I would say that The Defiant came about because of the success of The Bristol F2B in WW1. It is a shame they did not put a couple of forward firing guns on it as well. Perhaps it would have been a more formidable machine? Anyway, I do have a soft spot for The Defiant. Thanks for the Video.

@kellybreen5526

Жыл бұрын

There was a single seat conventionally armed mock up completed. Photo in the Green book 1960 Famous Fighters of the Second World War volume 2

@bigblue6917

Жыл бұрын

The Bristol F2B was an excellent aircraft and has to be considered the first multirole aircraft.

264 Sqn had a very good CO in Sqn Ldr. Phillip Hunter, he thought out useful tactics including a formation downward spiral that covered their tails and led to many success. Phillip was KIA with is gunner Sgt FH King on 24th August 1940. Another good team was Flight Sgt Fred Barker and his Gunner Sgt Fred Thorn. Thorn survived the was and was the RAFs highest scoring air gunner scoring most of his victories on Defiants. Osprey Aircraft of the Aces 105, Defiant, Blenheim and Havoc Aces, well worth a read

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

A plane is only as good as it's operators, look at the DI-6 and the abject failure of many other Russian planes due to bad tactical decisions. I shall add it to my list though thank you!

We also have to remember that the RAF in the late 1930's wasn't just looking at single seaters, but also looking for large numbers of aircraft to fill multiple roles, a bomber interceptor being just one of them. You look to see what spare production capacity other manufacturers have maximise national production. Against an RAF specification, the Boulton Paul Defiant beat the other turreted fighter contender, the Hawker Hotspur. Blackburn aircraft at the same time, got an order from the Royal Navy, for the Blackburn Roc turreted fighter. This messed up Defiant production, as they both used the same turrets & they couldn't make enough.

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

I feel even if it did have numbers it was a slight dead end so this was not the worst fate, although it did mean more Rocs... *shudder* Like i say in the video, the Defiant was no where near the worst plane for the time and as a night fighter it was pretty darn good, the BoB could have used a few hundred more Defiants for sure, but after that they kind of were not that good once we get into 42 their service lives were kind of done and there were much better multirole planes being made, or purchased from the US. No way is the Defiant the best plane of the era, but it is no where near the worst. :) and never should be.. sadly people just don't look into it's role or listen to the crews who flew it.

@eze8970

Жыл бұрын

@@Skreezilla Thank you for your reply. ROCs may have been poor, but there are always compromises, and apart from the Defiant turrets, they weren't really taking resources from other, more important planes. Yes, Defiant was a dead end - in hindsight. Not helped by the Air Ministry giving the latest engines, propellers and armour glass to the Single seaters. There wasn't much point for extra Defiants in the BoB, in the combat that ensued. Single seaters were better, used less resources, and had better logistical support. BP couldn't supply the Defiants it had orders for, and industrial unrest made it worse. Even putting them up north or in Scotland wouldn't have helped much, as there were only 2 Defiant squadons, & that's where single seat squadrons were sent to rest. I have a soft spot for the Defiant and their brave crews (like the Fairey Battle). I agree they weren't the best, especially when asked to do roles they weren't suited for, but the crews & ground support did all they could, to be the best they could. You can't ask for more.

very interesting I learnt a lot.

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

This kind of comment keeps me going thank you :)

Fairey Battle and Fulmar ....hold my beer .

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

oh for sure

@kellybreen5526

Жыл бұрын

The Fulmar is the highest scoring FAA fighter…. Hold my Scotch!

@user-qq2vq4fv8b

Жыл бұрын

@@kellybreen5526 it is? So it destroyed more enemy planes than Martlets ( which replaced it ) Seafires and F4Us ? I don't think so . The Japanese Zero was all over it,and they withdrew it from the Pacific. It had some success against the Italians in the Med . Fairey made some real flying coffins . The Swordfish was so obsolete which strangely enough, was the reason for its success. But fortunately, they didn't call upon it to go up against the Zero .

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

@kellybreen5526 up against the Regina Aeronautica the Fulmar held up pretty well.... we will just uh.. ignore Asia. :p And the Battle did score the first aerial victory of the war..... i mean... that is 1 more kill than the Boomerang. ;p

@kellybreen5526

Жыл бұрын

@@Skreezilla You are right, but the Fulmar only had one real dust up in the Indian Ocean defending Ceylon and was fighting outnumbered starting from an altitude disadvantage against the IJN at the height of their power. Tactical situation had as much to do with its poor showing as the limits of the design…. BUT…. They put up enough of a fight that the IJN chose to break off their attacks. So it scored a strategic victory at a high price. The Fulmar was designed when the conventional wisdom was that the guns would protect the ships from aircraft. The Fulmar would drive off shadowers and escort the strike force so would always have a height advantage. Emphasis was on range, firepower, and the ability to navigate over the ocean. Few thought that the future was the high performance single seat fighter. So the FAA got the Fulmar and the USN got the Corsair. The Americans got it right. But in 1935 when these concepts were inspiring designs it was a gamble.

The crews were exceptionally brave...the plane had it's limitations but they became ever more so because she was being used in the wrong role...the Defiant was never intended to be a fighter but a bomber interceptor...

It's such a shame that turret fighters turned out to be so ineffective, they're just so cool looking

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

you should check out my video on the DI-6 it may change the mind on cool looking turret fighters. :p

Can't blame the designer. You can blame the people trying to fight WW1 again. However, there was a good use for it, as a night fighter. With no radar, you had to get close enough to see the flame from the exhaust, which put you in a great position for a turret fighter.

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

like i said it was a bloody good night fighter, i think the extra pair of peppers really helped out, more so when carrots were introduced. ;)

The new 141 Squadron (not even flying a full squadron) got bounced by up to 50 Me 109's with a lot of veteran pilots. It wasn't just 1 squadron v 1 squadron even numbers. No fighter type would do well when that happens. This tends to be forgotten & just the big squadron loss is reported. The crying shame was that the airfield commander from the Defiant's airfield, scrambled single engine fighters to help out (which doctrinally is what should have happened in the first place, but the airfield commander wanted to conserve his single seat fighter crews, who'd had losses/fatigue), but they arrived too late. They did shoot down some of the Me 109s, which evened up the score.

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

There was also the radio issues for the Defiant that played on this too, as it is recorded they tried to call in help but no messages were received as they were too low at the time. The under wing antenna really did not help.

@eze8970

Жыл бұрын

@@Skreezilla That didn't play any part in 141 Sqns case, they were being watched from the airfield they took off from. It was the airfield commander who called the help in.

I always had a soft spot for the defiant and think it more than justified itself in its various roles. Not perfect but it certainly paid for itself overall

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

it had a great use in it's electronic warfare role for sure!

To be honest, as a turreted fighter the Blackburn Roc was far worse.

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

yeah the Roc does not get nearly enough hate :p at least it was better than the skua.......

Very good turret fighter. Unlike the Roc. It’s just the whole The turret fighter concept was a silly idea that I can’t fathom out. It worked well with the Bristol Fighter in WW1. The fact that it seems they did no testing against traditional fighters is beyond me. There was an idea to pull the turret and replace with a vickers K and use the defiant instead of the Battle but the balance went to hell. The battle, now there’s a death trap for you. BPDs turrets ended up on many RN ships. Just sayin’. Nice vid.

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

it was a weird time where i feel many were blinded by the times and just did not think rationally :p luckily others did eh?

@geordiedog1749

Жыл бұрын

@@Skreezilla Yeah, indeed. It’s difficult to see through the noise sometimes with these retrospective evaluations.

Never knew about it's role in EW during WWII.

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

When i find out a person has gotten something out of my video it makes me happy! :)

It even lost in Far Cry 5😂

The worst plane for the RAF was the American built Brewster Buffalo.

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't argue too much with that one. The F2A had a pretty shocking record, i think some of the ones in Berma were stripped right down and had the M2 brownings taken out to try reduce the weight to try and make them somewhat competitive and fitted with .30s with reduced ammo... and they were still too heavy and slow. It is funny how often it is overlooked as one of the worst fighters of that era.

@kellybreen5526

Жыл бұрын

The Buffalo in Malaya apparently had a 2-1 kill/ loss ratio favourable to the Buffalo but the RAF was fighting from a hopeless situation.

@user-qq2vq4fv8b

Жыл бұрын

The Finn's liked the Buffalo and had 36 aces flying the type .

@kellybreen5526

Жыл бұрын

@@user-qq2vq4fv8b I think you are a well read enthusiast. What I have learned is that the tactical and logistical situation that a weapon system gets thrown into has at least as much to do with its success as the qualities of the design.

@mikegillihan4546

Жыл бұрын

@@user-qq2vq4fv8b correct. The Finns were flying the F2A1. The Commonwealth forces were flying the F2A2. Brewster had put a more powerful engine in the A2. Unfortunately it didn’t add much speed but did add more weight. The F2A was groundbreaking when first introduced. Unfortunately, sometimes it stinks being first. There wasn’t much more that could be be done to improve it.

Do you know why the FAA didn't pick it up. It looks like it would be great for carrier landings.

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

Not sure but i would say it was the weight, and landing gear, and lack of folding wings, the BP Defiant was designed first and foremost as a land based plane so it would require a fair bit of tweaking to work on a flight deck. and the FAA already had the Roc and Skua. If i recall correctly as well they FAA were keen on radials at the time too to save room on the ships too and were not fond of the Merlin because well, a big old V12 that weighs 800kg's is far less attractive at sea than a Radial that is about 460kg of course this would change with the Seafire and Hurrisplash so i do wonder if they were introduced a few years prior if the Defiant would have gotten a sea going variant.

The Defiant was never intended to fight single engined fighters. No one expected France to fall and any German Bomber would have been unescorted or escorted by heavy twin engined fighters. There was a proposed single seat version of the Defiant with conventional wing mounted armament. The video shows the guns being rotated to a forward firing position. The pilot could fire the guns. The reason for this was the concept of “no allowance shooting”. The Defiant was intended to use this technique. There is a detailed explanation in Wiki, but essentially an elevated gun will have the elevation counter bullet drop due to gravity. Once mastered no sight is necessary. This was the WWII equivalent of the Foster mount. The COW gun fighters of the 20’s also were working toward this concept. The Germans also used it with their Jazz Music installations. The Defiant was proposed as a two seat advanced trainer. I think that would have been a useful aircraft. It might even have done a credible job as a pathfinder if it had been disarmed, given more fuel and the master Bomber quarterbacked the raid from the back seat. The 37 kill day was a lot of over claiming though. If you are looking for sources I am relying mostly on Green and an article -not by Wiki- on the concept of no allowance shooting. I think the author is an Australian. Very technical but a good read.

@eze8970

Жыл бұрын

Not sure the Defiant could fire forward easily, as the guns at lowest/horizontal point are lower than the propeller arc, did the Defiant have interrupter gear? You mention gun elevation to counter bullet drop from the article. In practice, to do that against an enemy fighter in combat, at ever changing ranges, would be very difficult. The Defiant was supposed to shoot it's intended bomber targets down by flying alongside or below bombers (it's intended target), out of their gun arcs. Whilst you can fire forward, if you're going to fire forward, there's not much point in having a turret & gunner, may as well have a single seater. The 37 kills should be more accurate compared to other types, as the gunner had the advantage of just looking at the target/surroundings, & not having to fly the plane as well. While it's accepted different planes may attack the same target, from combat reports, they did coordinate where possible (like attacking each side).

@kellybreen5526

Жыл бұрын

@@eze8970 I really recommend that you search up “no allowance shooting” it is like jazz music. The idea is that the pilot, without a gunsight fires upwards and the elevation matches the bullet drop. If this was not one of the intentions of how the Defiant was supposed to fight why could the pilot fire the guns? Remember, no one expected France to fall, so the Defiant was an interceptor and not really a fighter. No one expected it to have to dogfight BF 109s. I am not William Green or Bill Gunston - I mean I am no expert - but I always wondered about the Defiant and though “what were they thinking” like every other casual historian. Then one day I read this article and connected the dots on my own. It was a eureka moment.

@eze8970

Жыл бұрын

@@kellybreen5526 Thank you for your comments. I'm no expert, just have a soft spot for this plane & crews that had to fly it. From the book I have (Defiant, by Robert Verkaik - a brilliant, fast paced read), I've found an answer; - when the Defiant was being developed (& before any orders placed), it was recommended to Boulton Paul, that to get any orders, the plane should have a forward firing capability..... 'North duly ordered his designers to incorporate a fixed forward firing position for the turret where the guns could be operated by the pilot pressing a button in the cockpit. However, Boulton Paul didn't get around to synchronising the forward fire with the engine so that if the pilot ever had cause to fire the turret guns in this way he would shoot off his own propellers. No one at the Air Ministry appears to have challenged this idiocy.' 'No allowance' shooting is for when the shooting is from underneath, & the planes are effectively flying in formation in the same direction, making things a lot easier, not a head on attack against an enemy fighter or bomber. Are you perhaps combining this with 'no deflection shooting', which is something different?

@kellybreen5526

Жыл бұрын

@@eze8970 Yes you are right. It is called both. BUT there are two types of no deflection shooting and no allowance shooting is a specific sub group and does not require a gunsight. I stumbled upon it quite by chance. It was written by (I am pretty certain) an Australian. The concept came into being in the Great War and was probably best illustrated by the Foster mount. The link is Dingers aviation The Defiant is apparently the 11 th highest scoring British design in terms of air to air kills and has more victories than defeats in the air. So does the Bf 110.

@eze8970

Жыл бұрын

@@kellybreen5526 Ok, thank you. I did look up the 'No Allowance shooting' wiki. Aircraft have to be flying in same direction & speed, with the attacker underneath/to the side. Whilst the Defiant could & did do this, it's turret gave it far more options, like slashing attacks from above/below going to the side. RAF Single seat fighters tended to avoid side attacks, as the standard of deflection gunnery was quite poor. One of the things the RAF High Command was trying to do was to avoid the usual (& possibly slow) tail chase by its single seat fighters, which gave the Luftwaffe gunners time to land hits.

Nope. The Defiant, the Battle, the Buffalo, the Roc, the Fulmar. And let's not forget the Australian CAC Boomerang. Cast them on the rubbish heap. There were enough designers with Brains and Inspiration in the UK. Hindsight may be a wonderful thing, but the Nation that came up with the Tempest, Fury, Mosquito, Hornet and the MB-5? They could have done better.

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

Oh honestly they could have put the resources to better use, and agree with the list - as i said before the Boomerang was a terrible fighter in a prior video :p But the Defiant was the best turret fighter of ww2. :p

@kellybreen5526

Жыл бұрын

The Boomerang was an emergency fighter built as stop gap in case Australia was cut off from the UK and US. So it was forced to use a 1200 hp engine and the centre section from the Wirraway. They did a credible job producing a design quickly that had the firepower of a Spitfire, good agility and was quite rugged. Supplies were never completely cut off so the plane was never needed. It was useful in ground attack. It was slow, but not much slower than the early Ki-43. It has no air to air victories, but it was never lost to enemy fighters either. I think the only air to air losses were caused by blue on blue P-38’s. CAC eventually added a turbocharger and top speed got close to 380 mph. Pretty credible for a country that really did not have an indigenous aircraft industry to speak of till just before the outbreak of the war.

@sueneilson896

Жыл бұрын

The Boomerangs that were made remained in active service until the end of the war, mainly observation and ground attack in conjunction with Beaufighters and P40s. It is remembered fondly now as a tough and reliable workhorse that did what it was asked, and brought its pilots home. It was far from a failure.

@Skreezilla

Жыл бұрын

@@sueneilson896 People miss understand that the Boomerang was not a bad plane, actually it was a good ground attacker, but in the role of a Fighter it was not very good. that does not make it a terrible plane, but it did fail at the role it was made for sadly. It is still an amazing feat of engineering and a great symbol of aussie grit.