down it left a massive free car park near Norwich City’s Carrow Road football stadium. Very handy on match day.

The Defiant had a problem with the hydraulic system for the turret, it was possible to get it jammed in a way that made escape impossible. Apparently pilots who should have bailed out would hang on to give the gunner a chance, thus killing them both.

@rob5944

2 жыл бұрын

That's pretty grim.

@brianartillery

2 жыл бұрын

The gunner actually had an escape hatch in the bottom of the fuselage under the turret.

I can well imagine this aircraft still being mistaken for a Hurricane, in spite of Luftwaffe pilots being aware of it's existence. In the fast moving heat of battle perhaps involving multiple aircraft types and differing levels of skill. One may add to this the fact that the Defiant was intended to take down unescorted bombers, not skirmish with fighters. For example, perhaps stationing them along the north-east coast to guard against attacks from Norway would have made more sense. Personally I like the idea of being able to rake a German bomber from the side or underneath without fear of reprisal.

@harryjohnson9215

Жыл бұрын

Especially in the dark A member of my family show me a photo of a hurricane next to a defiant at Luton Airport in the middle of the night. They do look very similar. ( it was given to them by another member of the family) 2 6 4 protected my home town in 1942 for a while before they were moved to a RAF base where they transferred to the mosque ii

A very important aspect of this aircraft's story has been missed out; the abstract behind it was that German bombers would fly into British airspace from Germany, and, due to the ranges involved, they would be unescorted by fighter aircraft. This was not the case, as due to the Blitzkrieg strategy used by the German forces, bombers attacked Britain (mainly) from airbases in France, Belgium and Holland, giving the Bf109 the ability to escort those bombers to their targets in the south-east of England. The Defiant and her crews were pitched against the might of the Luftwaffe in ways that were completely unforseen. It wasn't that the Defiant was poorly designed; rather it was the short-sightedness of the RAF's tacticians in the mid-1930's that led to the machine being used in circumstances for which it was never intended. The Defiant's crews flew and fought bravely and without hesitation and should be commended for their heroism. I would urge anyone who wants to find out more (from a well researched source....) to read Robert Verkaik's excellent book "Defiant".

@bernardedwards8461

2 жыл бұрын

Across the North Sea the range was too great for the German bombers to be escorted by Me 109s, but they were sometimes escorted by the less agile twin engine Me 110s.

@Pokafalva

2 жыл бұрын

Robert Verkaik believes that the 39 'claimed' victories of 264 Squadronon 29th May 1940 were actually correct. The true figure was between 4-5! Best you wait for Andy Long's book about the Defiant to come out...

@bernardedwards8461

2 жыл бұрын

As you say, German raids were usually escorted by 109s, but one big daylight raid across the North Seawas escorted by Me110s, which were not agile enough to act as escorts so the raid was decimated.by the RAF. The Germans never tried it again by day from that direction.

@Pokafalva

2 жыл бұрын

@@bernardedwards8461 The mission by Luftflotte 5, in which the Bf 110Ds had the Dackelbauch fitted under the fuselage. That Dackelbauch fitment ruined the Bf 110 totally - one pilot shot down on that raid told me that it was 'a pig to fly' with the Dackelbauch fitted. That was the only raid with the Dackelbauch.

While the fighters with turrets could not achieve what they were originally meant for, they did gain quite a few, often unintentional, achievements. This once more proves that you learn more from mistakes than from successes.

@alexstephens3765

Жыл бұрын

Good point and there were Defiant Aces and the adoption of the Lufberry circle enabled mutual defence. Apparently 264 Squadron had there 'stuff' together from hard won experience. I have read the CO of 141 Sqn whose A/c were shot out of the sky en masse refused to adopt the proven defensive tactics and this spelt the end of the Defiant as a day fighter. Of course 80 years down the track its hard to cut through the BS, rationalisations, reputation protection and half truths.

All of this old footage fascinates me to no end.

Key parts of this story have been excluded. Boulton Paul manufactured Hawker biplanes under licence during the 1930s. These included a biplane fighter with a rear gunner. The advent of the power-operated turret enabled Boulton Paul to create its own design, which resembled the Hurricane. It seemed like a good idea at the time. The Defiant was misused in 11 Group. If Defiants had been sent to 12 Group, they could have intercepted unescorted bombers as the designers intended. Keith Park commanded 11 Group in 1940. He'd been an ace on Bristol Fighters in WW1, and the Defiant comprised the same concept of a fighter with a rear gunner. Park undoubtedly expected better from the Defiant.

One of my favourite Airfix models as a kid !

@markcousins9337

2 жыл бұрын

I had a Novokit one. Probably best not to mention the Russians at the moment though.

@manoftrent71

Жыл бұрын

I'll second that! Very popular kit. I had to order mine from the toy shop as they kept selling out.

I know this is the American way but it's incorrect to refer to RAF squadrons as "two sixty-fourth" or "six seventeenth". We don't do that. Its 264 Squadron, just say it two-six-four

@dissent9959

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the pointer!

@WALTERBROADDUS

2 жыл бұрын

If that's the itch you need to scratch , okay....

@raypurchase801

2 жыл бұрын

@@WALTERBROADDUS Harry has provided useful advice. If A British narrator continuously mispronounced "Yosemite" as "Yosser might", I hope you'd be kind enough to provide good advice.

@raypurchase801

2 жыл бұрын

Also describes an engine as the "Merlin XX", instead of pronouncing it as "Merlin Twenty". Good advice of this kind enables improvements in the future. God only knows how the Spitfire Mk. VIII or the Spitfire Mk. XIV might be pronounced. Would the Spitfire Mk. II be the Mark Eleven?

@letoubib21

2 жыл бұрын

@@raypurchase801 _*". . . If A British narrator continuously mispronounced "Yosemite" as "Yossermite", I hope you'd be kind enough to provide good advice."'_ Um, I think *that* did be an American teller of fairy tales, wasn't he?

A Concept fighter that went into production without serious thought about reality.

@richardsawyer5428

2 жыл бұрын

It did seem a bit weird not to air test with even a mock up turret.

@timcvetic5054

2 жыл бұрын

It was a WW1 concept thought to be still valid.

Why the post-war Luftwaffe Harvards at the 1:20 mark?

A very informative video. Thank you for your research and presentation.

Excellent as usual

Great Channel. I've learned more from your channel then I have from popular TV channels. Thank you 😊 I love to learn and your channel definitely teaches great.

Another great vid.

Always enjoy learning new things.

Thanks! Good vid!!

I saw Defiant (NF MK II) at the RAF Museum in Hendon in 1989. A sleek, lovely aircraft with elegant lines. I had no idea that 264 Squadron had shot down 37 Luftwaffe planes in one day! I plan to build the new Airfix 1/48th scale kit as a night fighter version. Ultimately, the “turret fighter” was a failed concept, but it gave useful information that the RAF used on Lancaster and Halifax bomber turrets.

The pilot could fire the guns but had no sight. The reason for this was not an oversight. The Defiant was supposed to use a method of sighting called "No allowance shooting ". This placed the elevation equal to the drop rate of the bullets and ensured accurate and bullet dense saturation of the target. This was basically the Second World War equivalent of the Foster mount used to great effect 20 years before. This is also a precursor to the oblique Jazz Music used so effectively by German and Japanese night fighters. There was provision made for a single seat version of the fighter with a conventional armament of 4 wing mounted guns. The turrets were delayed because the first production run of turrets ended up in Blackburn Rocs. The prototype did test with fairings and balast to compensate for the lack of a turret. I think the weight of the turret and gunner and ammunition totaled around 1000 pounds. Although the concept was a bit of a dead end, it was not as much of a death trap as it is often made out to be.

You found some rare stuff, love the content, good, watchable.

Thank you .

I already like this and haven't even watched it yet! Love the BPD!

Enjoyed your video so I gave it a Thumbs Up as a support

Dark skies. Best videos on flight there is

@bobbybrown.4257

2 жыл бұрын

@John Milton awsome John. Ima check it out. Thannks You for that tip. . I hope trusting You will have a good day.

Very interesting fighter!

Wow no quotes...bravo!

Well, it didn't actually work out the way they expected, but you've finally given me a clear, understandable, and at least at the time plausible rationale for this kind of turret fighter. It remains interesting how the designers and planners tried to imagine the technological and tactical problems they would face and come up with answers, some of which always turn out wrong.

2 6 4 squadron was at one point based in my home town to protect the town and the vauxhall factory from bombs, So every one who buys model aircraft kits in the town, will have a defiant will the code PS on its side.

"Benefited more from misidentification" hey, a win is a win is a win.

If they could have made more modern and upgraded versions of these with a lighter turret and a better field of fire, possibly with 2x 20mm cannons, it could have worked in dogfights, sure it would still be unable to out-turn enemy fighters, but if the turret has a good field of fire, and the plane doesn't perform terribly, it can still fire at enemy aircraft during a dogfight, when they can't shoot back, even if an enemy is behind this, it would be able to return fire rather than helplessly die.

I'm surprised I haven't seen this in war thunder

OK you got never heard of plane, but smart ones learn from mistakes. Very cool turret design .great channel.

Excellent video , british model maker Airfex included a 1/72 size in their line .

@larryjenkinson4789

2 жыл бұрын

It was black as I recall.

I had a defient airfix model kit..1981,$1.10 Australian..bought for the heavily discounted bin

They get the same idea, long long time ago in a galaxy far far ago ... No gun in the strange turret, just a robot called R2-D2 in a (star)fighter, the X-wing ! 🛩

@Phoenix-xn3sf

2 жыл бұрын

Well, the Y-wings did have turrets, but no gunners.

@AbelMcTalisker

2 жыл бұрын

@@Phoenix-xn3sf Back during the clone wars it was a Two-seater.

Great work could you make a video about the pzl p.24?

At 8:56 you can see early Spitfires with two bladed wooden props.

You are finding some interesting nuggets of aviation. I hadn't seen a Vokes filter on this aircraft before. Airfix do a nice kit of the Defiant.

@dduke38

2 жыл бұрын

Yes I was wondering about that too. Could it be some footage of the Hawker Hotspur?

Although it appears like the Defiant should have been able to fire with the turret pointed forwards, apparently there was no gunsight for the pilot, limiting the utility of this feature (along with the fact that the guns would still be elevated at 19 degrees).

@Newie69MK

2 жыл бұрын

Plus no gun synchronization would have meant shooting their own propeller off if it could fire forward.

@letoubib21

2 жыл бұрын

@@Newie69MK Guess that's why the 19° upwards *. . .*

Lot of myths here in the first 45 seconds. First, the story of the massive kill count for Defiants over Dunkirk is a result of overclaiming. Overclaiming was rampant by all sides in WW2, when the sky was filled with aircraft all whizzing around and shooting at each other. Add a turret fighter with a two-man crew shooting in all directions and the overclaiming becomes next-level unreliable. Second, the Luftwaffe knew all about the Defiant because just prior to the outbreak of WW2 the Defiant was a star attraction at the Farnborough International Air Show and one was placed in the VIP area for foreign governments to inspect (with a view to international sales). The German air force delegates crawled all over the Defiant, made copious notes and fed the information back to their own units. As a result, they never mistook the Defiant for the Hurricane and already knew how to deal with it. Interesting side notes: 264 Squadron developed the tactics to use with the Defiant. Squadron Leader Hunter of 264 offered to help Squadron Leader Richardson of 141 Squadron (the second Defiant squadron) train his men to get the best use out of the type. For reasons still not entirely clear Richardson refused, regarding the Defiant as a deathtrap. This became a self-fulfilling prophecy when, with 141's first combat sortie, they were bounced by Bf 109s and massacred. As a result both squadrons were withdrawn from daylight operations and became nightfighter units. They were briefly stationed on the same sector airfield in Scotland while they retrained, but eventually both were posted away, on the grounds that every time 264 and 141 personnel encountered each other on the ground, brawls would ensue. 264 personnel were quite fond of the Defiant and blamed 141's incompetence (as they saw it) for them being yanked off daylight operations. BTW, in the RAF the squadron's name is not "the 264th Squadron", but rather "264 Squadron", i.e. "Two Six Four".

@raypurchase801

2 жыл бұрын

The narration repeats stuff which is well-known. Your comment is better.

Never knew about the 19 deg front angle...

Have you done any videos on the Avro Vulcan yet?

Good looking AT-6 with German markings.

Great content, Mr. DS. Although I am not sure this would be answered, I have a question. As this fighter has armament of rear gun turret, many other war planes, most of dive bombers, and torpedo bombers had rear gunner positions to deter the threat from their 6. Risking the possibility of being called stupid, here is my question. How did those rear gunners manage not to shoot their planes vertical rudders off in the heat of battle? I welcome an answer from Mr. DS as well as other knowledgeable and learned viewers. Thanks.

Please do one on the ghost of Kiev

Right. Where to start. Firstly - the myth that the Luftwaffe confused the Defiant with the Hurricane. The Germans were well aware of the Defiant before the war began and their pilots briefed. Yes, there may have been one occasion where there may have been confusion by the Germans which resulted in losses to Me 109s. 37? Ridiculous! Air crew always over claim - all nations - always . The Defiant was much maligned but was by no means a bad design given it’s ridiculous design requirements. It was a good night fighter given the lack of AI and provided sterling service in ancillary roles.

@DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis

2 жыл бұрын

Brilliant night fighter, with that turret. As a day fighter it was pretty cack, but let's be honest, most of the second world war was trying to get crash designs to work. For America you have the lightning and Corsair, for the British the whirlwind, tempest and Fury. And let's hot forget the Mossie, a twin engined medium/heavy bomber with no defensive turrets or guns??

@AviationHorrors

2 жыл бұрын

Yup, its failure was more due to a misguided requirement process, along with how long it took the developed the design.

@washingtonradio

2 жыл бұрын

The Defiant was a turkey because the RAF issued an idiotic specification. It met the specification but there was little thing about how a proper bomber raid would be organized. Unescorted bombers suffered very high losses for everyone. So it was apparent escorting the bombers was a must. The escorts would be fighters intended to fight other fighters. The Defiant was never designed to fight fighters.

@WALTERBROADDUS

2 жыл бұрын

True pilots overclaim. But there is a reason why there is a confirmation system. Kills have to be witnessed. Gun cameras were installed for a reason. It's only after debriefing and examination of reports are kills awarded.

@entropy11

2 жыл бұрын

@@DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis The mosquito had one job: Deliver bombs on target while cruising too fast to be intercepted. In that it was a brilliantly successful design, and it wasn't until the FW190 and later jets that anyone could catch it (and they had to bounce the mossie from above or it would still get away)

It is interesting for those that watched this, to search Bolton Paul company to read their history, very interesting it is too.

@martinwarner1178

2 жыл бұрын

200 years in business, thanks, that was well worth a look. Peace be unto you.

Still have know idea why they didn't just slap two 303's in the nose or wings just to give the pilot a chance to defend his aircraft. I know that in the Pacific, American airmen would have seen that and done it on their own. That's how the solid nose B-25's with the 8 fifties came about. Just saying... Also, are there any examples of the Defiant in museums?

@daveboyson

2 жыл бұрын

Yes Raf cosford museum has one on static display

@nzs316

2 жыл бұрын

It kinda goes against the basic logic of attack. I assume they concluded that the pilot could use his side arm for forward defence. Maybe the engineers were from WW1. Me being sarcastic…

Have you done a video on the many strange cases of WW2 aircraft that somehow made it back to their bases as if flown by ghosts, because the crews were dead?

@georgejones8481

2 жыл бұрын

I think he has 👻

I always thought it was a fascinating aircraft, with the tour. I wonder how it would’ve done had they given it to engines with a twin room or something similar to a lightning. I guess we’ll never know.

@grahamepigney8565

2 жыл бұрын

Even with twin engines it would have been comparable to an Me 110 rather than a P38 Lightning. Both the Defiant and the Me 110 Zestroyer were throwbacks to the defunct WWI concept of a heavy fighter. Neither were succesful, the defiant being phased out and the Me 110 having to be escorted and eventually having some success as a night fighter.

I would love if you would do the pv-2 gun nose harpoon🙂 thanks

The faults of this aircraft could have easily been solved by a more powerful engine, four 20mm hispano cannons in the wings, and upgrading the machine guns to 50" calibre. No German bomber would be able to sustain the damage it could inflict with these advantages. Like the Manchester being the fore runner of the Lancaster - it was a good idea that just needed more development.

@rob5944

2 жыл бұрын

With all that extra weight it'd hardly get off the ground, surely?

@DanielCPhillips

2 жыл бұрын

@@rob5944 The 1500+ hp of later Merlins, an early Napier Sabre engine of 1700hp, or even the Bristol Hercules VI of nearly 1600hp, combined with other weight saving measures such as a lighter turret, would have transformed the Defiant from sub par performance, to at a minimum, comparable performance to other day fighters of 1940-41. However, as a night fighter, the ability to both directly attack with wing cannon, or to attack a German bomber in its blind spot, below and just behind, ( like the "Schrage Musik " cannons of the Me-110 night fighters) with searchlights, or flames below highlighting your target against the black sky above, could have turned the night time London Blitz into a turkey shoot. It would have made sense that as the war went on, and in successive models, particularly as night fighters, that instead of a gunner, that the second position become one of a radar operator / navigator putting his pilot on target, who killed the target with wing cannon. This would also reduce drag as they would be in a second streamlined cockpit. However. it was not to be.

@raypurchase801

2 жыл бұрын

You've described the Hurricane II.

@rob5944

2 жыл бұрын

@@DanielCPhillips well those at the time obviously didn't think it an appropriate allocation of resources. Furthermore the basic design may not of been able to take an engine such as that, or perhaps supplies were too short. I also imagine if turrets could be made lighter, they would of (generally).

@BengalModelWorks

2 жыл бұрын

@@DanielCPhillips Only problem being those engines weren't available when the Defiant was developed

You should do one the Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly.

Behold the powerful Boulton-Paul Defiant and bask in its glory.

I still like it and I even wonder how a turret like this would do on an American P-40 Warhawk

This aircraft could have been so much better if they would have improved its flight performance with a slight redesign and improved engine, and with better guns in the turret, say a 20mm hispano or maybe even two, it would have been deadly.

Love this video but where did you get footage of those U.S.Navy Planes marked with German Symbols?

Battlefield detectives british doc.tells you about rhino suit and forward firing. They digging one out of a field, most reading bears up enermye attack’s from front or underneath,which makes the mind boggle because they were being attacked the same way( from below)

I would like to think that if they had developed a much lighter turret that the Defiant and Blackburn Roc could have been more competitive.

@WALTERBROADDUS

2 жыл бұрын

Wishful thinking....

@AbelMcTalisker

2 жыл бұрын

Thing is it WAS a lightweight turret. The performance of the Defiant even with the turret wasn`t all that bad compared with a lot of the single-engined fighters in use at that time. Just not the `109 though, the basic problem was the tactics used. The Roc though was just a bad idea as it was based on an existing type, the Blackburn Skua that was already midway through its service life and approaching obsolescence.

@VR-ym8ys

2 жыл бұрын

If you know anything about WW2 fighter aircraft: No, plainly no.

People here talk of 20mm cannons, 50 calibre machine guns and 1700hp engines as if they all fit perfectly, work like magic, weigh nothing and are in plentiful supply (assuming of course the aircraft can still fly without trying to kill its crew). In wartime Britain things didn't roll that way.

Good initial summary, but...... I'm sure some of your 'axis bombers' at 1:15 are North American Texan/Harvard trainers. They have crosses on them because they were supplied by the US to the West German Luftwaffe in the 1950s. The Air Ministry did not believe that the answer to encroaching bombers was turret-armed bombers. Read twice before recording! The Defiant wasn't designed to intercept heavy German bombers. The 1930s Luftwaffe had no heavy bombers, having concentrated on light tactical bombers to support a manoeuverist ground strategy. How was the requirement now to catch 'ever faster enemy fighters'? If that is the aim a 2-man turret interceptor is not going to be as useful as, say, a single-seat interceptor. You keep talking about 'the turrets'. At this point there was one prototype and it needed one turret. As you are just talking us through the wiki page, it might be worth mentioning that the Defiant wasn't the front runner in the competition for this contract, but made it to production because Hawker were too busy building the Hurricane to do their Hotspur turret fighter as well. See comment above on need for single seaters. '264th Squadron' is an Americanism. In the RAF it's just '2-6-4 Sqn'. No T-6 Texans were involved in the Battle of Britain. I know the tail is about the same shape but it is otherwise a very different looking airplane. Might be worth mentioning that when 5 out of six Defiants were lost to 109s, they had just dispatched 4 Stukas. It wasn't a totally one-sided fight. On the other hand, 264's famous 37 kills in a day around Dunkirk on 29 May 1940 was found post-war from German records to total only 14. This is not unusual in war. The Merlin 'XX' engine is normally described as the 'Merlin Twenty'. It's those old-fashioned Roman numerals. Lots more shots of Texans. Stop it! It has a radial engine and no turret! In 1941 the whole concept of Air Intercept radar was brand new. It wasn't an oversight that the Defiant wasn't fitted earlier, it didn't exist! In 1941 the Luftwaffe did not send any fighters with its bomber formations so of course all night fighter targets were unescorted. This is not a bad summary of the Defiant story, and you mentioned the little-known ECM version. But a poorly edited script and so, so many Texans!

Why have I never heard of this Plane^^......

What a plane it might of been with the turret deleted and forward firing weapons!

New game. Take a drink whenever they use the word "however".

Apart from the obvious mistake of including North American Harvard trainers in post war West German markings, theres another error I would like to point out: the top speed of the Defiant Mk I was about 490 kph which was about 100 kph slower than the Spitfire Mk I - not 100 mph as you stated. The Defiant Mk II was slightly faster though, raising the top speed a wee bit above 500 kph but mainly increasing climb performance if I remember correctly. In fact, the Defiant - just regarding the airplane itself - was quite impressive and would have been a formidable contemporary fighter if it weren't for the "turret fighter" concept. As far as I know there was one single prototype of a turretless Defiant built which very much matched the performance of the Spitfire. But since the Spitfire already was in production, it did make no sense to build a single seat Defiant. Still, I wonder if that could have been the basis for a useful escort fighter or if it could have been converted into a high performance carrier borne fighter in 1941. Both plane types that great britain lacked at the time.

I need this plane in warthunder

West German T-6 Texan trainers?

Yes it did, the turret could face forward, the pilot had a fire trigger on his stick

1:15- he talks about Axis bombers in the 1930s- then you see T6s in West German Air-force insignia. Although the German did capture some American aircraft from the French, it really wasn't until the 1950s- late 50s- that the West German Air Force had them...

Could have assigned CAS role to this aircraft when it became obsolete and outmatched by enemy aircraft. Bank at 45 degrees and the rear turret could provide devastating fire power on ground targets.

@WALTERBROADDUS

2 жыл бұрын

I see where the wheels are turning there. But, no.....

Well, I guess it had its moments, but I'll take a TBF/M any day of the week

What was the names of all the music used? I like em!

I like your videos but this one had WAY too many ads!

i've thought of a few things with this plane like, why not just put 4x 303 in the wings then it has the same amount of guns as the hurricane and the pilot can shoot to what if the IL-2 had something like this? why not put a turret like that on literally any light bomber like the Bristol Beaufort or torpedo bombers

@terrybrown8539

2 жыл бұрын

That was considered and it was felt that a single seat Defiant would be better than the Hurricane. By that stage it was already apparent the Hurricane was old tech had little development potential and probably the Defiant was similar as new design 400MPH fighters neither could compete with were not far off.

@loganholmberg2295

2 жыл бұрын

The turret was used on other british bombers. And why bother putting 4 forward firing 303s? You just end up with hurricane.

It was not supposed to be a fighter in its own right and needed spitfire or hurricane support, along with proper training for the pilots and gunners. It was a bomber destroyer not an ME109 killer (although it shot some down). The turret at the time was a technical marvel. It enjoyed some success initially from its intended design but was never properly invested in. For example it didn't even have bullet proof glass like the spitfires and hurricanes and suffered from poor radio Comms and factory issues. Shortages meant the RAF deployed them on their own for patrols after the initial success, knowingly costing the lives of barely trained but brave men. 141 and 264 squadron deserve immense recognition for what they achieved with the limitations of what they were given, and told to do. The RAF now blame the aircraft rather than accept a big part of the losses was actually down to poor tactical decisions.

I'm really having a hard time wrapping my head around the turret facing forward having its guns pointed 19 Degrees positive. So, the pilot had to nose down 19 degrees to shoot directly forward! Gosh! why so complicated?

@jaex9617

2 жыл бұрын

I think the idea was that it would attack from below. I agree with you that, if nothing else, this was a limiting approach to design. I've been interested in the turret fighters for a while and it seems they were based on narrow doctrines and missions. It's always seemed to me that there was promise in the basic idea (smallish plane with a dedicated gunner and a bleep ton of firepower), but the failure to design for more versatility or consider other deployments limited their success.

" tremendous firepower"? From 4 303 Brownings ? Hardly.

@WALTERBROADDUS

2 жыл бұрын

For the time, state of the art...

Looks like an IL-2.

1:14 Texans with iron crosses on them?

@richardsawyer5428

2 жыл бұрын

Post war German trainers.

It's that time again.

@1339LARS

2 жыл бұрын

Hope not!!! //Lars

@1339LARS

2 жыл бұрын

Hope not!!! //Lars

@JSFGuy

2 жыл бұрын

@@1339LARS lewzer

@JSFGuy

2 жыл бұрын

@Weni Xerja 👇💘 lewzer

I love odd balls 🤘🏻

Didn't score 37 victories on 29th May 1940 - the actual figure claimed was 39. About 4-5 can be attributed to Defiants on those two sorties. Example: 11 (eleven) Bf 110s claimed destroyed. Actual number of Bf 110s lost on that day - NIL.

Merlin engine as a pusher ?

I would hate to think what it would have been with a pair of 20mm in the wings and twin 50's in the ball turret.

I'll never understand why they didn't just put some cannons in the wings for forward firing duties.

@rob5944

2 жыл бұрын

Too much weight, and it had limited endurance as it was.

Just something I though of, I’d convert the defiant into a ground attacker Just add a slightly more powerful engine, bomb racks, and some forward firing guns

@harryspeakup8452

2 жыл бұрын

at the time, though, there ARE no slightly more powerful engines available. It would need a Griffon or a Hercules or Sabre to provide a substantial uplift in low-level performance and those just weren't in series production. And when they are, we have other airframes for them, like the Typhoon+

@AviationHorrors

2 жыл бұрын

Apparently one of the first Defiant prototypes was configured with forward-firing guns, as a ground attack aircraft, but it couldn't provide any advantage over the Hurricanes and Spitfires.

@WALTERBROADDUS

2 жыл бұрын

That makes even less sense. You want to add more drag, more weight and decrease the range for what? 😏

@WALTERBROADDUS

2 жыл бұрын

@@harryspeakup8452 it's just a bad idea.

What trainer was it that had that black cross at 1:20?

@BengalModelWorks

2 жыл бұрын

Harvard/Texan in post war Luftwaffe service

It looks as the 4 guns can fire straight forwards. But... the propeller ? Are they real- ly syncronized ? I have always heard, that the Defiant turned out to be a somewhat failure, becau- se it had no forward ame- ment.

@AviationHorrors

2 жыл бұрын

That must be why the minimum elevation on the turret was 19 degrees, so it'd shoot over the propeller arc. But the pilot didn't have a gunsight so his ability to use them as forward-firing weapons was limited, particularly against maneuvering targets.

@WALTERBROADDUS

2 жыл бұрын

Sorry, they did not have the ability to fire straight ahead. There was no interruptor gear.

This fighter wouldn't have been so bad if it lost the turret and gained some forward firing guns, but that version (P.94) was redundant.

An oddball fighter.

It was a very prtty plane

That's Merlin twenty, not Merlin XX. By the way, the Defiant had no relationship with the Harvard shown in your footage. Bizzarre.

What's with all the postwar footage of German At-6's?