@Giselle76502 About 30 aircraft types used Merlin's including the Halifax, Wellington, Mosquito, Sterling, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation CA-15 (Australia), Bf109 (model 1112-M1L) built in Spain in 1954, the last BF109's built. Ironically the very first Bf109 prototype used a Rolls Royce Kestrel (from which the Merlin was developed) as no German engine was available.
@ThePilot4ever Having failed in the day-fighter role , except where no enemy fighters were operating , the aircraft was ruthlessly discarded in the emergency conditions of the Battle of Britain and the high Invasion Alert period throughout 1941 .
By the time things had eased , the plane was out of date .
Had some forward firing armament been installed ( simply the case of adding a two gun wing extension where the flying bit of the wing meets the centre section holding the undercarriage , ......
If they had taken that stupid turret off, it could have been a good aircraft. The center of gravity would have been more managable too! Without the turret, it would look a bit like a Hawker Typhoon.
In 1936 the Air Ministry fell in love with the French specs for "Multiplace D'Combat" calling for warplanes with turrets everywhere. Please note that 1936 only the maiden debut of the Me-109 in Spain- they should have been aware of the Messerschmidt's ability to chew up to chew up Russian I-15 Ratas to anticipate the war of the future. Throwing out the Defiant's turret and fitting it with forward firing armament would only have produced another Hurricane.
Defiant's weight from dorsal turret degraded its dogfighting capabilities to the extent that adding more front -firing armament would have been even more of a disadvantage. Its an embarrassment the the Air Ministry ever considered the Defiant as a front line fighter.
Unmitigated disaster same Merlin engine as the Hurricane but twice the all up weight Night fighter victories were propaganda and to cover activities of radar equipped Beaufighter and Blenheim aircraft .....Defiant ended up as a target tug and wasnt even much use for that job
Rather one should ask - could a Defiant without a turret have been able to do anything a Spitfire or Hurricane couldn't do? Far better to decrease the number of types in production and increase the production of those that remain.
As a 7 yr old kid in 1940, t had many models of British aircraft, but was always fascinated by the Defiant, because it looked so compact and heavily armed with turret. (I liked the Blenheim too) Even to my juvenile eye, the Fairey Swordfish looked quaint and obsolete, but what a job those pilots did anyway!
It wasn't the Defiants fault. Our tactics were wrong at the beginning of the war. In all areas of battle our ideas were wrong and we were lucky to get away with it. The Defiant and Battle were obsolete concepts, the use of aircraft carriers for anti submarine ops cost us Glorious and Courageous and the infantry/cruiser tank pairing was wrong too. We were just plain lucky. The Defiant was made here in Wolverhampton. Just down the road from me.
With great difficulty. The sliding rear quadrant of the turret cover was the only exit, and it was a tight squeeze. The gunner wore a 'rhino suit' with self-contained parachute and dinghy, which was an improvement on a separate parachute pack - but not much.
And believe it or not, it was possible to take off and land in a Defiant, even on a combat mission. As I said, read a book...
there is also an escape hatch below and to the rear of the turret,it could only be accessed if the turret was facing forward,the gunner would have to stand up fold his seat and climb down backwards and out through the hatch to the rear of the wing,not easy but it gave him an another option.
Hmm, interesting point. Looks like an access panel for ground crew maintenance - I'm not convinced that a gunner encumbered by a rhino suit would get through it in a hurry!
Nevertheless, it could fire forward, and the pilot had a firing button on his control column. One pilot accidentally shot a hole in his sleeve when parked with one arm resting on the canopy rail.
And it is also often forgotten that our ex-Colonial cousins also had to use a number of British Aircraft types as they had nothing suitable of their own to carry out wartime roles that the USAAC hadn't foreseen ... Spitfires, Beaufighters, Mosquitos ...
On the subject of unsuccessful aircraft, few British Aircraft Manufacturers managed to build a truly successful aircraft that served in WW2 ... next post is my list for the rest of you to shoot down :
No, what I am saying is the aircraft I listed were very successful ... but they are suprisingly few in number compared with the number of aircraft that didn't really make the grade ... Whitley, Hampden, Manchester, Defiant, Albermarle, Stirling, etc. The point is, for every successful aircraft there were many "also rans" or "flops" ... mainly because of the inability to accurately foresee what would be needed in a future conflict.
I agree with your points to a degree. In WW2 Air combat was still in the early stages of development really, especially when you consider the use of bombers at that time was only just taking off (excuse the pun) monoplane fighters only just started developing in the early 30s (The Italians still built biplanes into the 40s believing them to be more effective than monoplanes) one aircraft manufacturer you missed was Gloster. The Gladiator is widely considered the best biplane design of all time
Yes, the Gladiator was indeed the pinnacle of biplane design, but as you rightly say, the end of the line as far as biplane fighters were concerned. On the subject of Glosters, I guess the Meteor could be included as it did enter service during the war with 616 Squadron ... somewhat of a giant leap for Glosters to go from the Gladiator to the Meteor!
I also agree about the Defiant ... nobody could have forseen at the time that the concept of an "unescorted bomber destroyer" would be eclipsed by the rapid loss of France and the Low Countries, thereby allowing the Luftwaffe to escort its bombers with 109's. The Defiant got its bad reputation when pitted against those 109's, which was something it was never designed to do ... however as a "stopgap" night-fighter it was very successful, but a bad reputation once acquired is very hard to lose!
Yes, a bad reputation is hard to lose, I found your previous comment about 20/20 hindsight very astute. Another very similar aircraft I just thought of which was also bashed as a failure was the Blackburn Roc (developed from the Skua). Interesting that it was used as a dive bomber
In my opinion the Defiant WAS sucessful, just not in the role it was originally designed for. As a night fighter the Defiant was actually a great success
I also feel that aircraft such as the Stirling & Whitley were not 'flops' but simply aircraft that were eventually outclassed when more modern aircraft were designed. Consider the fact that Whitleys were the first Brits to bomb Germany in WW2. Of course you are right there were some poor aircraft (like the Mancester) but it is interesting to note the problem with the Mancester was purely the Vulture engines...we all know what happened when better engines were fitted...
Yes, the line of unsuccessful British Aircraft does seem to follow the line of unsuccessful British Aero Engines ... RR Vulture (Manchester), Napier Dagger (HP Hereford), RR Peregrine (Westland Whirlwind) etc. Agreed the Stirling and Whitley were good aircraft that became rapidly outclassed as the war progressed, but both did sterling service in other roles. Even the Hampden was very successful as a mine dropper.
@Bronzewhaler82 The Stirling was hobbled by an Air Ministry requrement that the wingspan be no more than100 feet an extra ten - fifteen feet of wing would have made an enormous difference especially in service ceiling and payload
If Shorts had been given another 15ft they would probably have delivered an even heavier (in terms of weight) bomber which is what the limitation was intended to avoid (see Buttler's British Secret Projects - Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950)
Ah! 20/20 hindsight is such a wonderful thing! Everyone says what a lousy aircraft the Defiant was ... but nobody said so when the Spec was laid down and the aircraft was designed and built. At the time it seemed a good idea to put a four gun turret on a fighter thereby giving the gunner a wide field of fire. It was only later in the heat of combat that the concept was found to be fatally flawed. As an aircraft the Defiant was actually pleasant and easy to fly.
Some terrible misconceptions here. The Defiant was designed to intercept *unescorted* bombers, using the turret to attack from outside the arc of the bombers defensive fire. It was not made to face single-seat fighters and it was not anticipated that France would be over-run so early on thus granting the Luftwaffe fighter bases within reach of the British mainland.
The Germans first mistook it for a Hurricane, then jumped it from behind. All the 109s were destroyed. Later the Germans realised that it was woefully slow...and defenseless from the front. If only there had been a 303 in each wing root...
More British hokum. Thrty-seven kills without a loss? I don't belive it. My understanding is that after a very short period the Defiant became easy meat.
There is a lot of myth surrounding this plane, so I very highly recommend the books authored by Alec Brew and published by Crowood. The Turret Fighters is one book, and I highly recommend this book. Lots of details not just on the Defiant, but the Roc and the entire concept behind this type of plane.
They were made just down the road from me here in Wolverhampton. Good looking plane but the concept of the turret was wrong although they didn't know that until it went into action. Not quite the disaster that the Fairey Battle was but still a bit of a dead end in design.
Spec F9/35 was a brand new concept which had nothing to do with WW1. In 1935, Britains most likely enemy in Europe was Germany, german bombers would have to bomb Britain without fighter escort and, going by newsreels of the 30's/40's,bombers of all nations attacked in fleets, witness the Battle of Britain. 4 ranged guns flying 'beside' a target might be more lethal than 8 in a 300+ mph pass. The Hawker Hotspur, which was a development of the Henley was a rival with 1 forward firing gun.
A 'stopgap' fighter was made from the Defiant, featuring four fixed, forward-firing .303 machine guns. (The gunner and his turret were deleted, to save weight.) Fortunately, the repair centres and factories did a great job and there was never a severe shortage of aircraft, so the stopgap wasn't needed, and the Defiant would soon be relegated to a new life as a target tug.
Sorry to disagree with your opening statement, but the concept traces back to such types as the Fe.2b and Vickers Gunbus...Maybe arguably even further than that. The first "fighter" to be fitted with a powered turret was the Hawker Demon.
Thanks for posting this up. My Dad who's 87 now was invloved in some of the design work to this plane. He'll be really glad to see it when I show him. :)
Didnt work out as a day fighter, did a good job as a stop gap night fighter, and did excellent work with air sea rescue and target towing. Interesting aircraft.
And what "shit"can you see through a perspex turret that you couldn't see in front?The BPD was developed as a daylight interceptor which, when the Hun gave 141 squadron a severe mauling over Folkestone because it was useless for this task,was moved to night ops, at which it was moderate at best.All other night-fighters had forward firing guns eg Mosquito, Blenheim,Bf 110,Hurricane etc.You obviously now nothing about WW2 aviation.
When 264 Sqn was posted to the same airfield as 141, it resulted in a punch-up. 264's crews felt that 141's inexperience had been their downfall, and that they were losing more aircrew to night-flying accidents than they had flying day missions against the Luftwaffe.
As for your final comment, glass houses spring to mind... ;¬)
It's not meant to, the clues in the word "Night fighter". What'd be the point in putting guns in the wings when you couldn't see shit infront in the dark.
It was intended as a day fighter & a book published early in 1940 "Britain's Wonderful Fighting Forces" showing how the Defiant could fly beside German fighters and fire broadside. In this position the German pilot would be helpless and could not return fire. The snag was getting the German to fly straight and level alongside. Seriously, it was a terrible idea left over from WW1, the drag from the turret slowed the aircraft down & the gunner had no chance of escape when the aircraft was hit.
I accept what you as as my book published in the first months of the war is probably by journalists & so doubtful source. But it was the same era as the Spitfire & Hurricane which 8 machine guns aligned to concentrate their fire on a point about 300yds away whereas the Defiant had only 4 spraying about the sky.
Someone else whose family was ground crew on them has posted "Their biggest kills were their own pilots and gunners and Boulton & Paul should have stuck to making kitchen cabinets."
That is pretty much what the Germans did with some of their night fighters in about 1943. They were fitted with fixed near vertical firing 20mm cannon behind the cockpit. They could formate below and a little behind the the bomber out of sight of the crew and with grim humour they called the arrangement "Organ music". By then they had good radar to guide them and it worked so well bomber crews never knew what hit them.
A handsome plane, but the turret makes it look deceptively safe when it was actually quite vulnerable.
While it did well as a nightfighter I think it could potentially still have been used as a daytime bomber interceptor over London. The 109's didnt get to stay much time over London due to their limited range.
Would have left the hurricanes and spitfires more time to concentrate on taking down the remaining fighters such as the bf110's.
It had some success in the early stages of the war, getting good kill rates in the fall of france campaign and the norway campaign. Partly because they were mistaken for hurricanes and the germans that got gunned down didnt live to tell about it!
But then they had a big fail in the Battle of Britain when the bf109 pilots learned their weak spot.
haha notice at 3:24 the man mentions Dunkirk then goes on to mention that the defiant will be waiting at night....he failed to mention how many came back from those Dunkirk missions by day......hardly any
A fascinating aircraft, even though ultimately a failure. But the configuration, with a larger airframe and forward guns did re-emerge in the Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bomber, of coure the turret was smaller and less likely to shoot off the plane's own tail.
As a night-fighter the Defiant gave way to the legendary Mosquito. The age of Radar had come, so you could 'simply' follow radar signals and fly right up behind the enemy and give them a good kick.
The Defiant would actually fly somewhere alongside, identify the target and then fire at a vulnerable spot with the turret. You only really have one shot at this before the enemy would dive away into the night.
The Defiant, again an aircraft that was the best 1918 fighter in the world (of course in 1939-41 it was not!) a joke to the Germans, who shot them down (once they realized they had NO forward firing MG and were actually helpless)in great numbers. Finished the war as target tows, an aircraft as bad as the Fairey Battle!!
Very interesting video. The defiant tends to be overlooked because of other more famous types of aircraft from WWII, so it's nice to see a film dedicated to it. Thanks for sharing that with us, bomberguy. Keep up the good work.
1. The difficulty of aerial gunnery from a turret to start with.
2. Now, take that turret and mount it on a highly maneuverable platform (the fighter-like aircraft)
3. Now shoot down an maneuvering enemy plane WHILE your own aircraft is wildly maneuvering.
Talk about adding needlessly complex variables.
Either you're flying relatively steady and you need a turret (bomber), or you put fixed guns on a maneuverable aircraft (fighter). Wow, really bad concept.
I suppose when it was conceived no one at the Air Ministry could envisage the situation where Fighter Command would have have to tackle single engined enemy fighters over the south east of England it was a fallacy that would lead to the flawed tactic of rigid area fighting attacks by Spitfires and Hurricanes that were designed to tackle bombers but made little allowance for enemy fighters,the fall of France challenged many of the assumptions made by pre-war planners .
That's a good point. I had forgotten that even the Americans initially had the attitude that bombers were "battleships" of the sky, that would need no fighter escort. Of course this was proven wrong, and led to the development of long range solutions like the P-51 Mustang and others with long range fuel drop tanks.
Excellent point. It led to a bad mistake by the Air Ministry, but not every decision in war can be great, you're fighting for survival and all.
The Defiant was actually great at what it was designed to do; kill bombers. It was a good nightfighter for the time, although its slower speed gave way to the faster and better Mosquito, which had better gun arrangement when equipped with Radar.
Defense against fighters was a descending circle, which did OK over Dunkirk.
Another underpowered airframe, further encumbered by a heavy gun turret of dubious utility. better to strip as much weight off as possible. to improve manuverability & payload. may have made a decent dive bomber.
According to guys at the boulton paul association there were plans for cannons in the wing and moving the cockpit back and removing the turret and adding a teardrop canopy but a clash of personalities between the airministry and boulton paul lead to such plans being ignored!I suppose the shortage of merlins and the success of the spitfire and hurricane also lead to its development being curtailed.
STOP defending this aircrat, it was a failure in the bomber destroyer mode, as a fighter, and when the Germans stopped laughing, as a night fighter, it was , by 1942 a trainer and target tow. It was a COMPLETE FAILURE as a fighter.. you know like other A/C like the Battle, the Hampden, etc. Aircraft produced even thoough NOT wanted by the RAF to show "full production" ...
It was moderately successful early but only because inexperienced German pilot mistook it for a Hurricane. Aside from it was useless as a day fighter. It did better as a stop-gap night fighter at least until the Beaufighter came along.
The first years of WWII destroyed many aircraft reputations - and not just British. USAAF and USMC fighters were generally crap at that time - as the Japanese Zero proved beyond doubt. It took a British Merlin engine to make anything of the NA39/P51 later on in the war, or we would have heard little of it!.
Stick to tanks usmctanks1 and leave aviation history to those who don't get there info from the Lil Abner comic strip or exaggerate shortcomings via a bottle of Jack Daniels.
The initial P-51 was purchased in large numbers with the Allison engine (along with the P-38) as a ground attack aircraft, and it did a good job (over 400 mph),the Merlin made it a fantastic escort fighter, which the Brits did NOT have,Packard made numerous additions to the Merlin making it a more reliable engine.. The Wldcat (Martlet) was a equal if not better aircraft then the Zero if flown right, proved over the Pacific. And by the way, I have 2500 hours PIC time in aircraft, you have??? SFB
P-51 didn't debut until May 1942. The early war US single engine fighters didn't have the same manouvreability as. Not that the armour on P-40's wasn't beneficial.
Actually the early P-51 (A30) was a "ground attack fighter" (can you believe it!) not really wanted by the USAAC, but the RAF saw its potential. It was as manoverable (or more so) than Spits,But it was SUPERCHARGERS that was the Allison's downfall, a Single stage, vs the two stage for the Spits, hence a 15-17 thousand optimal height for fighting, far below ME-109 spit,FW-190.. Aha!! the RAF said, lets put a Merlin in it!! Ta-Da, P-51.. The best of both worlds, British Engine, USAAC fighter!!!
The early P-51A was actually the A-36 Apache, not the A-30 (which was actually a light, twin engined bomber from Martin). The P-51 was originally designed only for the British, it wasn't that the USAAC wasn't interested in it. Um, and the Bf109 and Fw 190 were VERY limited in performance at anything over 20,000 until the Fw 190D9 and Ta 152 were released.
The P-51 isn't the brilliant aircraft everyone makes it out to be.. The best all over US Ace flew the P-38, and the leading US Ace in Europe flew the P-47.(which by the way was faster than the P-51). The US manufactured plane with most kills to its name is the P-39, and a Brewster Buffalo has the highest individual kill score of ANY allied aircraft.. The P-51 is mainly known for long range, which is good, and losing its wings in flight, which is not quite so impressive.. :)
Called the Defiant because it defied description 8 out of 9 in one daylight attack (before they realized how useless the aircraft was) shot down, only reason all were not, rumor has it the Germans were laughing to hard. The best 1918 fighter in the world in 1940, what a peice of junk, just like the Battle, Whitley, Hampden, all costing hundreds of pilots lives, and for what? to show the world how brave pilots can die!!
Hold on there...Britain, France, the United States etc were not prepared for war, either with much equipment, or critically, experience!
Read the text Bomber guy kindly wrote to the right as its quite good, although I do wish to add a big reason 141 lost so many planes on 19th July 1940 was down to their tactics in not using a descending "Lufberry" circle and allowing the 109's to get underneath. Remember the plane was designed to destroy bombers during day or night as a second line of defence.
Hold on yourself, the tenet that an enemy aircraft would fly in a nice line, for you to pull up and shoot is crazy, most german fighter pilots thought it was a hurricane, once they realized no foward gun (laughable for a fighter) they were shot down in large numbers. And the 110 tried the Carcocelle manuever, again a manuever which does nothing to control airspace or do any kind of attack
The first person who suggested the Defiant was mistaken for a Hurricane was Wing Commander Harry Broadhurst. No German has ever been recorded claiming that!
"And the 110 tried the Carcocelle manuever, again a manuever which does nothing to control airspace or do any kind of attack"
We're talking about the Defiant, not 110, and the spiral dive did work for the Defiant's of 264 sqdn. over Dunkirk on the 29th of May, indeed the tally claimed was 8 Bf 109's, 7 110's, 1 Ju 88 and 21 Ju 87 Stukas.
The Defiant did its job of intercepting and destroying German bombers, albiet at night and did a damn good job at it too. As for the Whitley and Hampden again they found their forte at night bombing and with Coastal Command. Typically British thing to do, if it doesn't work right first time, find something that it will work right at!
Interesting film.My dad was a rear gunner in Wellingtons and lancasters also Boltimore bombers during the war,he had a friend who was a gunner in Defiants who took part in a dylight raid over france in the early part of the war.He survived although he did have a metal plate in his head from injuries he sustained on that day.
Interesting concept to design a fighter with a turret like that, and with some more development who knows where it could have ended up. I hope the rearward facing gunners had barf bags though!
The Defiant was a flawed concept - based on the ideas of WW1 rather then what was needed in WW2. However, its main problem was that a 1,000 hp Merlin was not man enough to horse around a two man aircraft AND a hydraulic powered turret.
The Royal Naval equivalent, the Blackburn Roc, was even worse.
This ship was not one of the best. Like the Fairey "Battle," this was a bad place to misplace a great engine. And production resources. But man, my hat is off to you for
posting our aviatin' cinema and for your great taste in jazz!
If the Defiant had been used slyly, it might have been more effective. Imagine having two Defiants in every Hurricane squadron....the Jerries, thinking they were all Hurricanes, would get pasted when they latched onto a Defiant. Ah, history....love it!
... heavy losses ....
dynaflow74 3 weeks ago
Don't forget the Merlin was also eventually fitted to the P51 Mustang and built under license in the US.
FrancoHitlini 5 months ago
IT HAD A MERLIN, like the Spitfire, Seafire, HA1112, Sea Hurricane, Hurricane, P-51, Lancaster, York, P-40's...
Dose anyone else know what other planes had Merlin engines?
Giselle76502 7 months ago
@Giselle76502 About 30 aircraft types used Merlin's including the Halifax, Wellington, Mosquito, Sterling, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation CA-15 (Australia), Bf109 (model 1112-M1L) built in Spain in 1954, the last BF109's built. Ironically the very first Bf109 prototype used a Rolls Royce Kestrel (from which the Merlin was developed) as no German engine was available.
binaway 7 months ago
@Giselle76502 the 1st P-40 flew with an 1830 C.I. pratt and whitney 14 cyl,twin radial engine,soon replaced by a 1710 C.I.allison V-12.
later variants flew with the PACKHARD-merlin(1650 C.I.)
99rsk 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
great stuff.
I think the voice is Australian, odd that he mentions the SW Pacific in relation to Defiant.
Ive always had a feeling they probably exaggerated how many Germans they got over Dunkirk a bit.
KateLicker 7 months ago
They should have added at least 2 forward firing machineguns. I also love that plane and nice vid!
ThePilot4ever 8 months ago
@ThePilot4ever Having failed in the day-fighter role , except where no enemy fighters were operating , the aircraft was ruthlessly discarded in the emergency conditions of the Battle of Britain and the high Invasion Alert period throughout 1941 .
By the time things had eased , the plane was out of date .
Had some forward firing armament been installed ( simply the case of adding a two gun wing extension where the flying bit of the wing meets the centre section holding the undercarriage , ......
zarquon53 7 months ago
Great video.. :) Interesting history.
2002And 10 months ago
hëhe_áNy_gÙýs_wãnt_t0_chAt_wIth_më
LunayyYasminaa53 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Boulton Paul Defiant Was My Favourate Aircraft Of WW2 Just Because It Was So Unique
such an awesome plane
TheBoyo1234 11 months ago
Along with the Spit and the Hurri, Its an awsome plane!
Giselle76502 11 months ago
If they had taken that stupid turret off, it could have been a good aircraft. The center of gravity would have been more managable too! Without the turret, it would look a bit like a Hawker Typhoon.
alneal100 11 months ago
In 1936 the Air Ministry fell in love with the French specs for "Multiplace D'Combat" calling for warplanes with turrets everywhere. Please note that 1936 only the maiden debut of the Me-109 in Spain- they should have been aware of the Messerschmidt's ability to chew up to chew up Russian I-15 Ratas to anticipate the war of the future. Throwing out the Defiant's turret and fitting it with forward firing armament would only have produced another Hurricane.
IanHunedoara8 1 year ago
Defiant's weight from dorsal turret degraded its dogfighting capabilities to the extent that adding more front -firing armament would have been even more of a disadvantage. Its an embarrassment the the Air Ministry ever considered the Defiant as a front line fighter.
IanHunedoara8 1 year ago
Unmitigated disaster same Merlin engine as the Hurricane but twice the all up weight Night fighter victories were propaganda and to cover activities of radar equipped Beaufighter and Blenheim aircraft .....Defiant ended up as a target tug and wasnt even much use for that job
chitlika 1 year ago
If only they stuck wing guns in it. This could've been pro.
OCJT2007 1 year ago
@UKkid19 yes at dunkirk, start, they were not fooled after,in july and august 40.
terryjohn 1 year ago
its showed with the turret facing forward, guns either side of the cockpit. but its not interrupted to fire through the propeller.
agentolshki 1 year ago
Comment removed
Twirlyhead 1 year ago
well put together video';-)
tacticalbattledroid 1 year ago
Great vid. Always love the badass look of this even if it did not achieve what was anticipated from it
bfchunk 1 year ago
Would this have been a competative day fighter had it had no turret and wing mounted guns but otherwise much the same ?
Twirlyhead 1 year ago
Rather one should ask - could a Defiant without a turret have been able to do anything a Spitfire or Hurricane couldn't do? Far better to decrease the number of types in production and increase the production of those that remain.
roteba1 1 year ago
No doubt - but I was purely speculating about relative performance.
Twirlyhead 1 year ago
They should have put 2 20mm forward-firing cannon in the wings. That would have made a great difference.
locomotive1804 1 year ago
@locomotive1804 Yes but too heavy,
terryjohn 1 year ago
Absolutely superb video- thank you
MCCXK120 2 years ago
As a 7 yr old kid in 1940, t had many models of British aircraft, but was always fascinated by the Defiant, because it looked so compact and heavily armed with turret. (I liked the Blenheim too) Even to my juvenile eye, the Fairey Swordfish looked quaint and obsolete, but what a job those pilots did anyway!
I will ALWAYS be proud of my British cousins!
ebenasire 2 years ago 7
@ebenasire MY GRANDAD WORKED ON THEM.WOLVERHAMTON.
terryjohn 1 year ago
It wasn't the Defiants fault. Our tactics were wrong at the beginning of the war. In all areas of battle our ideas were wrong and we were lucky to get away with it. The Defiant and Battle were obsolete concepts, the use of aircraft carriers for anti submarine ops cost us Glorious and Courageous and the infantry/cruiser tank pairing was wrong too. We were just plain lucky. The Defiant was made here in Wolverhampton. Just down the road from me.
Alembic25 2 years ago 3
The Boulton Paul Defiant Was My Favourate Aircraft Of WW2 Just Because It Was So Unique
MassiveModleMaker 2 years ago 10
@MassiveModleMaker I have to agree with you on that.. :)
2002And 10 months ago
Beautiful example at RAF Hendon museum.
martynpank 2 years ago
And how (the f***!) was the gunner meant to bail out in the (likely) event of being shot down?!
dimgwalltameiben 2 years ago
With great difficulty. The sliding rear quadrant of the turret cover was the only exit, and it was a tight squeeze. The gunner wore a 'rhino suit' with self-contained parachute and dinghy, which was an improvement on a separate parachute pack - but not much.
And believe it or not, it was possible to take off and land in a Defiant, even on a combat mission. As I said, read a book...
thisisnev 2 years ago
there is also an escape hatch below and to the rear of the turret,it could only be accessed if the turret was facing forward,the gunner would have to stand up fold his seat and climb down backwards and out through the hatch to the rear of the wing,not easy but it gave him an another option.
trygger61 2 years ago
Hmm, interesting point. Looks like an access panel for ground crew maintenance - I'm not convinced that a gunner encumbered by a rhino suit would get through it in a hurry!
thisisnev 2 years ago
this is the Allegro of aeroplanes
dimgwalltameiben 2 years ago
funny comment.
fifthof 2 years ago
Could the turret fire forward past the pilot cockpit?
GoldRushDutch 2 years ago
Unfortunately no ... the rounds would have taken out the prop blades.
goawaygoat1 2 years ago
Nevertheless, it could fire forward, and the pilot had a firing button on his control column. One pilot accidentally shot a hole in his sleeve when parked with one arm resting on the canopy rail.
thisisnev 2 years ago
Also lets not forget the P-51 Mustang, hailed as one of the best fighters of WW2 (arguably the best) was only that good because of its British engine
Bronzewhaler82 2 years ago
And it is also often forgotten that our ex-Colonial cousins also had to use a number of British Aircraft types as they had nothing suitable of their own to carry out wartime roles that the USAAC hadn't foreseen ... Spitfires, Beaufighters, Mosquitos ...
goawaygoat1 2 years ago
This is a wonderful video, thanks for making it :o)
Bronzewhaler82 2 years ago
Oops! ... forgot Avro's wonderful Anson
goawaygoat1 2 years ago
goawaygoat1 2 years ago
On the subject of unsuccessful aircraft, few British Aircraft Manufacturers managed to build a truly successful aircraft that served in WW2 ... next post is my list for the rest of you to shoot down :
goawaygoat1 2 years ago
I disagree with this statement completely...how could you say that the Spitfire, Hurricane or the Mosquito weren't sucessful?
Bronzewhaler82 2 years ago
No, what I am saying is the aircraft I listed were very successful ... but they are suprisingly few in number compared with the number of aircraft that didn't really make the grade ... Whitley, Hampden, Manchester, Defiant, Albermarle, Stirling, etc. The point is, for every successful aircraft there were many "also rans" or "flops" ... mainly because of the inability to accurately foresee what would be needed in a future conflict.
goawaygoat1 2 years ago
I agree with your points to a degree. In WW2 Air combat was still in the early stages of development really, especially when you consider the use of bombers at that time was only just taking off (excuse the pun) monoplane fighters only just started developing in the early 30s (The Italians still built biplanes into the 40s believing them to be more effective than monoplanes) one aircraft manufacturer you missed was Gloster. The Gladiator is widely considered the best biplane design of all time
Bronzewhaler82 2 years ago
Yes, the Gladiator was indeed the pinnacle of biplane design, but as you rightly say, the end of the line as far as biplane fighters were concerned. On the subject of Glosters, I guess the Meteor could be included as it did enter service during the war with 616 Squadron ... somewhat of a giant leap for Glosters to go from the Gladiator to the Meteor!
goawaygoat1 2 years ago
I also agree about the Defiant ... nobody could have forseen at the time that the concept of an "unescorted bomber destroyer" would be eclipsed by the rapid loss of France and the Low Countries, thereby allowing the Luftwaffe to escort its bombers with 109's. The Defiant got its bad reputation when pitted against those 109's, which was something it was never designed to do ... however as a "stopgap" night-fighter it was very successful, but a bad reputation once acquired is very hard to lose!
goawaygoat1 2 years ago
Yes, a bad reputation is hard to lose, I found your previous comment about 20/20 hindsight very astute. Another very similar aircraft I just thought of which was also bashed as a failure was the Blackburn Roc (developed from the Skua). Interesting that it was used as a dive bomber
Bronzewhaler82 2 years ago
In my opinion the Defiant WAS sucessful, just not in the role it was originally designed for. As a night fighter the Defiant was actually a great success
Bronzewhaler82 2 years ago
I also feel that aircraft such as the Stirling & Whitley were not 'flops' but simply aircraft that were eventually outclassed when more modern aircraft were designed. Consider the fact that Whitleys were the first Brits to bomb Germany in WW2. Of course you are right there were some poor aircraft (like the Mancester) but it is interesting to note the problem with the Mancester was purely the Vulture engines...we all know what happened when better engines were fitted...
Bronzewhaler82 2 years ago
Yes, the line of unsuccessful British Aircraft does seem to follow the line of unsuccessful British Aero Engines ... RR Vulture (Manchester), Napier Dagger (HP Hereford), RR Peregrine (Westland Whirlwind) etc. Agreed the Stirling and Whitley were good aircraft that became rapidly outclassed as the war progressed, but both did sterling service in other roles. Even the Hampden was very successful as a mine dropper.
goawaygoat1 2 years ago
Remember to include the Fairey Battle ground attack craft with its horrendous casualty rate over the Sedan bridgeheads.
IanHunedoara8 2 years ago
@Bronzewhaler82 The Stirling was hobbled by an Air Ministry requrement that the wingspan be no more than100 feet an extra ten - fifteen feet of wing would have made an enormous difference especially in service ceiling and payload
chitlika 1 year ago
@chitlika
If Shorts had been given another 15ft they would probably have delivered an even heavier (in terms of weight) bomber which is what the limitation was intended to avoid (see Buttler's British Secret Projects - Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950)
GMDLGTUK 11 months ago
Btw, did you know that turrets were also tried out on Beaufighters and Mosquitos?
goawaygoat1 2 years ago
Ah! 20/20 hindsight is such a wonderful thing! Everyone says what a lousy aircraft the Defiant was ... but nobody said so when the Spec was laid down and the aircraft was designed and built. At the time it seemed a good idea to put a four gun turret on a fighter thereby giving the gunner a wide field of fire. It was only later in the heat of combat that the concept was found to be fatally flawed. As an aircraft the Defiant was actually pleasant and easy to fly.
goawaygoat1 2 years ago
It actually dominated the Bf 110 until the Luftwaffe pilots figured out how to fight it
BMunich16 2 years ago
Some terrible misconceptions here. The Defiant was designed to intercept *unescorted* bombers, using the turret to attack from outside the arc of the bombers defensive fire. It was not made to face single-seat fighters and it was not anticipated that France would be over-run so early on thus granting the Luftwaffe fighter bases within reach of the British mainland.
parkbench71 2 years ago 2
It's still a great plane.
It's a mobile turret being tugged along by a spitfire. :D
peepeevagi 2 years ago
The Germans first mistook it for a Hurricane, then jumped it from behind. All the 109s were destroyed. Later the Germans realised that it was woefully slow...and defenseless from the front. If only there had been a 303 in each wing root...
ferahgo90 2 years ago
More British hokum. Thrty-seven kills without a loss? I don't belive it. My understanding is that after a very short period the Defiant became easy meat.
rudi1889 2 years ago
Hokum? Ju 87, Do 17, He177, Me210, FW200 easy meat!
rmjackaman 2 years ago
Hokum? The word is Propaganda :p The first film was made in late 1940, the second in early 1942...what were you expecting?
ThraxUK 2 years ago 2
"More British hokum." eh Mr Rudi1889... I've told you American fellas a million times not to exaggerate ;)
afleececooper 2 years ago
I believe that, in one mission they destroyed 65 enemy planes, 37 very well could have been without a loss
BMunich16 2 years ago
There is a lot of myth surrounding this plane, so I very highly recommend the books authored by Alec Brew and published by Crowood. The Turret Fighters is one book, and I highly recommend this book. Lots of details not just on the Defiant, but the Roc and the entire concept behind this type of plane.
StarTux 2 years ago 2
They were made just down the road from me here in Wolverhampton. Good looking plane but the concept of the turret was wrong although they didn't know that until it went into action. Not quite the disaster that the Fairey Battle was but still a bit of a dead end in design.
Alembic25 2 years ago
they might have saved a few crew if they had given a few guns pointing forward!
pramboy74 2 years ago
There was a more conventional, single seat version made later. Speed was a bit low so it was dropped I believe.
paspax 2 years ago
Spec F9/35 was a brand new concept which had nothing to do with WW1. In 1935, Britains most likely enemy in Europe was Germany, german bombers would have to bomb Britain without fighter escort and, going by newsreels of the 30's/40's,bombers of all nations attacked in fleets, witness the Battle of Britain. 4 ranged guns flying 'beside' a target might be more lethal than 8 in a 300+ mph pass. The Hawker Hotspur, which was a development of the Henley was a rival with 1 forward firing gun.
ronigee 3 years ago
loose the turret and run from the enemy instead
nolifemerc 3 years ago
A 'stopgap' fighter was made from the Defiant, featuring four fixed, forward-firing .303 machine guns. (The gunner and his turret were deleted, to save weight.) Fortunately, the repair centres and factories did a great job and there was never a severe shortage of aircraft, so the stopgap wasn't needed, and the Defiant would soon be relegated to a new life as a target tug.
doobedoo22 2 years ago
Sorry to disagree with your opening statement, but the concept traces back to such types as the Fe.2b and Vickers Gunbus...Maybe arguably even further than that. The first "fighter" to be fitted with a powered turret was the Hawker Demon.
StarTux 2 years ago
great stuff bomberguy!
Paddymcwhoop 3 years ago
Thanks for posting this up. My Dad who's 87 now was invloved in some of the design work to this plane. He'll be really glad to see it when I show him. :)
richieclarkie 3 years ago
Didnt work out as a day fighter, did a good job as a stop gap night fighter, and did excellent work with air sea rescue and target towing. Interesting aircraft.
Ogenerang 3 years ago
And what "shit"can you see through a perspex turret that you couldn't see in front?The BPD was developed as a daylight interceptor which, when the Hun gave 141 squadron a severe mauling over Folkestone because it was useless for this task,was moved to night ops, at which it was moderate at best.All other night-fighters had forward firing guns eg Mosquito, Blenheim,Bf 110,Hurricane etc.You obviously now nothing about WW2 aviation.
fifthof 3 years ago
When 264 Sqn was posted to the same airfield as 141, it resulted in a punch-up. 264's crews felt that 141's inexperience had been their downfall, and that they were losing more aircrew to night-flying accidents than they had flying day missions against the Luftwaffe.
As for your final comment, glass houses spring to mind... ;¬)
thisisnev 2 years ago
no forward firing guns,mmm,who thought that one up?
fifthof 3 years ago
It's not meant to, the clues in the word "Night fighter". What'd be the point in putting guns in the wings when you couldn't see shit infront in the dark.
McTonker 3 years ago
It was intended as a day fighter & a book published early in 1940 "Britain's Wonderful Fighting Forces" showing how the Defiant could fly beside German fighters and fire broadside. In this position the German pilot would be helpless and could not return fire. The snag was getting the German to fly straight and level alongside. Seriously, it was a terrible idea left over from WW1, the drag from the turret slowed the aircraft down & the gunner had no chance of escape when the aircraft was hit.
freebeerfordworkers 3 years ago
actually it was to go after bombers only, it was never intended to be in a dogfight with a fighter
teacherteacher23 3 years ago 2
I accept what you as as my book published in the first months of the war is probably by journalists & so doubtful source. But it was the same era as the Spitfire & Hurricane which 8 machine guns aligned to concentrate their fire on a point about 300yds away whereas the Defiant had only 4 spraying about the sky.
Someone else whose family was ground crew on them has posted "Their biggest kills were their own pilots and gunners and Boulton & Paul should have stuck to making kitchen cabinets."
freebeerfordworkers 3 years ago
would they have been any use flying under bomber formations and using the turret
agentolshki 3 years ago
That is pretty much what the Germans did with some of their night fighters in about 1943. They were fitted with fixed near vertical firing 20mm cannon behind the cockpit. They could formate below and a little behind the the bomber out of sight of the crew and with grim humour they called the arrangement "Organ music". By then they had good radar to guide them and it worked so well bomber crews never knew what hit them.
freebeerfordworkers 3 years ago
An interesting failure.
There is only one Boulton Paul Defiant left in the world.
Its in the RAF museum in Hendon, London and I have seen it.
shiraqio67 3 years ago
What a complete failure of an aircraft, thought up in a classroom, totally nonsensical for so many reasons in practice.
ThePhantomMajor 3 years ago
Such a cool failure.
Hell, it's a spitfire with a turret.
peepeevagi 3 years ago 2
This is a great plane. I cannot understand why it is not included in any flght sim. I would like to test a mission with this plane.
monomozzi 3 years ago
The plane is featured in Rowans Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain 2, unfortunatly not as a flyable craft.
BVargas78 3 years ago
A handsome plane, but the turret makes it look deceptively safe when it was actually quite vulnerable.
While it did well as a nightfighter I think it could potentially still have been used as a daytime bomber interceptor over London. The 109's didnt get to stay much time over London due to their limited range.
Would have left the hurricanes and spitfires more time to concentrate on taking down the remaining fighters such as the bf110's.
BVargas78 3 years ago
Boulton Paul should of stuck to making kitchen cabinets . My uncle was ground crew and reconed its only KILLS were its pilot and gunner !!
pfishy69 3 years ago
It had some success in the early stages of the war, getting good kill rates in the fall of france campaign and the norway campaign. Partly because they were mistaken for hurricanes and the germans that got gunned down didnt live to tell about it!
But then they had a big fail in the Battle of Britain when the bf109 pilots learned their weak spot.
BVargas78 3 years ago
I remain Defiant...it was a good machine.
fluffybunny9 3 years ago
haha notice at 3:24 the man mentions Dunkirk then goes on to mention that the defiant will be waiting at night....he failed to mention how many came back from those Dunkirk missions by day......hardly any
frogga31 3 years ago
A fascinating aircraft, even though ultimately a failure. But the configuration, with a larger airframe and forward guns did re-emerge in the Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bomber, of coure the turret was smaller and less likely to shoot off the plane's own tail.
drpsionic 3 years ago
Er... the Defiant had an interrupter cam to prevent shooting off the tail...
thisisnev 2 years ago
2 words....shit box
frogga31 3 years ago
amen to that
lupau69 3 years ago
haha yeh amen to that
frogga31 3 years ago
As a night-fighter the Defiant gave way to the legendary Mosquito. The age of Radar had come, so you could 'simply' follow radar signals and fly right up behind the enemy and give them a good kick.
The Defiant would actually fly somewhere alongside, identify the target and then fire at a vulnerable spot with the turret. You only really have one shot at this before the enemy would dive away into the night.
StarTux 3 years ago
The Defiant, again an aircraft that was the best 1918 fighter in the world (of course in 1939-41 it was not!) a joke to the Germans, who shot them down (once they realized they had NO forward firing MG and were actually helpless)in great numbers. Finished the war as target tows, an aircraft as bad as the Fairey Battle!!
usmctanks1 3 years ago
Inspired choice of music. Just right. What is it, please?
HermannGoering 3 years ago
listed at the end of the video
Bomberguy 3 years ago
Durng daytime a miserable sitting duck when attacked from the 6 position pulling up.
Tubonaso 3 years ago
Very interesting video. The defiant tends to be overlooked because of other more famous types of aircraft from WWII, so it's nice to see a film dedicated to it. Thanks for sharing that with us, bomberguy. Keep up the good work.
saintmirrenmalky 3 years ago
Wow. Can you imagine:
1. The difficulty of aerial gunnery from a turret to start with.
2. Now, take that turret and mount it on a highly maneuverable platform (the fighter-like aircraft)
3. Now shoot down an maneuvering enemy plane WHILE your own aircraft is wildly maneuvering.
Talk about adding needlessly complex variables.
Either you're flying relatively steady and you need a turret (bomber), or you put fixed guns on a maneuverable aircraft (fighter). Wow, really bad concept.
rockyPants4000 3 years ago
I suppose when it was conceived no one at the Air Ministry could envisage the situation where Fighter Command would have have to tackle single engined enemy fighters over the south east of England it was a fallacy that would lead to the flawed tactic of rigid area fighting attacks by Spitfires and Hurricanes that were designed to tackle bombers but made little allowance for enemy fighters,the fall of France challenged many of the assumptions made by pre-war planners .
iroscoe 3 years ago
That's a good point. I had forgotten that even the Americans initially had the attitude that bombers were "battleships" of the sky, that would need no fighter escort. Of course this was proven wrong, and led to the development of long range solutions like the P-51 Mustang and others with long range fuel drop tanks.
Excellent point. It led to a bad mistake by the Air Ministry, but not every decision in war can be great, you're fighting for survival and all.
rockyPants4000 3 years ago
The Defiant was actually great at what it was designed to do; kill bombers. It was a good nightfighter for the time, although its slower speed gave way to the faster and better Mosquito, which had better gun arrangement when equipped with Radar.
Defense against fighters was a descending circle, which did OK over Dunkirk.
StarTux 3 years ago
Bomberguy, keep up the good work, please!
BruceK10032 3 years ago 2
I'll second that!!!
mig25pd 3 years ago
Another underpowered airframe, further encumbered by a heavy gun turret of dubious utility. better to strip as much weight off as possible. to improve manuverability & payload. may have made a decent dive bomber.
kdraper2007 3 years ago
According to guys at the boulton paul association there were plans for cannons in the wing and moving the cockpit back and removing the turret and adding a teardrop canopy but a clash of personalities between the airministry and boulton paul lead to such plans being ignored!I suppose the shortage of merlins and the success of the spitfire and hurricane also lead to its development being curtailed.
wattoo220 3 years ago
A-36 Apache (North American )
A-30 Baltimore (Martin)
sseeplane 3 years ago
STOP defending this aircrat, it was a failure in the bomber destroyer mode, as a fighter, and when the Germans stopped laughing, as a night fighter, it was , by 1942 a trainer and target tow. It was a COMPLETE FAILURE as a fighter.. you know like other A/C like the Battle, the Hampden, etc. Aircraft produced even thoough NOT wanted by the RAF to show "full production" ...
usmctanks1 3 years ago
To think they could have been making spitfires...
SmiertSpionem 3 years ago
It was moderately successful early but only because inexperienced German pilot mistook it for a Hurricane. Aside from it was useless as a day fighter. It did better as a stop-gap night fighter at least until the Beaufighter came along.
bigaussie68 3 years ago
true
SmiertSpionem 3 years ago
The first years of WWII destroyed many aircraft reputations - and not just British. USAAF and USMC fighters were generally crap at that time - as the Japanese Zero proved beyond doubt. It took a British Merlin engine to make anything of the NA39/P51 later on in the war, or we would have heard little of it!.
Stick to tanks usmctanks1 and leave aviation history to those who don't get there info from the Lil Abner comic strip or exaggerate shortcomings via a bottle of Jack Daniels.
copewood333 3 years ago
The initial P-51 was purchased in large numbers with the Allison engine (along with the P-38) as a ground attack aircraft, and it did a good job (over 400 mph),the Merlin made it a fantastic escort fighter, which the Brits did NOT have,Packard made numerous additions to the Merlin making it a more reliable engine.. The Wldcat (Martlet) was a equal if not better aircraft then the Zero if flown right, proved over the Pacific. And by the way, I have 2500 hours PIC time in aircraft, you have??? SFB
usmctanks1 3 years ago
P-51 didn't debut until May 1942. The early war US single engine fighters didn't have the same manouvreability as. Not that the armour on P-40's wasn't beneficial.
SmiertSpionem 3 years ago
Actually the early P-51 (A30) was a "ground attack fighter" (can you believe it!) not really wanted by the USAAC, but the RAF saw its potential. It was as manoverable (or more so) than Spits,But it was SUPERCHARGERS that was the Allison's downfall, a Single stage, vs the two stage for the Spits, hence a 15-17 thousand optimal height for fighting, far below ME-109 spit,FW-190.. Aha!! the RAF said, lets put a Merlin in it!! Ta-Da, P-51.. The best of both worlds, British Engine, USAAC fighter!!!
usmctanks1 3 years ago
Was the A30 also called 'apache'?
SmiertSpionem 3 years ago
it was actually the A-36 Apache.
kdraper2007 3 years ago
invader too.
TJ
terryjohn 3 years ago
The early P-51A was actually the A-36 Apache, not the A-30 (which was actually a light, twin engined bomber from Martin). The P-51 was originally designed only for the British, it wasn't that the USAAC wasn't interested in it. Um, and the Bf109 and Fw 190 were VERY limited in performance at anything over 20,000 until the Fw 190D9 and Ta 152 were released.
EvilxMerlin 3 years ago
Thanks.
SmiertSpionem 3 years ago
Comment removed
thisisnev 2 years ago
Comment removed
thisisnev 2 years ago
The P-51 isn't the brilliant aircraft everyone makes it out to be.. The best all over US Ace flew the P-38, and the leading US Ace in Europe flew the P-47.(which by the way was faster than the P-51). The US manufactured plane with most kills to its name is the P-39, and a Brewster Buffalo has the highest individual kill score of ANY allied aircraft.. The P-51 is mainly known for long range, which is good, and losing its wings in flight, which is not quite so impressive.. :)
BasicModelling 2 years ago
That said, I still like the Mustang.. sort off.. :)
BasicModelling 2 years ago
Called the Defiant because it defied description 8 out of 9 in one daylight attack (before they realized how useless the aircraft was) shot down, only reason all were not, rumor has it the Germans were laughing to hard. The best 1918 fighter in the world in 1940, what a peice of junk, just like the Battle, Whitley, Hampden, all costing hundreds of pilots lives, and for what? to show the world how brave pilots can die!!
usmctanks1 3 years ago
Hold on there...Britain, France, the United States etc were not prepared for war, either with much equipment, or critically, experience!
Read the text Bomber guy kindly wrote to the right as its quite good, although I do wish to add a big reason 141 lost so many planes on 19th July 1940 was down to their tactics in not using a descending "Lufberry" circle and allowing the 109's to get underneath. Remember the plane was designed to destroy bombers during day or night as a second line of defence.
StarTux 3 years ago 2
Hold on yourself, the tenet that an enemy aircraft would fly in a nice line, for you to pull up and shoot is crazy, most german fighter pilots thought it was a hurricane, once they realized no foward gun (laughable for a fighter) they were shot down in large numbers. And the 110 tried the Carcocelle manuever, again a manuever which does nothing to control airspace or do any kind of attack
usmctanks1 3 years ago
The first person who suggested the Defiant was mistaken for a Hurricane was Wing Commander Harry Broadhurst. No German has ever been recorded claiming that!
"And the 110 tried the Carcocelle manuever, again a manuever which does nothing to control airspace or do any kind of attack"
We're talking about the Defiant, not 110, and the spiral dive did work for the Defiant's of 264 sqdn. over Dunkirk on the 29th of May, indeed the tally claimed was 8 Bf 109's, 7 110's, 1 Ju 88 and 21 Ju 87 Stukas.
StarTux 3 years ago
not a bad score!
SmiertSpionem 3 years ago
The Defiant did its job of intercepting and destroying German bombers, albiet at night and did a damn good job at it too. As for the Whitley and Hampden again they found their forte at night bombing and with Coastal Command. Typically British thing to do, if it doesn't work right first time, find something that it will work right at!
marccs1978 3 years ago
would be quite usefull as u circle troops on the ground u could fire continuously at them or fly under a bomber formation.
agentolshki 3 years ago
good idea
SmiertSpionem 3 years ago
But I have a question: is there any Supermarine Spiteful video in your "library"? There isn't anything like that anywhere I have looked...
Irvine5312x6ma 3 years ago
Hey Bomberguy you've done it again!!! Excellent video, very rare!!! 5/5 rated!
Irvine5312x6ma 3 years ago
Is that a Hurricane-type vokes filter under the nose?
trilingual 3 years ago
There is only 1 Boulton Paul Defiant that survives today.
jers59 3 years ago
Its currently in the RAF Museum Hendon, in its Night Fighter colours of a Polsih Sqn.
Danny
reesmilitary 3 years ago
Interesting film.My dad was a rear gunner in Wellingtons and lancasters also Boltimore bombers during the war,he had a friend who was a gunner in Defiants who took part in a dylight raid over france in the early part of the war.He survived although he did have a metal plate in his head from injuries he sustained on that day.
17REM 3 years ago
Seeing one of these up close at Hendon was really interesting.
teenonator 3 years ago
Interesting concept to design a fighter with a turret like that, and with some more development who knows where it could have ended up. I hope the rearward facing gunners had barf bags though!
Shazzasaloon91 3 years ago
The Defiant was a flawed concept - based on the ideas of WW1 rather then what was needed in WW2. However, its main problem was that a 1,000 hp Merlin was not man enough to horse around a two man aircraft AND a hydraulic powered turret.
The Royal Naval equivalent, the Blackburn Roc, was even worse.
EricIrl 3 years ago
I'm really surprised by how elegant the Defiant looked in flight. I always felt that this was a plane with a lot of unexplored potential.
RedCoat2007 3 years ago 2
Some of the best Defiant footage I've seen.
Excellent work as always. Thanks
timjim100 3 years ago 2
This ship was not one of the best. Like the Fairey "Battle," this was a bad place to misplace a great engine. And production resources. But man, my hat is off to you for
posting our aviatin' cinema and for your great taste in jazz!
whizbang47 3 years ago
If the Defiant had been used slyly, it might have been more effective. Imagine having two Defiants in every Hurricane squadron....the Jerries, thinking they were all Hurricanes, would get pasted when they latched onto a Defiant. Ah, history....love it!
killingamps 3 years ago
Excellent work, yet again!
Thanks Bomberguy!!!
jackjohnbob 3 years ago
very nice..thx bomber!
A french fan
parisboy92 3 years ago 2
Big thanks, Bomberguy !!!
Clauteaux 3 years ago 2
I always come away from the Bomberguy channel knowing something that I didn't know before.
TheOriginalWheelsTV 3 years ago 2
Keep 'em coming, Bomberguy!
denberg2 3 years ago
wow...there's one i didn't know about.....thanks
cabman65 3 years ago
once again BomberGuy mate you have done an excelent job!well done.. (where do you get these films from?)5 starts from me!
grahamkeithtodd 3 years ago 2
True beauty in those lines.
b1heqh54 3 years ago 2