Built To Stop The "Unstoppable": Boulton Paul Defiant
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июн 2024
- In this video, we talk about the Boulton Paul Defiant, an early World War II fighter aircraft from Britain that was only armed from a turret in the rear of the fuselage, making it one of several "turret fighters". We first talk about Stanley Baldwin and his "the bomber will always get through speech," and how that speech corresponded with British military tactics and design. We then go to the competition for a bomber interceptor, all of them being turret fighters, and how Boulton Paul won.
We then talk about the Defiant's performance compared to more conventional fighters like the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane, and how the turret resulted in poorer performance. We also talk about the potential advantages of the turret fighter concept and how it would function in a fight against a traditional fighter. We talk about the early successes of the turret fighter, and how enemy forces adapted to the concept rather quickly, forcing the Defiant away from daytime use. We end by talking about how the Defiant and similar planes are often called some of the worst of the war, and how that may be an unfair label.
FYI the boulton is pronounced "Bolton" same as the town :)
shhh dont tell him its funnyier this was also it sounds more fancy lol
@@firefox5926It’s French for button - “Bootonn”.
The Boulton and Paul factory wasn't in Bolton, though.😉
5:06 Bhutan Paul! 😀😃😁😬
And Warwick pronounced as 'Worrick'. (Excellent vid!)
A quick word to the wise - the British convention is to refer to the unit as, for example, "two-six-four squadron" rather than the US-style "the two hundred and sixty-fourth squadron". Thanks for giving the Defiant a fair hearing. It was a superbly-designed aircraft; it was the role it had to fulfil that was flawed.
A goofy - looking plane (like a Hurricane with a turret stuck on the back) but a reasonably effective night flighter in 1940 - 41.
US style would be "two sixty fourth"
It always strikes me how much four brownings in the wings would have improved it's performance in self defense against other fighters, even if that would have been a compromise from a pure turret fighter
great point.
@@polygondwanaland8390 Only if they were weightless.
Fun fact: the world's only surviving example of the German Dornier Do-17 bomber that was recovered from the English Channel about 10 years ago was shot down by Defiants of 264 Squadron.
Not quite. By the admission of the RAF Museum they cannot say this this is indeed true as there is no way of identifying the Do17 they recovered, and there are between 7-11 Do17's down in the Goodwin Sands.
Prove it mate or me and the lads will be down…
@@DaveSCameron 😆
Invest in a voice generator that speaks ENGLISH not American.
Also, in 1936 almost nobody foresaw the fall of France, so that the Defiant was expected to operate well beyond the range of enemy fighters while defending British cities against unescorted bombers.
Yes. I made the same point. The concept wasn't actually terrible based on the assumptions of 1936. Even more so if you look at 1936 RAF attack tactics for standard fighters in vics from astern.
Perhaps the lack of a useful Armee de L’air could have been foreseen 😂😂😂
OK, but would the addition of any forward-firing, pilot-operated weapon be that... harmful? Why did they avoid it? How much additional weight or air resistance would e.g. 2 x machine guns in the wings make?
@@Zbigniew_Nowak weight of the guns, ammunition, mountings, access hatches, sights, a mechanism to heat them. It's a fair bit of extra weight for not much armament if just 303s. Two 50s, maybe, but they weren't available at the time.
Some Defiant notes;-
1) It was always envisioned it should have a fighter escort if operating in the range of enemy fighters.
2) At the start of the war, until part through the Battle of Britain, the RAF flew in rigid formations, with only the squadron leader looking out for enemy fighters. Many 'tail end charlies' were lost, some even over their own airfields this way - the Defiant was far better spotting incoming aircraft.
3) Both occasions the Defiant squadrons lost heavily, they were outnumbered 2-4:1 & bounced. No forward firing single fighters would have got away unscathed from this. They were also not protected by single seat fighters as per tactical doctrine.
4) Defiants didn't get the new variable pitch propellers to increase performance like the single seat squadrons did (only a few were supplied), or the armoured cockpit glass.
5) Defiants didn't have the backing of those in RAF High Command, who favoured single seaters, which gave better overall performance for the types of combat encountered, for less resources. There may have also been resentment against the workers at the B-Paul factory, who were quite militant (possibly due to how they were treated by the management), which delayed production in wartime.
6) On the day of 264 Sqns 37 claims (the Germans said some didn't get shot down), it appears that the Me 110's claimed weren't recorded at all by the Luftwaffe, but at least 2 were seen to go into the sea by the Defiant crews. Whilst there could be various reasons for this, at the very least, it appears odd.
7) Even if single seat, forward firing fighters did go into a protective circle, they could still be shot down, so firing frontally wasn't necessarily the main issue. The Defiant could fire forward, but only over the propeller arc, so would have to dive to fire level, which would take training the crews didn't get, as it wasn't part of their doctrine anyway.
8) Defiants didn't get a chance to practice all the types of combat flying they did eventually encounter, or have forced upon them.
9) 264 Sqns own C.O, did agree that for general combat, incl fighter v fighter, single seaters were better.
10) It can be argued, that attacking unescorted bombers in daylight, the Defiant was a better plane for this task than a forward firing single seater, especially when a lot of the single seater pilots were bad shots (for a variety of reasons), while the Defiant gunner had less to do in a better platform. On occasion, they did rip apart German formations, whereas on at least one incident in the Battle of Britain, RAF single seat forward firing fighters outnumbered the attacking German bombers, but most of the bombers got away.
There's some rubbish in the post by @eric-wb7gj To suggest the Defiant should have fighter escort is just plain stupid! To have a fighter being escorted by another fighter! Point '5 is ridiculous. Resentment against workers? Are you serious? The Defiant was obsolete by 1940 but was persisted with as a day fighter into the Battle of Britain, possibly due to the massive overclaiming on 29th May 1940 by 264 Squadron.
'...On the day of 264 Sqns 37 claims (the Germans said some didn't get shot down), it appears that the Me 110's claimed weren't recorded at all by the Luftwaffe, but at least 2 were seen to go into the sea by the Defiant crews. Whilst there could be various reasons for this, at the very least, it appears odd...' They actually claimed 39 as destroyed. To say that the Me 110s claimed weren't recorded is rubbish! NO Bf 110s were lost on 29th May 1940. Ten were claimed in the afternoon mission, and another in the evening mission, but none were lost. This is borne out by the Luftwaffe Quartermaster Returns, and also the absence of any Namentliche Verlustmeldungen (the loss list of aircrew submitted up the line to Luftwaffe HQ for a) replacement aircrew to be allocated, and b) so that the next-of-kin can be notified. I really don't think you have done any research into the events of 1940. Perhaps you can tell me about all of the research you have done; I will quite happily tell you of mine, and the books I have written and also contributed to...
@@Pokafalva Thank you for your reply. List your books etc if you wish.
1) What may seem stupid to you ref fighter escort was the RAF doctrine of the time There are various accounts of fighters being escorted by other fighters in WW2,
Defiants were to have fighter escort - - IF enemy fighters were expected.
This is the only RAF aircraft of it's type. It was expected France wouldn't fall, so it would usually meet unescorted German bombers coming in from the North Sea to attack Britain.. The Defiant was designed purely as a bomber destroyer, & not an aircraft to fight other fighters. That's why it had it's turret in the first place.
2) Resentment against workers - Yes very serious - Are you British?- Are you aware of the class & political divide in British society at that time (& what carried on long after, well into the 1980s). Workers would have been seen as lower class, & even militant socialists (which some were, a lot were just socialists). There was no love lost at times between workers & management, let alone upper class RAF Officers. The Duke of Wellington at Waterloo called his rank & file soldiers 'the scum of the earth'.
Defiant production was slowed down partly due to disputes with the workers (as well as parts supply & supplying other plane types).
As another example, workers building a runway in the UK complained about their wages to the C.O of an airfield. They stopped when they found out they were getting more than some of the airmen actually going on combat missions. Yes, that builds up resentment.
There are other examples.
3) The undeveloped Defiant wasn't obsolete, but I completely agree it was outclassed by the latest German single seat fighters, piloted by veterans. 264 Sqn own Sqn Leader said this.
4) Me 110 losses. Looks like you are correct for 29th May, the comment I made about the Luftwaffe not recording it's losses, was actually related to a different combat date in another part of the book. For 29th May, It states 264 Sqn claimed 15 Me 110s in the first/afternoon combat, none in the evening, & 37 for the day.
I've looked into the books Bibliography, it lists 72 books/documents as sources, but not those you've mentioned. This book does state that everyone over claimed, the reasons & German records suggest no more than 14 were lost that day - Do you have records of breakdown of German actual losses?
What is still odd though is;- 2 extracts from the book (from 264 Sqn own crews ref Me 110s);-
a) 'they circled down from the sun...& our formation went into line astern & spiraled towards the sea. At the beginning of the spiral an Me 110 passed overhead from starboard to port. My air gunner put two bursts into it & the port wing caught fire. The enemy aircraft fell into the sea'
b) The pilot of the above also saw 'one of the Me 110s 'attacking the tail of one of our machines', the gunner got in a long burst which sent the German into the sea.
Watching a plane going down & hitting the sea should be definitive, unless due to combat, they broke off eye contact & saw something else soon after.
Great to see the Defiant getting some proper consideration, thanks. It was a good aircraft in a role that turned out not to be available, hence it's unfair bad reputation. Helps to remember that all the immediate pre-war designs came out before anyone knew how the actual air war would turn out. They had to design for every eventuality, and inevitably some perfectly good aircraft were 'wrong' not because they were bad, but because they were outside what actually developed. Hindsight is a great thing.
Thank you for being you +IHYLS
& Lets share this guy some more & move closer towards getting him a RUclips Button !
a youtube BOOT-ON 🤑
I've often wondered how effective the Defiant would have been if they had included a couple of forward firing gun. If the Defiant tried fireing foreward it would shoot it's own propeller, as the turret guns weren't syncronized with the engine.
Guns in the forward position were basically for takeoff, landing and when parked up. as this allowed easier entry for the gunner.
At least they were better than the Blackburn Roc, another British turret fighter, which entered service in the Navy, as the Roc was too slow to even catch the bombers.
It's nice to see an interesting and informative video about this much miligned aircraft.
The Defiant was quite manoeuverable. It would have been better with some forward firing cannon and no turret at all. It would have been as fast as a Hurricane I would imagine.
They didn't have forward firing guns for the pilot as it was thought he would favour his firing position rather than that of the turret gunner..
vid - deadly defiants. I believe the defiant needed more hitting power, like a US turret - 2 heavy mgs. And 2 heavy mgs in the wings. njjj
Talk to battle britian he had a tactic in the Victor or hotspur.
It was found that by having forward firing guns the pilot would try to use them, thus preventing the turret gunner from engaging, when the pilot should instead be letting the gunner do his job.
The Defiant airframes came in rather useful later in the war, including on D-Day. The guns were removed and replaced with a 'Mandrel' radar jammer that blanked out long-range German radars 'behind' the aircraft in a wide arc. When flown in a wide line-abreast screens, it was impossible to tell if the blanked areas were stuffed with warships or not.
Yes this! One of the worlds first EW aircraft. Entrusted with a critical role.
515 Squadron had given up their Defiants by D Day and were equipped with Mosquitos. When it was in service in the Mandrel role the guns were retained. The air gunner also had the job of tuning the Mandrel set.
Prior to WWII the USAAC considered developing a turret fighter to escort bombers rather than intercept them. They did not believe a long-range escort fighter was technically feasible, but that a heavily armed aircraft with performance exceeding that of the bombers being escorted might fly among them to help ward off attacking fighters. The idea was discarded because it seemed likely these aircraft would be nearly as vulnerable to fighters as the bombers themselves, while not helping with bomb load. The concept did eventually lead to the YB-40 experiment during the war, with results that had more or less been predicted.
The bomber mafia didn't want fighters spoiling their nice bomber formations
The only available long rage fighters at the start were a few P-38s, which hadn't been figured out yet, so the point was moot. The bomber mafia was screaming for long rage fighters as fast as the factories could turn them out before the 8th Air Force even ventured into Germany proper.
@@PeteSampson-qu7qb they could have had the p-47 in 43 but they stopped it. doesnt sound like "screaming" to me.
Ah, yes, when your escort "fighter" is just another B-17, but with MOAR DAKKA!
@@builder396 I'm surprised they didn't build the thing out of stone as well to really make it into a fortress
Another excellent episode, thank you.
Today I was searching through your videos to find this one esspecially just for you to upload it right now. Thanks
It was the Hague Conventions that set the rules that were internationally agreed upon for the conducting of land and sea warfare. No agreement on airwarfare had been agreed upon before 1948. There are some doubts as to whether or not these rules applied to the dropping of bombs from aircraft, remember Göring was never charged with ordering of bombing civilian targets.
One minor detail, the Defiant was largely replaced by the Bristol Beaufighter in the night fighter role. The problem was that the early AI radar sets were very heavy, and reduced the Defiant's speed even further. The Bristol Beaufighter had two powerful Hercules engines, was faster than the Beaufighter and could easily accommodate the extra weight of on-board radar, as well as a devastating armament of 4 x 20 mm cannons. But with forward firing armament only, it could be vulnerable if spotted by the tail gunner on the enemy bomber.
The tail gunner would be in front of the Beaufighter, at least.
The UK lacked Schrage Musik, even despite the Dolphin of WW1 effectively having it and with it being used to down bombers
Nicely put.
The Defiant had a stealth bonus, but the Beau was superior in every other way.
The Bristol Blenheim was in service as a radar night fighter before the Beaufighter.
@@keithofboston244 and with five forward machine guns its mighty armament was a bit better than the Defiant, although a pin prick compared to the Beau.
@@keithofboston244 A Blenheim achieved the first shooting down of an enemy bomber assisted by onboard AI radar in late 1940. But the Blenheims lacked performance as fighters and were quickly replaced by Beaufighters. "Night Fighter" by CF Rawnsley gives a first hand account of night fighting in Blenheims, Beafighters and Mosquitos.
Thank you for video 101! All are greatly enjoyed and appreciated.
I am often critical and know it however, I liked this video pretty straight forward without over sensationalism, BS and exaggeration.
Wasn't it the Wellington on which Vickers were to concentrate ? The Warwick (pronounced worrick) was a later development. Incidentally, its BOULTON - with the L pronounced - Paul. Otherwise, excellent video!
By that point I think the wellington design was accepted I could be wrong
Vickers tested a 40mm cannon turret on a Wellington as a potential bomber destroyer
@@Geoff31818 Very possibly, but timelines are a bit confusing. The Defiant was the result of Air Ministry spec. 9/35 of 1935. One must presume therefore that the other competitors were being offered at the same time. It seems that the Wellington and the Warwick were both developed at the same time, but because the Warwick was larger it needed bigger engines, which were problematical (the RR Vulture of course!). The Wellington went into production in time for the outbreak of war, the Warwick not until 1942, by which time it was pretty much obsolete, never flying as a bomber and ending up as airsea rescue and anti submarine work. So, yes, although the Warwick first flight was 1939, by which time the Defiant had won and was in production, the Warwick would have been causing head scratching at Vickers!
I enjoyed your video. First time I have seen your channel. I would contend with the epithet "Jack of one trade" as the Defiant was used in many different roles: Dayfighter; nightfighter; gunnery training; ( all of which you nicely covered here ) but also Electronic Warfare; air sea rescue and the unglamerous but most necessary tsrget tug. She may not have excelled in any of these roles ( making her a jack not a King or Ace ) but she was useful within them. You have won a British subscriber. (Suggestion: ask us Brits about pronunciations )
I think British plane manufacturers really do like thick wings. If the Defiant have thinner wings, I think the top speed could be increase by 5-15mph, from 303mph to 315mph due to lower drag and lighter weight. Still slower than Hurricane and Spitfire, but fast enough to catch medium altitude bombers
The Boulton Paul Defiant was built in response to the British Air Ministry's F9/35 specification for a heavy turreted fighter in 1935. The background to this requirement for a "turretted fighter" was this.
In the run up to WW2, the likelihood of German air attack on the British isles was uppermost in the minds of British defensive planners. It was known that German bombers flying from airfields in Germany or even the Low Countries would by their distance from the British mainland be UNESCORTED as German fighters of that age did NOT have the necessary range to reach Britain from Germany/Low Countries. With that point in mind it was also known that the most dangerous position to attack a bomber stream from was the rear, with most bomber aircraft having heavy defensive fire to their rear. So the plan was to have a turretted fighter that would NOT have to act as an "Air superiority fighter" and tangle with escorting fighters, but instead fly ALONGISDE the bomber stream where defensive fire from the bombers was a lot less heavy, and from that position HOSE the bombers with heavy MG fire from relative safety with its 4 turreted .303s.
This was a sound strategy.
Now fast forward to 1940 and the completely unforeseeable collapse of France. German airfields were now NOT in Germany & the Low Countries but instead were just 20 miles away across the English Channel in France, and so the bombers now attacking the British Isles WOULD be escorted... but it appears in our "darkest hour" where all aircraft were needed, someone in RAF Fighter Command decided that the BP Defiant would now have to operate as a mutli purpose air superiority / heavy bomber destroying fighter plane.... a role for which it was NEVER intended, but the attitude was apparently "we've paid for these sodding planes and we're bloody well gonna use them" Which resulted in the useless deaths of hundreds of young RAF airmen.
The Defiant DID go on to be a world first "airborne electronic intelligence" aircraft and after better aircraft were produced for that role, it was finally used as a target towing tug.
The BP Defiant was typical of the the Between-The-Wars British Spirit :
« Think no offense !
Think only defense ! »
That’s why the guns were exclusively rear-firing.
The Gentleman’s thinking in the face of the beast.
I think the best turret fighter of WWII was the P-61 Black Widow. Fully equipped night fighter with a low drag remote controlled turret with 4x.50 caliber machine guns (plus 4x20mm forward firing cannon). Plus the USAAF said it was _the most maneuverable fighter_ of the war.
Unfortunately the dorsal turret caused some instability issues, and was removed from later production variants.
It was returned after some modifications
Actually in a turning fight, angling the guns upward while pointing forwards would be an advantage, as the Defiant wouldn't have to pull a lead for a deflection shot if it was on the adversary's tail. This was a tactic used by two seaters like the Bristol Fighter in WW1 - the observer would fire over the pilot's head. I recall someone making a video about this a while back. On the other hand, being attacked from below and in front would be a problem.
Never understood why it was designed with no forward armament . The concept may have stemmed from WW1 when the Bristol F2B Fighter was a huge success . a Canadian ace was credited with 38 kills and his gunner a further 8 .
Not absolutely sure , but it may have been the leading night fighter during the Blitz .Its advantage would be upward firing guns , later adopted by the Luftwaffe with such devastating effect in their N.F's , called Schrage Musik .
You’re over-egging Schrage Musik here (did you just copy Wikis description of it being “devastating”, because that usage misleadingly was taken from period quotes referring to the damage effect of 30mm cannon fire into the belly of an aircraft and not its overall impact upon Bomber Command). It was never mass-adopted by the Luftwaffe and remained largely a peripheral experiment used by a small number of squadrons. The sheer difficulty of lining up very precisely below the target meant that success was only going to be limited, and was mostly achieved by a small number of expert fighter crews in a period of months before bomber crews became widely aware of the tactic.
Initially the Bristol Fighter didn’t perform very well. What changed this was the realisation that the Brisfit, despite its size compared to single seat fighters, was fast, tough and manoeuvrable enough to go one-on-one with single seat fighters. Once they flew using the single forward firing Vickers as the main armament instead of relying on the observer’s single or twin Lewis guns, the aircraft became a major success story. After all, it remained in RAF service until 1932 and up to 1935 with the NZPAF.
Like you, I’ve always wondered how the much ~ and unfairly ~ maligned Defiant would have performed if the pilot had some forward firing guns at his disposal and flew the plane accordingly. Perhaps a couple of 50cal in the wings or in the nose firing through the prop arc. Replacing the 4 x .303 in the turret with 2 x 50cal would also have been a good idea.
I think if Baldwin had said, A bomber will always will always get thru it might have been more accurate, but we knew what he meant anyway. It shows how those few word bit deep in to the British psyche, as in at least 1 of George Orwell's novel Coming Up For Air, the main character keep talking about bombers coming to flatten the place. I have a feeling one of his other novels may have talked about it too maybe Keep the Aspidistras Flying.
The Boulton was made on the assumption that the enemy would fall for the same trick repeatedly.
No, it was built on the assumption that bombers would be unescorted. It was never expected to combat or even encounter enemy fighters.
At the time of its design, Germany had no way to escort bombers attacking the UK. The loss of France was the big issue for it in 1940. Specifications for later turret fighters were to employ 4 20mm cannon in the turret. Bolton Paul did trial a single cannon on a Defiant.
For night fighting, the 1940 requirement was for a larger aircraft still with a long loiter time and turret and forward armament and a twin boom design was proposed. The request was later passed on to Northrop and became the P-61. In reality, Schrage Musik was a simpler solution to the desire to target bombers in the upper quadrant.
and that german bmbers would not have belly gunners. vid - Deadly defiants, nj
@@RemusKingOfRome defensive fire was always going to be a hazard. They had weaker defensive fire in the lower rear quarter than (as designed) RAF bombers such as the Wellington, Whitley, Albermarle, Manchester, Lancaster Halifax or Stirling. Only the Hampden was as weakly armed and even that soon got upgraded to twin ventral guns.
@@wbertie2604 With at least one belly gunner, that was enough to warn the rest of crew that an enemy was below, and for the pilot to jink. Something British bmbers never had, they never saw the night fighters with upward firing cannons (no tracers).
@@RemusKingOfRome all British bombers of WW2 were designed to have ventral turrets from the outset, apart from the Blenheim, Beaufort and Lincoln, and the Blenheim later gained one, with the additional obvious exception of the Mosquito.
However, many were hampered by poor fields of view and high drag so were often deleted. With H2S being retrofitted to the heavies there wasn't anywhere to put the gun. The main notable exception was the Preston Green Mk. II with one or two 50 cals, mostly on Halifaxes during periods of H2S shortage as it was relatively low drag and had better vision, bar the Hampden position which was integral to the structure.
The Hampden retained its ventral armament throughout. The Albermarle retained the ability, but mostly it was deleted and they weren't used as bombers.
The RAF used a number of US aircraft such as Havoc, Ventura, Maryland, Baltimore, Avenger Fortress and Liberator with ventral armament. The Hudson and Vindicator were about the only ones without.
always love your "let me show you this flying machine that you might never heared about" content. also the after talk really makes people watch the whole video.
You could say that the turret was Bolt-(ed)-on to the aircraft!An interesting but failed concept and it wouldn't have been so bad if it'd had forward guns too.
If it had forward guns as well it would have been even heavier and had even more trouble catching a bomber.
Congratulations on reaching 100 videos.
Personally, think the Defiant got a bad rap because of two issues: 1) the plane really needed a much more powerful engine (fitted with a Merlin 61 engine of 1,600 bhp and a four-bladed propeller, it could have flown at speeds as high as 370 mph) and 2) the plane should have been fitted with a turret armed with two 20 mm Hispano cannon instead of the four 0.303 machine guns. With these modifications, it would have been a major scourge against _Luftwaffe_ bombers, especially with the longer range of the Hispano cannons.
As someone who is of Chinese descent, "the sun" part really cracked me up
Congratulations on that 100th video. 🍾🥂 Keep up the good work. Please do one on the Blackburn Roc, it looks fascinating.
All hail, the amorphous blob of great content.
Genius idea to have Principle Skinner do the narration on this!
I thought it was Brains from Thunderbirds
Boltn & Warrick. RAF Squadrons are generally referred to as "264 Squadron" rather than "Squadron Number 264" or "The 264th Squad" etc. The "Air Ministry" was just that , rather than "The Royal Air Ministry" - which never existed. That aside I always wondered why B.P. Didn't lose the turret & add some forward firing guns, (the wings were certainly large enough), & what the performance would be without the weight of a gunner & turret. They even wanted to strap a turret on the Mosquito, that wouldn't have gone well. Fortunately it was't really up to the Air Ministry, being a private venture.
A very fair assessment. !
I’ve often wondered how, given RAF experience with turret fighters firing up into bombers, they seemed unable to get their heads round the ‘Schrägemusik’ problem later in the war.
good lord, your narration should be sold as a soporific.
A bit harsh, perhaps, but the sing-song delivery does detract seriously from his excellent content. He would be much better served by making his delivery more conversational--"talk" the script, rather than read it with such p.a.i.n.s.t.a.k.i.n.g. over-articulation.
Keep up the excellent content and CONGRATULATIONS on your 💯 th!
nicely done
Statement would be accurate today related to drones as you cannot defend everywhere and countermeasures are more expensive than the drones.
Never understood why the British initially settled on rifle caliber Armament rather than developing a half inch machine gun to supplement cannon.
Probably limitations on weight. 50 cal guns and ammunition weigh 3 - 4 times more than .303 cal, and would reduce the performance of the Defiant even further.
The UK intended to leapfrog over 50 calibre guns entirely. Most RAF fighters, by the end of WW2, had 4 20mm cannon and no machine guns. Even the last Spitfires of WW2 had only cannon. It also intended bombers to use cannon, and the Lincoln, when it entered squadrons at the start of 1945, had a two cannon turret. Fraser Nash also had a 20mm turret, demonstrated to the USA, and Boulton Paul had a prototype in 1939.
Rifle calibre guns were initially used as they were available from the USA (with modifications). The M1921 50 (later M2) was not available. The native Vickers 50 wasn't a good choice. The only other option was possibly the 15mm BESA, but that only got used in some tanks in semi-auto.
@@philiphumphrey1548 the UK adopted the Browning 303 in (IIRC) 1934. It started looking at 20mm cannon in 1935, issuing specifications for aircraft armed with them in 1937. The USA did not approve an export licence for the 50, so that was off the table.
Fair assessment.
The British stumbled upon the "Night Music" weapon system the Germans would employ later in the war with deadly effect to exploit the British bombers Achilles heel not having a bottom gun turret. Lancasters never knew what hit them, being shot from below by HE 219's. The Japanese too would figure out it was most effective to have guns shoot upwards into a bomber's belly. If they would have put even a pair of guns in the Defiant's wings, it would have had a chance to scare off head on attacks, despite its slow speed.
Good illustrations.
The increase in machine gun numbers from two or four to eight and more, was, I understand, from the realization that the planes would have very short periods to get shots on target. Numbers of shots became important. Eight guns doubled the firepower.
Damn the Defiant!
Ball ton Paul, this is not a french company!
This guy's ability to mispronounce a name is second to none lol
Although, ironically, the turret was originally a French design.
B O L T O N , o as in ox.
Good stuff !
Hey! Congrats on 101-st!
For a moment there, I thought you had dared to talk about the sun blinding pilots with a super-imposed portrait of Sun Tsu. But then I of course realised that nobody would dare to make such a horrible pun. NOBODY! Right? RIGHT?! 😆
The Defiant could have "Sported" bombs & rockets for ground work or Coastal Command. Field mod some.303s in wings....hey...
Many thanx 👍👍
Aircraft testing in vacuum must be an interesting undertaking.
In a vacuum, neither the Defiant nor the Hotspur would function at all, since their engines wouldn't run and their wings wouldn't develop lift.
Hope that helps
Mrs Bucket would approve!
I doubt that many non-British viewers will get the reference.
@@neiloflongbeck5705their loss she was a legend in her own bucket.
Did the Hotspur turn into the Typhoon? By the look of it, some bits of it at least certainly did.
I have a mate from Bhutan. He's called Paul.
I have a mate who has breast implants. She's called Bolt-on.
I have to wonder how much of the Hawker Henley was the Hotspur.
I wonder how long it's going to take to get to the actual talk about the defiant
Only the vanquished are held to account vis-a-vis "The Rules of War".
0:51 the last sentence is something I can confirm. Through my knowledge in history and experience in any war-based video game where I met bombers, at least one always get through. But I think I don't have to confirm that
(And it includes torpedo bombers as well)
It's always maddening how the Defiant is vilified as a lousy design. The design wasn't at fault, it was the assumed tactics of air wars which was totally wrong. The design fully complied with the requirements. They did as well as could be expected, especially seeing how an effective defence against fighters was disallowed by Air Force HQ.
it was still a bad design even if it was the specifications fault. hurricane and spitfire were 50+mph faster and has twice the firepower and could out turn it all at the same time as the deficient was flying about waiting to become a target tug.
The thinking was that as the Netherlands had not been invaded in WW1, any future war with Germany would similar meaning the Luftwaffe would have to operate at the extreme of their range from the North Sea Coast of Germany or out of Germany and captured portions of Belgium. In either case these bombers would be unescorted. In 1935,no one would have predicted that Germany would take Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Unfortunately this is exactly what happened, leaving the Defiant fighting the wrong war.
It was a 'lousy design' for air combat, because it did comply with the requirements that were driven by faulty (aka lousy) assumptions about combat. Nobody is blaming the guys who worked at the drafting tables.
@@gort8203 please explain how the design assumption we're lousy, without usi h hindsight.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 If you need me to explain that you don't belong in this discussion. From past experience I suspect you just want to be argumentative.
Seriously thanking God for the Hurricane 🙏
The Defiant was a clear aircraft that was thought up in comittee. Proving that a camal is a horse designd by comittee.
I'm convinced that the idea came from the succes of the Bristol Fighter in WW1. What the idea got wrong is that biplanes didn't have greater speed differences. And the Bristol Fighter got a strong engine.
Fokker got the analyses correct with the idea of the French multi role aircraft. The G1 prototype twin engine counter rotating props strong frontal armament and a non drag cone tail gunner. Long range patrol or escort fighter bomber.
Also the Fokker C10 biplane was availeble as light bomber, scout or fighter version with three sorts of wings. As a light bomber the Fins used it as a scout with great succes keeping low and flickrolling straight down and underneath any attacking foghter. None were shot down this way. The Finns built some new C10 in 1944. It was potentially a good figbter against spotter aircraft. Slow and manouvrable then the drag of a tailgun came into play. Or fast and manouvrable and no drag tailgun.
Defiant was slow and sluggisch and the coordinaton of pilot and turretgunner in combat only possible if the enemy helped along in getting shot down.
Your final reasoning is flawed. Bombers, and divebombers needed fighter escorts. Having a fighter in need of fighter escort is an error in reasoning.
I'm convinced the comittee simply either didn't grasp that bombers could be escorted by fighter or thought they could effectivly akin the Bristol fighter in WW1 defend themselves against fighter attack.
A totally flawed concept due to thinking in commitee. 26:22
Almost everybody in British weapons development during the 1920s-1930s was stuck thinking the next war would be a more mechanized WWI, and that was everything from fighter planes to tanks, and even the Royal Navy. The German campaigns of 1940 broke that thinking, though anybody paying attention to Spain and the Polish campaign should have been getting a clue that the future would not be the past.
Also the WWI Bristol F.2 fighter had a forward firing machine gun, something the Defiant needed, or at least a machine gun and a cannon like the Japanese "Hayabusa" fighter.
Maybe if the Defiant had been equipped with a 3000 hp engine and four forward-firing .5 machine guns as well as the turret, it might have had more success, but a 1000 hp Merlin........
The issue was the loss of its mission profile: attacking unescorted bombers. It actually didn't do too badly doing so at night.
The Defiant came close. If it had foreward firing guns and a little time to devise tactics it could have been a valuable fighter.
'...If it had foreward firing guns...' it would have been a lot heavier and had a top speed of well below 300 mph - ergo, no bloody use at all!
I wonder how much of an explosion you'd get if you would compress the tall boy bomb into the size of a walnut and then scale it up to the size of little boy. (Or equivalent bombs, the names just where there for the taking)
I was sure the Blackburn Roc would figure in this, somewhere.. 😁
IHYLS
FYI The Manufacturer is pronounced "Bolton", like the Lancashire town
You seem to have almost stumbled on the RAF's interwar Zone Defense Fighter concept, was that omitted on purpose?
This would have been a night fighter, but without a radar set, it wasn’t viable. Equipped with conventional machine guns to deal with bombers below and ahead of it. And, a turret to attack bombers above and behind it, it may have worked in service.
The defiant is a product of that time period where rapid innovation was combined with speculation of how the next war was going to be fought.
It is just one of those designs that got screwed over by being designed for a war fighting method that didn’t turn out to be effective or useful
About that idea that it wasn't a terrible plane because it was not meant to engage enemy fighters and could handle enemy bombers. What is terrible is the preconception that the enemy will always cooperate with your doctrine, plans, and tactics. Did the Brits think the German 109s would break off and withdraw because they weren't "supposed" to be attacking Defiants?
I wonder if a larger version might have made into a decent dive bomber or torpedo plane.
As intended, the Defiant turret allowed for forward firing including 'ideal' zero correction 'deflection' shooting (as used by WW1 fighter Ace Albert Ball) but someone decided to prrevent this - removing the pilot's sight and gun button, apparently a victory for doctrine at the expense of sanity...
[...] fighters coming out of Tse Sun / Sun Tsu. Brilliant 😄!
The drone will always get through
And they're cheaper so they can swarm you even more
Sans turret, the BP was faster than the Hurricane and more maneuverable than the spit. The air ministry didn't want production
Split between three fighters.
Target tug towing , search and rescue and the brief Night fighter were highly successful
AND vital.
It was also the testbed for the first ejector seats.
One squadron did employ the equally maligned Lufberry Circle with great success
During the BoB. They began a unified descent that took full advantage vof the turret concept.
The gunners also had a unique parachute
More fat wetsuit than bulky pack
'...Sans turret, the BP was faster than the Hurricane...' But with no armament, so what bloody use would that be as a fighter!?
Name sounds like a movie star. Always wondered about that since I was a kid 😂
A quite beautiful plane, if a pretty sh*t idea. Looks a lot like the Hurricane [excellent fighter] or the Fairey Battle [excellent trainer]. Obviously just sticking 4x .303s in the wings must have been a problem, they weren't idiots as a rule. I just can't hate this failed plane. Cheers from an icy Canberra AU, from a new subscriber.
It wasn't a "shit idea" It was designed for a completely different purpose to that which it was forced to take on. In its original role it was well designed, in the role it was pressed into it was a death trap.
Bomber myths of WWII:
"The bomber will always get through."
"We can break the enemies back with terror bombing." - one of "Bomber" Harris' favorite ideas. Curtis LeMay became a convert.
"Level bombing can be used to sink ships." - Billy Mitchel "proved" that with a dead in the water target ship that wasn't returning anti-aircraft fire.
Ironically replaced by a Bristol design that looked like the Bristol turret fighter sans the turret ......... the fantastic Beaufighter one of the great "heavy fighters" of ww2 no one seems to talk about
Like Michael Bolton
Break 'Boulton' down into sounds: [BOHL] + [TUHN] - say it out loud and exaggerate the sounds until you can consistently produce them.
It's pronounced Bolton Paul and its description was not a Bomber destroyer per se, but a bomber FORMATION destroyer, when used as designed (very rarely!) it was effective ie below and to one side of a bomber formation, picking out individual aircraft to destroy an enemy formation.It was later during the Blitz an effective night fighter, it continued when obsolete as a target towing aircraft, it as a ver good plane, but underpowered .
The specification F9/35 was simply for a FIGHTER. Not a 'bomber formation destroyer' or anything else. Simply a fighter...
Very well done video, with the exception of the rising and lowering voice tone that made it hard to listen to. Sorry. I couldn't get through the entire video. Wishing you success though with your channel. Please consider trying to read the copy between a mono tone and the way you are reading now. Regards.
Boulton = bolt-on :) And certainly not Notlob (one for the older viewers there.....)
Not to be confuses with the Skua dive bomber.
all the comments about pronunciation...
well. if we're going to go down that road.
t.e.c.h.n.i.c.a.l.l.y,
the name Boulton (and the Paul part too) is french in origin and the british prounouncing it Bowlton is not correct either.
the french would (and I believe did) say boolto(n)(elided n) pawl(e).
ps: continue to have fun and continue to continue.
you have a slightly sassy attitude that I like.
PS: Happy 101st episode!
😊
"the buuumber will always get through " that's why we'll only defend them with a few light mgs. The defiant needed 2 x heavy mgs in the turret and 2 wing mounted heavy mgs.
Poor 141 sqn were novices that were attacked by 109 aces, diving out of the sun, the defiant gunners didn't see them, then the emils attacked from 6 Low .
This plane should be flyable in IL2 Sturmovik, please contact them and ask them for such. Check out the video - "deadly defiants" . nnjk
The Guernica syndrome.
At the time this was probably true because bombers couldn't be detected early enough. Have you seen the sound reflectors in Kent which tried to amplify sound? Until radar and the associated plotting systems it was very hard to intercept. Not the Royal Air Minstry just Air Ministry.
Boulton is pronounced Bolton not Bootong - ignore the 'U'. Also the Warwick - pronounced woorwik - was a later development of the aircraft Vickers were actually ask to concentrate on, the very famous Wellington - I'm surprised you got that wrong? One last thing: the Brits numbering system for it's units was recalled as individual digits - not as whole numbers, so 633 Squadron (as in the movie) would be 6.3.3. not the U.S. style: The Six hundred & Thirty-Third.
Don't feel bad about mispronouncing various British names. I think the great information you included was much more important than getting a few names right.
If you want to know the pronunciation, it's
"Boll-ton"
"Worrick"
"En-sign" (rhyming with Ten)
Everyone is dogging this guy for "bouton" paul but I also caught an "on-sign" at 8:42. Ensign is pronounced EN-sin. It's a naval rank not a proper name so perhaps less forgivable than rendering Boulton as a French button.
i dont get why they werent given even a single forward firing 7.7... even the swordfish and blenheim had some
Brits offered Blackburn Roc turret fighter. With Hurricane and Blenheim, to Finns, but they politely refused. Something about lack of airmen and pilots. Roc was painted with Finnish insignias, While flown to Scotland, blue crosses were covered with white dope fabric. So anti air gunners didn’t mistake it as an enemy plain.
Bhutan Paul apparently
Everyone is all too ready to pooh pooh the turret fighter concept but in truth the ‘multiple angles of attack’ included from beneath the target.
Shrage musik in 1938?…
Also, the basic design was very sound as is evidenced but it’s use in numerous roles during WW2.
Lord Hard Thrasher - fight me! 😂😂
Not nearly as bad a plane as it's usually made out to be.
Just a bit slow for a fighter.
To my knowledge neither the Ju-88 nor the Do-17 or He-111 can fire straight down... so using them like Schräge Musik and just chillin' below the bombers would probably have worked.
@@KR4FTW3RK
There's an interesting description on pages 206 - 7 of Britain's Wonderful Airforce (1942) of how Defiants attack enemy bombers from below.
They seem to have been too small to have radar sets fitted, so they relied on ground control to find their targets.