Boulton Paul Defiant.

[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?

[JDK]

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.

Len's book is very good generally; I'd recommend it too. But that's simply not true. There was a connection between the concept of the Bristol Fighter and the Hawker Demon; and between the Demon and the Defiant; but that is not an unbroken chain any more than a Sopwith Pup is Hawker-Siddley Harrier.

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.

Indeed - and no argument. Bear in mind though it was originally written in the 60s, and hasn't been substantially revised since the 70s. There have been better books since which give credit to areas that were still secret when the Narrow Margin was written, and since some German details have come to light. Stephen Bungay's book is highly recommended, I'm told.

Of course the conversion rate from 'intercept' to 'kill' was laudable. But the intercept rate itself, in these early days of night-fighting was painfully low.

(It would be interesting to know if some USAAF analyst specified the four gun turret in the P-61 based on 1940 information on Defiant interceptions...)


No, no, no, no no! Argh....

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.

Not true - see above.

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

Not true - see above. The Defiant's first major battle was the Dunkirk evacuation; the end of the Battle of France. 'many' isn't correct - one major over-claim by a number of Defiant gunners in one battle.

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 believe (and we can't prove it one way or another) that one JG group mistook one Defiant Squadron for Hurricanes (hardly a surprise in combat) and other JG units didn't. They were rather busy, and I can't see them telephoning each other with advice about how to tackle Defiants in the middle of it. They had other (more important) fish to fry.

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

No, because that wasn't the kind of job it was meant to do. Please - that's the same old myth that gets trotted out again and again, and it's not true. I've bothered (because I thought it was interesting) to share a few thoughts above; let's not just go back to the same-old same-old. Thanks.

Interestingly, Boulton Paul offered a turretless Defiant ballasted to show how it would work as a single-seat forward-firing fighter, but Spitfire and Hurricane production was keeping up fine, and it wasn't needed, any more than the Miles M-20.

Does anyone have any idea of how many are left?

Did we find there were too many big words or summin'? See above:

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

Photographed: sole survivor, N1671 at the RAF Museum Hendon, London, England. One full size non-original construction with some original parts (the turret being a main 'original part') at the Boulton Paul Heritage Centre, Wolverhapton, England. One wreck at the BPHC, plus elsewhere, a couple of Merlins from Defiants and a few bits. That's it.

Appreciate those who read the thread before posting; if you think it's wrong, fine, say so, let's discuss it with evidence (as SaxMan's put up - thanks) but it's not [Edit: well, it wasn't. ] even a two page thread to flick through yet! C'mon guys.


Cheers,

[JDK]

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?

Hi Tony! Mostly. It's pretty clearly self-denying. Firstly it wasn't possible to fire through the arc of the prop (although the guns could be trained either side of the front cockpit, pointing directly forwards!) as the guns couldn't be synchronised (pretty obvious, really) and any gunner would be unlikely to regard such an action as more vital than trying to stay alive; either by self applied first aid or by bailing out (hard enough to do...)

In the event of pneumatic or electric failure, the gunner was expected to (slooowwly - gearing) wing the turret to aim forwards and guns above the prop arc when the pilot could fire them. One in a million chance, but a good opportunity for a Commando Comics level story to start... But they thought it a chance, so the pilot DID have a gun firing button on his spade grip.

Cheers,

[Tony C]

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?

Hi Tony! Mostly. It's pretty clearly self-denying. Firstly it wasn't possible to fire through the arc of the prop (although the guns could be trained either side of the front cockpit, pointing directly forwards!) as the guns couldn't be synchronised (pretty obvious, really) and any gunner would be unlikely to regard such an action as more vital than trying to stay alive; either by self applied first aid or by bailing out (hard enough to do...)

In the event of pneumatic or electric failure, the gunner was expected to (slooowwly - gearing) wing the turret to aim forwards and guns above the prop arc when the pilot could fire them. One in a million chance, but a good opportunity for a Commando Comics level story to start... But they thought it a chance, so the pilot DID have a gun firing button on his spade grip.

Cheers,

Thanks for that...

Aahhh Commando War Stories...
20 minutes to read which was usually just enough time for the visit to the little boys room.

Having put that image in your head, why have you still not gone to bed?

(I've finished work for today, before your start )

[SaxMan]

In some ways, the Defiant was similar to the Me110: They were both envisioned for a role in day combat that never materialized in actuality, but they both did well as a night fighter. The Me110 was supposed to be a "Zerstorer" or Destroyer that would range out ahead of the bomber formations to clear the sky of defending fighters. The reality proved to be much different as the Me110 was not a match for the Spitfires and Hurricanes, and the Me110s, in the end, would need Me109 escort to survive. As a night fighter, the Me-110 did very well.

In the end, the true "Zerstorer" was the P-51, a single-engined fighter that carried enough fuel and had the dogfighting ability to clear the skies of equally maneuverable single engine fighters and be able to escort the bombers, too.

[JDK]

I'd not responded to this when you posted, SaxMan, sorry.

It's an interesting and meaningful comparison. The 'heavy escort fighter' was a popular idea in the thirties, the Germans, Brits, Dutch, Americans, Italians and others all playing with it. Some were unexpectedly successful in different jobs, like, as you say, the Me-110 that clicked in the nightfighter role, but most were a disaster.

Of course the twin-engine single-seat P-38 Lightning was no slouch as a long range fighter, but wasn't wanted by one of the 8th AF top brass in Europe so was pushed out, so I understand. The Pacific guys did rather well with it, as we know.