Defiant Walkaround

As an addon to the the discussion on the Defiant’s turret. DD Video’s catalogue dropped through the door today. Noted amoungst the new titles is a series called RAF at War. They contain documentaries and training films. One of the series contains films on the Frazer Nash turret in the Wellington and the turret fitted to the Defiant!
mmitch.

Thanks James. You answered the question whilst I was still trying to retype it – trying to find the words that might not make me sound as dumb as I apparently come across. 😀

Thanks again, it has been interesting. I never ever heard of the single seat version before.

At the risk of being wrong wasn’t the turret fighter the result of introduction of the Hawker Hart, which was faster than all the RAF fighters on its introduction? As a stop gap measure to get a faster fighter, the ‘Hart Fighter’ was introduced, which became the Demon and was effectively a faster Hart. As the next generation of ‘planes arrived, someone decided they need a new turret fighter, with the Defiant being the result.

As a result, an emergency measure, became policy…

Dave,
Now read my post 27. It answers the one above. :p Bear in mind that changing tactics takes time. The fog of war and speed of change is something we undersetimate. The Defiants were pulled out as soon as it was realised they were a disaster. Boulton Paul made a single seat version which could have been used with forward firing guns, and like the Miles M-20 would have been able to go into production; but Pilots, not fighters was the shortfall.

Cheers

Sorry Mike, I did actually get James’s point that they were designed to attack unescorted bombers in a war that never happened. I admit I worded my last question wrongly – what I meant was, when the RAF realised that things had gone horribly wrong for them and the enemy bombers were to be escorted from bases in France – did the RAF ever consider escorting the Defiants sent up to meet them rather than send them to the slaughter by themselves?

It seems to me that they were using these aircraft for a job they were totally unsuitable for, and it seems like total folly to use them at all and to waste so many lives and resources. I wonder if a half-measure could have been considered of an adequate fighter escort for the Defiants to distract the enemy escort so the Defiant crews could get into the bombers and do their job. I wonder if this had been done if they might have faired much better in the combat stakes.

I guess though finding adequate fighter escort may have been jolly difficult at that particular juncture of the war.

Thanks Mike.

Dave I like you asking questions, and we get some great answers, but it’s nice not to have to go back to the foundation part of the course too often.

But, as Moggy sa, there’s no such thing as a stupid question. (As any fule kno.)

Quick answer! There weren’t going to be any single seat fighters, so the Defiants wouldn’t need ‘protection’. No one thought of the fall of France or drop tanks. The key here is to think in a late 1930s way, not with the benefit of hindsight.

As for what really happened, no, I think the Defiant, even in mixed formations of Defiants and Hurricanes would not have been able to survive. Rather like the old myth that ‘Spitfires attacked the fighters, Hurricanes attacked the bombers’ that might have been the theory, but once combat was joined, it all became a right mess.

Thank you for all the interesting answers.

James, in the intended tactics of broadsiding bombers, was any provision considered for the Defiants to be escorted by fighters like the Hurricane into the attack? Or was this never considered necessary?

If they had been escorted into the bomber formations and the Hurricanes had tackled and distracted the enemy escort fighters, could they have been more successful in the Battle of Britain I wonder, rather than being left to attack by themselves and being slaughtered.

I like asking questions on this site – who needs books when there are so many people more expert than me willing to impart their wonderful knowledge for us all. 🙂

Further to post #19, the first test of a Martin Baker ejection seat was in a Defiant flown by Bryan Greensted, Rotol’s chief test pilot, at RAF Wittering on 11 May 1945, with a dummy in the seat.
I have seen a photo of this aircraft somewhere, but haven’t been able to locate it yet.
Dummies were used for the first 7 tests, followed by another 6 tests at Beaulieu. The seat was fitted into a Meteor Mk III for further testing which culminated in Bernard Lynch being ejected at 320 mph at 8 000 ft on 24 July 1946.

I refer the hon gentlemen to my post No.4

But the battle they were meant to fight didn’t happen. They were intended to be able to cruise, in formation, alongside massed formation of unescorted German bombers, pouring broadside after broadside into them.

The fall of France and the low countries meant that the 109 was able to reach Southern England, as we know, and with catastrophic results for the two Defiant squadrons. The scene in the Battle of Britain film of the attack on Northen England is what the Defiants were meant to be for…

They were never intended to be two seat fighters a la Bristol Fighter, but rather like battleships, ‘broadsiding’ formations of the enemy. It didn’t work, but it was a perfectly good theory; single seat fighters were more able than anyone in Britain had expected.

Don’t forget that the Spitfire and Hurricane were given 8 guns because they expected to have to make quick slashing attacks with 1 second chances at the target. Dogfighting was (according to the theories) no longer going to happen at 300mph. In that scenario, the Defiant made a lot of sense.

Dave; what a chap you are for a lot of questions. 😉 IF I get the chance tomorrow I’ll try and answer some others. In the meantime, are you going to buy the ‘Big Book of W.W.II Aircraft for Boys?’ 🙂

Did the Defiant have forward firing guns? Your photos don’t show any from the angles they’re taken. Did the pilot have any guns to attack with too in case the turret seized or anthing went wrong?

Also, did Boulton Paul ever have a go at designing further fighters after the Defiant? Did they make anything else as good or better?

The Defiant didn’t have any forward guns, which was its downfall as a fighter. Once the German aircrew identified it as only having turret armament, they just flew at it head on, where the turret couldn’t reach.

I’ve no idea why it didn’t have forward firing guns – its predecessor, the Hawker Demon did.

There’s been a couple of articles in Air Enthusiast over the past year on the history of Boulton Paul and how the Defiant could have been a good fighter – can’t remember the issue numbers offhand though…

Cheers

Alistair

Thanks James. It would be interesting to hear more of what effects the cannon turret had on the aircraft. I did wonder if the recoil would be simply absorbed as vibration, now I know. I’ll bet there weren’t many Defiant gunners – or any turret gunners for that matter – who didn’t suffer significant hearing loss!

Has anyone got photos of the Martin Baker ejection seat Defiant? All in all it seems the airframe was rather versatile considering got a bad reputation from the beginning of the war. Poor old misunderstood Defiant.

I’m sure Classic Airframes will never hear the end of it from modellers if their US target tug scheme is fictional. It would be interesting to know what they’ve based it on.

Did the Defiant have forward firing guns? Your photos don’t show any from the angles they’re taken. Did the pilot have any guns to attack with too in case the turret seized or anthing went wrong?

Also, did Boulton Paul ever have a go at designing further fighters after the Defiant? Did they make anything else as good or better?

I’ve been thinking about the gunners in Defiants – as there has been much said here about both the cramped space they worked in and the tiny escape hatch they had should things go wrong, did the RAF select only their smallest gunners for the Defiant squadrons? Was there any height restrictions put on the crews?

Not as far as I know. Don’t forget that Britons in W.W.I and II were significantly smaller (on average) than antipodeans and north Americans. However I could fit in (I’m 6’4″) heightwise, but like any other W.W.II a/c I’ve been in, trying to get about while flying… We are used to a lot more elbow room these days!

Also, if the Defiant was designed to creep up beside bombers and broadside them as described by James, and as described in the article I posted above, what sort of effect did the recoil of the guns have on the aircraft when they were firing to one side? Anyone know? Was there a time limit on firing the guns before it became detrimental to the pilot’s handling of the aircraft?

It’s a question of mass. The Defiant is actually quite a big machine; significantly larger than the 109 and Spitfire, a bit bigger than the Hurricane. 4x .303 brownings weren’t throwing so much weight at such a high speed to have any major effect, except vibration. The turret, engine, undercarriage etc were all v. heavy components. A cannon turret was tested, and recoil was a problem… Over to Tony Williams though!

One final question. There is a 1/48th scale model of the Defiant out from Classic Airframes, and one decal option for the Target Tug version is in US colours. Does anyone know why they used them, over their own types? Had they used them offensively/efensively before or just got them from the RAF as TT Mk 1 versions? How many did they use? Where did they use them? The scheme in the boxart looks like a Meditteranean scheme. Any ideas?

The US had a couple of Defiants on loan. One of the a/c was loand after US use to a company called Martin Baker (you may have heard of them?) for the first ejection seat trials. IIRC, the US Defiants were liason, not TT use. The box art has the wrong tones; they were British based. However the RN and RAF used TT Defiants in Africa and India among other places. Mark Ansell can elaborate on this one!

Cheers…

I’ve been thinking about the gunners in Defiants – as there has been much said here about both the cramped space they worked in and the tiny escape hatch they had should things go wrong, did the RAF select only their smallest gunners for the Defiant squadrons? Was there any height restrictions put on the crews?

Geoff, can you ask Mr Lucas please if this is the case? It would be fantastic to hear his experiences in the Defiant. I wish I could attend your signings.

Also, if the Defiant was designed to creep up beside bombers and broadside them as described by James, and as described in the article I posted above, what sort of effect did the recoil of the guns have on the aircraft when they were firing to one side? Anyone know? Was there a time limit on firing the guns before it became detrimental to the pilot’s handling of the aircraft? The same goes for other planes with turrets I guess, but the Defiant is tiny compared with most turreted planes, and has four heavy machine guns, so there must be some impact I’d guess. Or am I wrong? Maybe another question for Mr Lucas, Geoff.

When the Defiant switched to night fighting and proved a success, how long did it stay in service in that role? The article would suggest perhaps they were still around as late as 1944. Is that the case?

One final question. There is a 1/48th scale model of the Defiant out from Classic Airframes, and one decal option for the Target Tug version is in US colours. Does anyone know why they used them, over their own types? Had they used them offensively/efensively before or just got them from the RAF as TT Mk 1 versions? How many did they use? Where did they use them? The scheme in the boxart looks like a Meditteranean scheme. Any ideas?
See boxart here
http://www.classicairframes.com/new_products_frame.htm

I wish someone would build a flying exact-replica of the Defiant.

I thought that you chaps may find this article interesting, written by a Defiant air gunner. It comes from RNZAF Contact magazine in August 1944. I hope the scans are readable.

edit – the pages loaded up in the completely opposite order from what i posted them :confused: , so start reading from the bottom up. 🙂

Dave

If you want to speak to a Defiant pilot, we have Robin Lucas who flew them with 141 Sqn during the Battle of Britain attending the signing event at our museum on the 26th September. See here for more info http://forum.airforces.info/showthread.php?t=30626

Geoff.

JDK

Message sent. Who knows. It has been gathering dust in the attic for years and I don’t have a use for it.

Cheers

Cees

Gents,
Thanks for the feedback. It was fun digging out the photos of a (personally) historic day. I’ve quite a few good shots at Cosford, but getting into the turret of the Defiant was what I wanted to share in particular.

Cees, I suspect the RAFM have a sight, but haven’t fitted it (in 1988 – I haven’t been that close since!) – but why not contact them? It would be good for completeness’ sake.

All the best.

Thanks James. That does take me back. Maybe I’ll share some that I took, once I’ve scanned them in.
I think the London BoB monument is an excellent idea and will be donating to this good cause. We shall remember them.

JDK,

If the RAFM need one I can provide a Mk IIIa gunsight for the Defiant to complete the interior of the turret.

Cheers

Cees