SaxMan wrote:
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):
Quote:
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 -
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
