Boulton Paul Defiant.

[JDK]

From another thread:

Boulton-Paul brings a thought to mind. The B-P Defiant was one of my vavorites during WWII. I just looked so cool with that turret behind the greenhouse. I thought it was a real "killer" a/c.



Didn't find out til long after that it was, for all intents and purposes, a POS as far as dogfighting went.

Mudge the disillusioned

Hi Mudge,
The Defiant was a very interesting concept. Like a number of other types, it was designed for a kind of battle that never eventuated; which is akin to (but not quite the same as) a flawed concept. The idea was that the Defiant would be a 'bomber destroyer' pounding formations of unescorted German bombers with broadsides. The idea of front guns (as used in it's precursor, the Hawker Demon) was dropped to ensure the pilot would concentrate on the gunner's positioning. With the fall of France, suddenly the German bombers were able to be escorted, and the Defiant was forced into a war it was never designed for, and dogfighting it was certainly not suited to. I've had the privilege of sitting in that turret, and the idea of going to war from such a claustrophobic position was terrifying.

We published a book on the type:

http://mmpbooks.biz/books/8389450194/8389450194p.htm

Which makes for interesting reading.

The turret's quite the piece of kit:


(Sorry it's so low res - just the scan to hand)

And this is what the prototype looked like - lovely, I think:



I posted a batch of walkaround shots some time ago of the Defiant (as used in our book) on this thread on the Flypast Forum; the discussion's quite interesting too.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=31021

Hope that's of interest.

Cheers

[HOLLOWAYRANGER]

Must have been very tough for the pliot not being in control of the guns

[Steve Nelson]

I always thought it was a cool looking bird, even if it was a dead-end concept.

I believe the upper turret found its way into the Halifax, and a few early British B-24s and Martin Baltimores.

SN

[JDK]

Must have been very tough for the pliot not being in control of the guns

Despite what the guy in the growbag at the front of the fighter at airshows might tell you, pilots aren't the most important people in aviation - they just think they are.

That said, yes, some pilots complained of the frustration - others (particularly the night-fighters) decided to work as a team, and some got good results.

I believe the upper turret found its way into the Halifax, and a few early British B-24s and Martin Baltimores.

Wallace Clarke's 'British Aircraft Armament' Vol 1 (which has a good deal on US turrets for our US turret fiends) lists the Boulton Paul Type A turret as being fitted to the Defiant, Handley Page Halifax, Blackburn Roc, Armstrong Whitworth Albermarle, Liberator II and late mark Martin Baltimore and Lockheed Ventura types. Also fitted to boats...

Interestingly, it was actually a French design, by a company called SAMM, adopted by J D North at Boulton Paul!

[HOLLOWAYRANGER]

Well i know if i was flying a fighter as it was classed id be pretty unhappy not having my finger on the trigger!

can you imagine what it must have been like to have a me109 on your tail
do you fly straight so that your gunner can get a clear shot or throw the plane all over the place and have the gunner cursing you?

think i know what id be doing

[JDK]

That's why you aren't aircrew - training, discipline, tactics, then the enemy moves the goalposts and you rely on skill and luck

Remember they weren't intended as fighters, but as bomber destroyers.

[SaxMan]

The Defiant was based on the successful two-place British fighters of the First World War, notably the Bristol Fighter. The concept was that the Defiant would be able to go faster than its prey, pull alongside and give it a broadside. Unfortunately, with a top speed of 304 mph, it wasn't going to outrun any fighter of the day, and some of the German bombers, notably the Ju-88 were nearly as fast. The turret added too much weight.

The Defiant did have some success over Dunkirk when they were mistaken for carelessly diving Hurricanes. When the Germans (IIRC, Me-110s) got on their tails, they received the withering fire from the turrets and 12 of them were quickly destroyed. Afterwards, the Germans learned to attack the Defiant from its unarmed front.

As a night fighter, it did quite well. During the winter of 1940-41, it destroyed more bombers per interception than any other night fighter of the time (this was before the Beaufighter went into widespread service).

I always thought it was a really cool airplane, too. Definitely one of my favorites.

[JDK]

The Defiant was based on the successful two-place British fighters of the First World War, notably the Bristol Fighter.

Thanks Saxman, but that's a complete myth - one that won't die because it sounds credible. In W.W.II Germany wasn't meant to have single-seat fighters which could get to Britain, and they didn't - it was the fall of France which changed the situation. It wasn't meant to act as the Bristol Fighter did, nor even its predecessor the Hawker Demon, as it was a deliberate decision NOT to equip it with forward firing guns to ensure the pilot was going to do his job - which was to position the gunner's field of fire.

There's no commonality in concept between the Bristol Fighter or the Defiant; and when the Brisfit crews first used the aircraft they had horrendous losses - due to 'flying like a two seater'. When the pilots used it like a single seater with rear protection, then it worked - a lesson we now know they should have been aware of in the 30s - but they thought the rules had changed (rather like the believe that 'gunfighting was dead' in the 60s).

Don't forget that the democratic European air forces pre-war believed that it may not be possible for a fighter equipped with forward firing guns to successfully aim and knock down bombers "at the terrific speeds of 300+ mph"); while it was also believed that a turret should be able to stay on target longer. the Fascists and Russians had Spanish Civil War experience, and the US was able to learn a lot of lessons between '39 and '41.

Otherwise, you are quite right - it was 109s, not 110s, and there was massive overclaiming by 264 Sqn on that occasion, but their, and 141 Sqn's, losses subsequently were all too real. Personally I give no credence to the 'learnt about the Defiant' theory - I think that 164 Sqn was lucky on one early occasion. The Germans were well aware of the defiant as a type. Some 109 leader stuffed-up and paid. The Ju-88 was a fast problem for all British fighters - it wasn't a Schnell-bomber for nothing.

As Matthew Willis has written in his forthcoming book on the Blackburn Skua and Roc (also published by us):

The concept of the turret fighter, of which the Roc was the first to enter service, derived from tests the RAF had conducted with a Hawker Demon fighter. These trials suggested that a ‘broadside’ with moveable machine guns was a better way to attack bomber formations than the conventional fixed-gun fighter. The turret fighter would take this idea to extremes by removing any fixed, forward facing armament in order to encourage him to manoeuvre the aircraft to use the turret armament’s potential.

The theory that modern fighters were too fast to dogfight, and that the conventional fighter with front facing guns could only manage a single pass against a bomber formation in any encounter, was popular in the late 1930s. This pessimistic view of the ability of fighters to knock down bombers led serendipitously to a massive increase in forward facing armament (the eight-Browning .303in standard for RAF day fighters) but also led experts and policy-makers to devise the concept of a fighter which could fly alongside the bomber formation at the same height and speed while subjecting the bombers to a hail of machine gun fire. The turret fighter was intended to attack unescorted bombers, or act in tandem with conventional interceptors which would keep the fighter escort occupied.

Regards -

[Bill Greenwood]

I'm real glad I wasn't one of the crew assingned to fly the Defiant in a sky full of 109's. I can see the concept perhaps as a night fighter, but no way when exposed to fighters in daytime, giveng away forward guns and about 70 mph top speed. When it was supposed to fly alongside the German bombers and spray them with the 4 gun turrent, what did they think the bombers were going to be doing with their own guns?

[Aircraft Mech Paul]

JDK,

Thanks for posting the photo's of the Defiant. I always kinda liked the design of the aircraft and the name just sounded "cool". But when I look at the photo's of the aircraft. It kinda makes me think of two other WWII types that if you merge the two aircraft it kinda makes the Defiant look. The Defiant to me looks like a cross between a Hawker Hurricane and an Ilyushin IL-2 Stormovik. Both are very good aircraft in their own right but the Defiant looks as though that Boulton Paul took both airframes and combined the two.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Paul

[JDK]

I'm real glad I wasn't one of the crew assingned to fly the Defiant in a sky full of 109's. I can see the concept perhaps as a night fighter, but no way when exposed to fighters in daytime, giveng away forward guns and about 70 mph top speed.

Hi Bill,
I'm glad too. the visibility out of the turret's not good, and chances of getting out in an emergency aren't either. Brave men, and the gunners were mostly Sergeants, not officers.

As a night-fighter, it seems that the Defiant crews came very close to 'inventing' the Schrange Music concept by rotating the turret and firing up and forwards into the bomber underside - but the tactic wasn't pursued.

Incidentally, some Defiant Night Fighters were equipped with AI (airborne radar) sets, with the cathode tube in the pilot's cockpit.

When it was supposed to fly alongside the German bombers and spray them with the 4 gun turrent, what did they think the bombers were going to be doing with their own guns?

A formation or group of Defiants cruising in a position they chose alongside a formation of He111 or Do-17s (or even Ju88) would bring a lot more guns to bear than the German bomber could return fire with - even a formation. If you look at the German bombers, all the guns in 1940 were single flexible mounted items, with no good coverage to the beam or even underside. Once hit in the packed cockpit area or engine, they came down relatively quickly. That bit of the theory was fine - it was the bases for 109s across the Channel that did for them.

I'd love to see a Defiant fly, but with one 'full scale model' one survivor and a couple of wrecks, not much chance.

Paul, my pleasure. The Defiant was actually a very well designed and built aircraft - arguably better constructed than the Spitfire of Hurricane. Of course the IL-2 was heavily armoured...

Cheers

[SaxMan]

Interesting about the Defiant not being based on the Bristol fighter. I actually gleaned that they were similar from "Fighter - The True Story of the Battle of Britain" by Len Deighton.

The statistic about it shooting down more raiders per interception came from one of the appendices of "The Narrow Margin" by Derek Wood and Derek Dempster, which IIRC is considered one of the more authoritative books on the Battle of Britain.

[Shay]

can you imagine what it must have been like to have a me109 on your tail

That's exactly what the Defiant crew was hopeing for.

During the Battle for France many 109s succumbed to the Defiant's stinger thinking that it was a unobservant Hurricane.

Of course this all change when the the 109 crews realized what was happening and changed tactics to attack the Defiants underbelly from below.

I think the Defiant should have also had some forward firepower designed into the airframe but it was already a grossly overweight aircraft

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[mustangdriver]

I too always thought that they were neat airplanes. Does anyone have any idea of how many are left?

[Tony C]

Must have been very tough for the pliot not being in control of the guns

That said, yes, some pilots complained of the frustration - others (particularly the night-fighters) decided to work as a team, and some got good results.

Hi James,
Not the answer but I seem to remember reading somewhere, that if the gunner was seriously wounded, it was his job to ensure that the turret was positioned with the guns point forward, so that the pilot would then be able to continue the fight!

Is this a myth as well?