My Dad served on HMS Rosebay, a corvette, from 1943-45, as the senior rating for gunnery. He chose the BPD turret that was installed where the aft 4" gun had once been to be his station. Elevated on a platform, through which you gained access to the guns, it provided excellent aft and about 200´ pan from port to starboard.
Great Vid chaps. Fascinating that the Defiant has recently become so popular with historians and modellers! For example, check out how much Defiant model activity there is on EBay! The concept of a ‘Bomber interceptor’ was of its time but so rapidly shown to be flawed when the Luftwaffe used fighter escorts. The weight of the turret and gunner alone should have sent warning bells to the designers about its capabilities and not being able to fire forward in any real sense must have frustrated the life out of the ‘Daffy’ pilots!
The Defiant missed its vocation as a single seat fighter with forward armament. Boulton Paul produced a prototype single seat only version the P94 but lack of test pilots prevented further development. It would have a superb Naval carrier fighter if development had continued.
Fascinating, moved to Norwich in 82 when the Boulton & Paul still had a massive site in the city. Remnants of their airfield still exist, not much but some. The B&P site now night clubs and shops, the Wetherspoons on the site does have some good photos of B&P. Now know a lot more about the Defiant than I did thanks
The prototype Defiant was built without turret, would it not have been possible when the obivious fallacy of the bomber destoryer idea was exposed to have halted Defiant production, for a few weeks and start producing an orthodox single-seater "Defiance" (and 20mm cannon armed?) instead. Evidently the Defiant was a good airframe, it could heave around nearly a ton of turret with all the drag and still do 304 mph, you could be looking at a 330-340 mph fighter????
My Dad was attached for a short time to 141 squadron at West Malling in 1940. Surely it would have made sense to base the Defiants up north so that they would not encounter 109s.
Would have made more sense not to produce the type in the first instance. The problem was that the squadrons existed and the Air Staff were still hopeful that the Defiant would prove useful - even after they were mauled over Dunkirk, where in any case they required a Spitfire escort. In my personal opinion the writing was clearly on the wall at that time, so the Defiant should have been withdrawn from daylight operations before the Battle of Britain, certainly over southern England. But as you say, if operating in daylight beyond the range of 109s, in 12 or 13 Groups, the Defiant could have successfully chased lone German nuisance bombers around and thus release two Hurricane or Spitfire squadrons from that commitment, which could then have gone south.
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar Yes indeed, however pre war thinking was on the lines that the days of dogfights were over with the advent of the faster monoplane fighters, and that the new aircraft would be primarily bomber destroyers. Certainly 264 as well as 141 Squadron should have been based at Edinburgh or there about and could have been quite effective against the unescorted raid that was tried by the Luftflotten based in Norway. Bringing them into 11 Group was suicidal, especially as we were so short of experienced pilots anyway. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though!!!!
@@jamesmorse959 the Air Staff were counselled regarding how inappropriate the Defiant was, but the concept had a powerful ally in Sholto Douglas, who had flown Bristol Fighters in the First World War and wrongly put his eggs in the Defiant basket. Dowding knew that the Defiant was inappropriate for modern fighter combat but the Air Staff wouldn’t listen. So it isn’t just a matter of hindsight and armchair Air Marshals.
But it was… free…. And just two mates chatting informally, not a comprehensive history of the Defiant in 20 minutes - but thanks fo4 th3 feedback. Will look forward to you addressing the omission in a video of your own soon :-)
They could have fitted a couple of upwards pointing 20mm Oerlikons in place of the turret with the gunner converted to AI operator/loader for night fighting and that's not a la Schrage Musik but based on RFC/RAF WW1 experience. I've actually modelled this as a what if and it kind of 'looks like it would work'.
The point is that with the four machine-gun-armed turret the Defiant was underpowered - the extra weight of twin 20mm cannons would have made that even worse. Don't forget that the Me 110 and Ju 88 were twin-engined, so the extra weight of the Schrage Music installation was not an issue.
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar I suggested removing the heavy turret and all of the hydraulics needed to power it and replacing it with two 20mm cannons pointing upwards and forwards but retaining the gunner who now operates the AI set and changes magazines on the early war Oerlikons much like a Beaufighter NF AI operator did. The pilot could be provided with a simple overhead sight and this hypothetical aircraft would only operate at night. This is indeed a 'what if' aircraft but considering how the Defiant was butchered in all kinds of ways immediately after its withdrawal from front line day service and considering the knowledge gained of upwards firing Lewis guns in WW1 it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar Yes it was, but it flew, had good handling characteristics and was available and many pilots were current on it and they did use it as a NF anyway, even with the monstrously heavy turret and plumbing. In fact for a short time it was the only NF available capable of catching a German bomber in a stern chase. Seems to me that eliminating a drag inducing 1000lb turret and replacing it with two 20mm faired in magazine fed Oerlikons together weighing maybe 200lb must have considerably improved the turret armed versions max speed of 304mph. Still underpowered? Yes, but pilots and designers are by nature demanding souls and they always want more power. Most successful night intercepts were achieved through stealth and bombers can't hare around at top speed if they want to reach home, once spotted the NF is at an immediate disadvantage in the inky black sky and so I think the Defiant's performance was perfectly adequate in that regard.
The Defiant was actually intended to fly and fight at night when designed, so it’s performance as a night fighter is no surprise, when it held the fort before arrival of high performance and dedicated more advanced designs. Andy and I have covered all of this in two new recently filmed videos and four pods, which will be released in due course.
Depends where in the world you are. I will be presenting on the Battle of Britain history of Bibury airfield in Gloucestershire, and doing a book signing, at the Classic Motor Hub there on 1/2 July 2023, and running another public event at the Battle of Britain Bunker, Uxbridge, on 15 October 2023. Details of both events will appear on my website soon.
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar I follow military history. I am from India, planning to visit UK sometime in June this. Just curious about your availability
17:50 - 264 claimed 37 over two sorties. They actually claimed 39. 19 in the first sortie; 20 in the second sortie (cf Dunkirk Air Combat Archive by Simon Parry and Mark Postlethwaite, pages 134 & 138 [Red Kite]). 18:00 'Claims were made in good faith'. I struggle with this. 10 claims were made for Messerschmitt Bf 110s destroyed. The actual number lost was Nil on these sorties. The only loss (70%) came at 1:00 (M8+EN of 5./ZG 76) which is outwith the times of the two Defiant sorties. Other than the above, excellent interview from both of you.
The claims were indeed made in good faith, when you read the surviving combat reports but also remember that at the time the British public needed good news - hence the Ministry of Information jumping on this story right away. However I am fully aware of the claims vs the losses, as according to the Luftwaffe Quartermasters Returns, if 264's victories are to to taken as gospel, then no other RAF squadron attained any victories that day. The over claiming is pretty much down to multiple air gunners engaging the same targets. The ' mistaking us for Me 109s ' first surfaced that day, and is noted in a combat report filed by Thorn and Barket.
Moreover, the video was an overview of Andy’s Defiant project and extensive research, not a forensic analysis of a particular combat. Viewers may rest assured that a forensic analysis will be involved, however, to some tune, as Andy always does, using primary sources, not the published work of others. The more aircraft engaged, by the way, and the more confused the fighting, the greater the overclaiming, which is a demonstrable fact. From my own research over twenty years ago we now know that the Bader Big Wing, for example, always made excessive claims, sometimes as much as 7:1, but that had nothing to do with dishonesty on the pilots’ part, it was simply the nature of things when so many aircraft were involved. The misidentification of enemy aircraft was also exceedingly common, as were friendly fire incidents. Easy to consider these things critically from the comfort and safety of an armchair today, of course, not quite so in a cramped, cold, cockpit, twisting and turning, fighting for your life at 20,000 feet.
@@andylong7112 What I posted above, Andy, was just to point out the reality, as opposed to, as you say, the British public needing good news. As we both know, myths are turned into facts and accepted even up to present. You and I have both seen that on other internet platforms! The Luftwaffe overclaimed equally so - ZG 26 claims for 18th August 1940 being a particular case in point. Let me know when the book surfaces - I want to pick up a copy. And perhaps we can finally catch up at Dave's museum next year, all things being equal!
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar But as you know, Dilip, you put something out there, and it is taken as gospel by many. The rest of what you say I agree with.
@@Pokafalva yes, but that’s the point. At the time the claims were made in good faith and in many cases impossible to either verify or deny, so we’re accepted, in the main. There is a huge gulf of difference between a claim and an actual loss, the problem being that until comparatively recently, and I am talking about the pioneering work of John Foreman in particular, and subsequently John Alcorn, the Battle of Britain narrative has been based mainly upon claims - not reality. That in itself has generated a myth of such proportion it is impervious to the truth - the general public are not interested in the detail, as are we, but only the broad narrative of derring-do. Consequently detailed aviation history books are read by comparatively few people, unfortunately, meaning that the platform simply does not exist to correct the long established myth, something I have studied at PG level and am very interested in.
Great discussion, I'm also a Defiant fanatic. ruclips.net/video/QFLkrrZkTGA/видео.html Few points I've discovered, (1) 4 x 303s wasn't enough for early war but turret was too small for anything else. (2) Gunner couldn't have parachute attached, major flaw. (3) It's far easier and quicker for single pilot to learn his aircraft than 2 men, pilot and gunner to sync into a team. Time not available early BOB. 264 Sqn had time to learn, 141 Sqn had no time. Another great film - ruclips.net/video/6wXHnSduf7g/видео.html
Defiant gunners did wear a parachute - they designed the special 'Rhino suit' parachute specifically for Defiant gunners so they could fit in the turret.
In terms of fulfilling the Spec', the Defiant was a success. However, the specification was the result of old men and outdated thinking. The Defiant was barely even able to catch most German bombers - with the exception of the Ju87, which it hardly even met in any case. It was, a waste of precious resources. None of which in anyway minimises the service, efforts, braveness or sacrifice of the crews. The fact that it served for a short while as a stop-gap night fighter is somewhat incidental, as it was never seriously intended as a night-fighter, nor was there even any AI when the Spec' was written or the a/c designed. For the same outlay, more Spitfires or Hurricanes could have been built - nuff said.
Just a thought: Remove the turret, fit 8 303's in the wings and surely it would have been a match for a Hurricane ????? My first airfix kit was a BP Defiant!
A turretless Defiant would have been faster than a Huurìcane. When they added 40mm Cannons to some Hurricanr IIs for GA purposes its speed fell dramatically from 330ish mph to 285!! The Defiant dragged as much as a ton of turret around and could still do 304mph!! When I guessed an orthodox armed Defiant could do 330-340 I was being conservative in my guess. The sans turret Defiant would have been slower than the Spitfire but faster than the Hurricane. The Hurricane had a thick wing which slowed it down. While the Hurricane is rightly esteemed for its role in the BoB, in 1941 its limitations a fighter were tragically exposed and it was switched to GA while new Mark's of Spitfire became the RAFs primary fighter.
Thanks for the video! The aircraft had many weaknesses. In particular it was very vulnerable to head on frontal attacks from German fighters.
My Dad served on HMS Rosebay, a corvette, from 1943-45, as the senior rating for gunnery. He chose the BPD turret that was installed where the aft 4" gun had once been to be his station. Elevated on a platform, through which you gained access to the guns, it provided excellent aft and about 200´ pan from port to starboard.
Very interesting and thanks for sharing.
Really interesting, thanks for sharing guys. Looking forward to the book
Well done guys, vital info to make the story more true and complete. This is part of our heritage and should be known.
A Splendid Video Andy And Dilip.
I had to wait until l got home from work until l could watch it.
Your efforts are much appreciated.
Cheers Gents! 🍻
Thanks David!
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar. P.S. l do like your phrase "Combat Shattered Squadron" Dilip. I shall have to remember that one for further use. 🙂
@@davidrees1279 Did I?! Must remember that myself, great phrase!
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar
25:35 Dilip. 😉
@gordinater Thanks for the positive feedback, lots more to come :-)
Great Vid chaps. Fascinating that the Defiant has recently become so popular with historians and modellers! For example, check out how much Defiant model activity there is on EBay! The concept of a ‘Bomber interceptor’ was of its time but so rapidly shown to be flawed when the Luftwaffe used fighter escorts. The weight of the turret and gunner alone should have sent warning bells to the designers about its capabilities and not being able to fire forward in any real sense must have frustrated the life out of the ‘Daffy’ pilots!
The Defiant missed its vocation as a single seat fighter with forward armament. Boulton Paul produced a prototype single seat only version the P94 but lack of test pilots prevented further development. It would have a superb Naval carrier fighter if development had continued.
Fascinating, moved to Norwich in 82 when the Boulton & Paul still had a massive site in the city. Remnants of their airfield still exist, not much but some. The B&P site now night clubs and shops, the Wetherspoons on the site does have some good photos of B&P.
Now know a lot more about the Defiant than I did thanks
Interesting, thanks
Glad you found it interesting, keep watching!
The prototype Defiant was built without turret, would it not have been possible when the obivious fallacy of the bomber destoryer idea was exposed to have halted Defiant production, for a few weeks and start producing an orthodox single-seater "Defiance" (and 20mm cannon armed?) instead. Evidently the Defiant was a good airframe, it could heave around nearly a ton of turret with all the drag and still do 304 mph, you could be looking at a 330-340 mph fighter????
It might have been difficult to work around the center-of-gravity issues that would have arisen as a result of removing the turret.
My Dad was attached for a short time to 141 squadron at West Malling in 1940. Surely it would have made sense to base the Defiants up north so that they would not encounter 109s.
Would have made more sense not to produce the type in the first instance. The problem was that the squadrons existed and the Air Staff were still hopeful that the Defiant would prove useful - even after they were mauled over Dunkirk, where in any case they required a Spitfire escort. In my personal opinion the writing was clearly on the wall at that time, so the Defiant should have been withdrawn from daylight operations before the Battle of Britain, certainly over southern England. But as you say, if operating in daylight beyond the range of 109s, in 12 or 13 Groups, the Defiant could have successfully chased lone German nuisance bombers around and thus release two Hurricane or Spitfire squadrons from that commitment, which could then have gone south.
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar Yes indeed, however pre war thinking was on the lines that the days of dogfights were over with the advent of the faster monoplane fighters, and that the new aircraft would be primarily bomber destroyers. Certainly 264 as well as 141 Squadron should have been based at Edinburgh or there about and could have been quite effective against the unescorted raid that was tried by the Luftflotten based in Norway. Bringing them into 11 Group was suicidal, especially as we were so short
of experienced pilots anyway. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though!!!!
@@jamesmorse959 the Air Staff were counselled regarding how inappropriate the Defiant was, but the concept had a powerful ally in Sholto Douglas, who had flown Bristol Fighters in the First World War and wrongly put his eggs in the Defiant basket. Dowding knew that the Defiant was inappropriate for modern fighter combat but the Air Staff wouldn’t listen. So it isn’t just a matter of hindsight and armchair Air Marshals.
One confirmed Defiant kill, August 24, 1940 Ju 88 of KG 76 over the Channel killing Major Friedrich Moricke after a raid on Manston.
Enjoyed this, but not enough on the Defiant’s role jamming German radar on D day ☹️
But it was… free…. And just two mates chatting informally, not a comprehensive history of the Defiant in 20 minutes - but thanks fo4 th3 feedback. Will look forward to you addressing the omission in a video of your own soon :-)
They could have fitted a couple of upwards pointing 20mm Oerlikons in place of the turret with the gunner converted to AI operator/loader for night fighting and that's not a la Schrage Musik but based on RFC/RAF WW1 experience.
I've actually modelled this as a what if and it kind of 'looks like it would work'.
The point is that with the four machine-gun-armed turret the Defiant was underpowered - the extra weight of twin 20mm cannons would have made that even worse. Don't forget that the Me 110 and Ju 88 were twin-engined, so the extra weight of the Schrage Music installation was not an issue.
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar
I suggested removing the heavy turret and all of the hydraulics needed to power it and replacing it with two 20mm cannons pointing upwards and forwards but retaining the gunner who now operates the AI set and changes magazines on the early war Oerlikons much like a Beaufighter NF AI operator did.
The pilot could be provided with a simple overhead sight and this hypothetical aircraft would only operate at night.
This is indeed a 'what if' aircraft but considering how the Defiant was butchered in all kinds of ways immediately after its withdrawal from front line day service and considering the knowledge gained of upwards firing Lewis guns in WW1 it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
Still under powered even with the turret removed.
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar
Yes it was, but it flew, had good handling characteristics and was available and many pilots were current on it and they did use it as a NF anyway, even with the monstrously heavy turret and plumbing.
In fact for a short time it was the only NF available capable of catching a German bomber in a stern chase.
Seems to me that eliminating a drag inducing 1000lb turret and replacing it with two 20mm faired in magazine fed Oerlikons together weighing maybe 200lb must have considerably improved the turret armed versions max speed of 304mph.
Still underpowered?
Yes, but pilots and designers are by nature demanding souls and they always want more power.
Most successful night intercepts were achieved through stealth and bombers can't hare around at top speed if they want to reach home, once spotted the NF is at an immediate disadvantage in the inky black sky and so I think the Defiant's performance was perfectly adequate in that regard.
The Defiant was actually intended to fly and fight at night when designed, so it’s performance as a night fighter is no surprise, when it held the fort before arrival of high performance and dedicated more advanced designs. Andy and I have covered all of this in two new recently filmed videos and four pods, which will be released in due course.
Is it possible to meet you Mr. Sarkar?
Depends where in the world you are. I will be presenting on the Battle of Britain history of Bibury airfield in Gloucestershire, and doing a book signing, at the Classic Motor Hub there on 1/2 July 2023, and running another public event at the Battle of Britain Bunker, Uxbridge, on 15 October 2023. Details of both events will appear on my website soon.
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar I follow military history. I am from India, planning to visit UK sometime in June this. Just curious about your availability
@@himadriroychaudhuri9834 contact me via my website if you visit the U.K. and we can see whether it is possible.
17:50 - 264 claimed 37 over two sorties. They actually claimed 39. 19 in the first sortie; 20 in the second sortie (cf Dunkirk Air Combat Archive by Simon Parry and Mark Postlethwaite, pages 134 & 138 [Red Kite]).
18:00 'Claims were made in good faith'. I struggle with this. 10 claims were made for Messerschmitt Bf 110s destroyed. The actual number lost was Nil on these sorties. The only loss (70%) came at 1:00 (M8+EN of 5./ZG 76) which is outwith the times of the two Defiant sorties.
Other than the above, excellent interview from both of you.
The claims were indeed made in good faith, when you read the surviving combat reports but also remember that at the time the British public needed good news - hence the Ministry of Information jumping on this story right away. However I am fully aware of the claims vs the losses, as according to the Luftwaffe Quartermasters Returns, if 264's victories are to to taken as gospel, then no other RAF squadron attained any victories that day. The over claiming is pretty much down to multiple air gunners engaging the same targets. The ' mistaking us for Me 109s ' first surfaced that day, and is noted in a combat report filed by Thorn and Barket.
Moreover, the video was an overview of Andy’s Defiant project and extensive research, not a forensic analysis of a particular combat. Viewers may rest assured that a forensic analysis will be involved, however, to some tune, as Andy always does, using primary sources, not the published work of others. The more aircraft engaged, by the way, and the more confused the fighting, the greater the overclaiming, which is a demonstrable fact. From my own research over twenty years ago we now know that the Bader Big Wing, for example, always made excessive claims, sometimes as much as 7:1, but that had nothing to do with dishonesty on the pilots’ part, it was simply the nature of things when so many aircraft were involved. The misidentification of enemy aircraft was also exceedingly common, as were friendly fire incidents. Easy to consider these things critically from the comfort and safety of an armchair today, of course, not quite so in a cramped, cold, cockpit, twisting and turning, fighting for your life at 20,000 feet.
@@andylong7112 What I posted above, Andy, was just to point out the reality, as opposed to, as you say, the British public needing good news. As we both know, myths are turned into facts and accepted even up to present. You and I have both seen that on other internet platforms! The Luftwaffe overclaimed equally so - ZG 26 claims for 18th August 1940 being a particular case in point. Let me know when the book surfaces - I want to pick up a copy. And perhaps we can finally catch up at Dave's museum next year, all things being equal!
@@battleofbritain_DilipSarkar But as you know, Dilip, you put something out there, and it is taken as gospel by many. The rest of what you say I agree with.
@@Pokafalva yes, but that’s the point. At the time the claims were made in good faith and in many cases impossible to either verify or deny, so we’re accepted, in the main. There is a huge gulf of difference between a claim and an actual loss, the problem being that until comparatively recently, and I am talking about the pioneering work of John Foreman in particular, and subsequently John Alcorn, the Battle of Britain narrative has been based mainly upon claims - not reality. That in itself has generated a myth of such proportion it is impervious to the truth - the general public are not interested in the detail, as are we, but only the broad narrative of derring-do. Consequently detailed aviation history books are read by comparatively few people, unfortunately, meaning that the platform simply does not exist to correct the long established myth, something I have studied at PG level and am very interested in.
Great discussion, I'm also a Defiant fanatic. ruclips.net/video/QFLkrrZkTGA/видео.html
Few points I've discovered,
(1) 4 x 303s wasn't enough for early war but turret was too small for anything else.
(2) Gunner couldn't have parachute attached, major flaw.
(3) It's far easier and quicker for single pilot to learn his aircraft than 2 men, pilot and gunner to sync into a team. Time not available early BOB. 264 Sqn had time to learn, 141 Sqn had no time.
Another great film - ruclips.net/video/6wXHnSduf7g/видео.html
Defiant gunners did wear a parachute - they designed the special 'Rhino suit' parachute specifically for Defiant gunners so they could fit in the turret.
@@zepelin83 ok, that must have been a later development because early defiant's gunners had to store their parachutes in the turret.
17:09 Show gunner wearing Rhino suit parachute.
@@nor0845 Still a very tight fit, no one envys the gunner.
@@RemusKingOfRome
Yes, very true. I somehow doubt I would have fitted 😊😁
Thought the Defiant was capable of zero deflection aiming when firing forwards, as used by the Germans?
In terms of fulfilling the Spec', the Defiant was a success. However, the specification was the result of old men and outdated thinking. The Defiant was barely even able to catch most German bombers - with the exception of the Ju87, which it hardly even met in any case. It was, a waste of precious resources. None of which in anyway minimises the service, efforts, braveness or sacrifice of the crews. The fact that it served for a short while as a stop-gap night fighter is somewhat incidental, as it was never seriously intended as a night-fighter, nor was there even any AI when the Spec' was written or the a/c designed. For the same outlay, more Spitfires or Hurricanes could have been built - nuff said.
Just a thought: Remove the turret, fit 8 303's in the wings and surely it would have been a match for a Hurricane ????? My first airfix kit was a BP Defiant!
A turretless Defiant would have been faster than a Huurìcane. When they added 40mm Cannons to some Hurricanr IIs for GA purposes its speed fell dramatically from 330ish mph to 285!! The Defiant dragged as much as a ton of turret around and could still do 304mph!! When I guessed an orthodox armed Defiant could do 330-340 I was being conservative in my guess. The sans turret Defiant would have been slower than the Spitfire but faster than the Hurricane. The Hurricane had a thick wing which slowed it down. While the Hurricane is rightly esteemed for its role in the BoB, in 1941 its limitations a fighter were tragically exposed and it was switched to GA while new Mark's of Spitfire became the RAFs primary fighter.