Blackburn Roc .Well I never .

From the History of war website…

So looks like it was designed as a fighter Rob !

I think a single quote from a single website is a long way off ‘proof’, but it is actually quite possible that it was lumped under ‘fighter’ as it couldn’t really be called a Bomber or Seaplane or Transport. But within that it (Defiant) was certainly intended as a Bomber Destroyer, never a dogfighter.

Design background

In internet articles, magazine articles and books the one phrase that is used again and again about the Roc is that it was designed to “deliver a broadside” to an enemy aircraft. The author then usually goes on to ridicule the concept and make disparaging comparisons with three-masted sailing ships. The Roc, assuming it could catch up with its prey, would be much more likely to approach from below and try to bring its target down with no-allowance shooting; firing ahead and over the top of the pilot. The tactic of no-allowance shooting was very much at the heart of the philosophy behind the Roc and Defiant and yet it is hardly ever mentioned in descriptions of both aircraft, and the few articles available today on this subject only serve to obfuscate the principles behind it.

No Allowance Shooting described here

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Nodeflect.htm

Moggy

Well it may not have turned out to be one of Wolverhamptons finest ..but we got a bit of milage out of the discussion ……

Roc(K) James 😉
Obviously the original name was slightly wrong 😀

I bow to your superior knowledge of A.M specs however 🙂 hope you keeping well mate !

rgds baz

Actually Rob you aren’t far off the truth, the Roc (not Rock Baz, named after the mythical bird which helped sea men) was designed to an observation specification, given away by the O in O.30/35! The idea was to also provide carrier defence against large recce or attack aircraft, which at the time were slower than fleet defence types.

My understanding is that Boulton Paul produced the Blackburn Roc as their own ‘Sea’ Defiant (P.85), designed to the same spec had been turned down.

The Air Ministrys’ and Air Councils pre-occupation with turret fighter/defence aircraft such as the Hotspur, Defiant and Roc can be difficult to understand now, but there were foundations for the concept in the expansion era.

It was the ‘attacking unescorted bombers’ that i was unsure about Baz, as i gathered it was more for protecting the fleet – but yes as a fighter.

Nevertheless i’m always happy to be educated :).

Rob

From the History of war website…

The Roc was developed in response to Air Ministry specification O.30/35, which called for single engined two-man fighter aircraft, armed with four 0.303in Browning guns mounted in a power operated turret. Blackburn responded to this specification with a modified version of the Skua dive bomber. Blackburn were given a contract for 136 Rocs on 28 April 1937, but they were busy producing the Skua and preparing to produce the unsuccessful Botha, and so production was sub-contracted to Boulton Paul.

So looks like it was designed as a fighter Rob !

rgds baz

They were intended not so much as a fighter, rather bomber destroyers, used to attack unescorted bombers.
Moggy

Defiant maybe, but i thought the Roc was designed more as a fleet shadower or flying picket to help with early warning of potential threats to the Royal Navy ships?

Rob

Why weren’t the Roc and the Defiant equipped with forward firing guns?

Every other two-seat fighter that predated them seems to have had at least one.

They were intended not so much as a fighter, rather bomber destroyers, used to attack unescorted bombers. There is no doubt the prospect of a broadside appealed mightily to their lordships at the admiralty.

They were slow enough as it is, adding the extra weight of more guns and ammunition would simply slow them down further (Compare with the B17 gunships) and make their task of catching the bombers even harder.

They were pretty poor dogfighters anyway, their chances of mixing it with a dedicated single-seater in a turning fight and getting ‘guns-on’ would have been minimal.

Moggy

Yes the Skua was not as bad an a/c as the Roc(k) and did indeed shoot down a number of enemy a/c,shame it did not have a more powerful engine – as they were not a bad dive bomber 🙂

Why weren’t the Roc and the Defiant equipped with forward firing guns?

Every other two-seat fighter that predated them seems to have had at least one.

The Roc did have wing guns – but then it was called the Skua.

But where would the gunner sit? :p

They were sadly a result of being left behind in the race to develop better technology, as with the Battle, it’s time had already gone by the time it entered into service and far more advanced conventional aircraft where their contemporaries.

Thanks! Veryinteresting. Mind you, with wing guns the roc would have been even slower!

With wing guns there would have been no need for that heavy/draggy turret 😉

rgds baz

They should have put the turret in the front 😀 that would have got around the guns in the wings problem.

From an earlier post of mine…

rgds baz

Thanks! Veryinteresting. Mind you, with wing guns the roc would have been even slower!

The worst thing that could be said about the Roc was that it was designed to essentially the same requirement as the Defiant, but wasn’t as good! One Roc, sent to intercept a Heinkel He‑60 seaplane used in the Channel for air rescue was incapable of catching even this slow biplane.

It wasnt so much that Sqn Ldr Clarke could not catch the Floatplane – but more the limitations of having a turret as the sole armament,forward firing guns would have probably allowed him to shoot the He down.
From an earlier post of mine…

“A well known engagement involved a 2 AACU (Anti-Aircraft Co-operation Unit) ROC, L3085, and Plt Off D. H. Clarke, who had painted a red ‘Saint’ (the Leslie Charteris character) in a red-framed yellow diamond on each side of the rear fuselage of his ‘own’ Roc. On 26 September 1940 he was sent out to search for survivors in the water 15 miles (24 km) south-west of St Catherines Point. With Sergeant Hunt in the gun turret – which, unusually for 2 AACU Rocs, was fully armed – he took off in the late afternoon. As he instituted a square search in the area indicated, he noticed what he thought was a Swordfish also searching about 3 miles (5 km) away.

After about 45 minutes of fruitless search in the gathering gloom, he suddenly noticed that the Swordfish, now only half a mile away, was in fact a twin engined floatplane. Out of curiosity, wondering what it was, he flew towards it: and then suddenly realised it was a Heinkel He 59, a German aircraft probably on the same air-sea rescue task as himself. Unsure as to whether he should open fire on an aircraft on such a humanitarian mission, he flew across its nose with Hunt training his turret at it.

As he did so the German nose gunner opened fire with his 7.9mm machine gun, and Hunt returned fire, his tracer pouring into the Heinkel’s fuselage. After the pandemonium and shock of his first action, Clarke swung on to a parallel course, and re-established communication with Hunt , whose intercom lead had been pulled out. The Heinkel turned for France, skimming the waves. Happily the twin engined bi-plane was even slower than the Roc, with a top speed at sea level of only 137 mph (220 kph), and Clarke was able to gain on his adversary; although he was still faced with the prospect of having to drop a wing to enable Hunt to open fire, even though his propeller was skimming the wave tops.

At 300 yards range he dropped a wing, and Hunt opened fire with another broadside. The Heinkel replied from all three gun positions, nose, dorsal and ventral, a single machine gun in each, but Clarke had to lift the wing after only a few seconds to avoid side-slipping into the sea, causing the last few rounds of Hunt’s burst to shoot harmlessly up into the air. The two aircraft continued these brief exchanges of fire for about 25 minutes, until the coast of France was looming up. Both aircraft were hit, and one of the Heinkel’s gunners stopped firing; but just as Clarke was about to turn away, the Roc was hit in the engine.

It faltered, and Clarke switched to the reserve 17 gal (77 ltr) tank, pulling up and away. Just as he thought he might have to ditch, the Perseus picked up, and he nursed the damaged aircraft back to Gosport. But before he could taxi in the engine stopped, out of fuel. Clarke claimed the Heinkel as ‘Damaged’.

On his return his groundcrew found two incendiary bullets in the main fuel tank, above which he sat. They had entered low down in the petrol, which had extinguished them; slightly higher, in the explosive fuel/air mixture above, and the Roc would have been ‘missing in action’. This action was almost certainly the nearest the Blackburn Roc ever came to destroying a German aircraft in combat”.

rgds baz

Probably not surprisingly i’ve always found the type quite fascinating.
And deserved criticism aside are there any surviving sections / parts specifically from the Blackburn Roc?

Rob

The worst thing that could be said about the Roc was that it was designed to essentially the same requirement as the Defiant, but wasn’t as good! One Roc, sent to intercept a Heinkel He‑60 seaplane used in the Channel for air rescue was incapable of catching even this slow biplane.

Botha right lol.

They should have Skuad it early on