Boulton Paul Defiant - The Unlucky Turret Fighter | Aircraft History #4

[@whitesun264]

From the video, it appears that half of its shortcomings could have been overcome by the addition of a forward facing gun.

[@LoneWolf-rc4go]

I think the problem would be adding enough guns to make the Germans think twice about a head on attack. A couple of machine guns probably won't cut the mustard against the 109's cannon and even these (with a reasonable amount of ammo) would be adding more weight to an already heavy plane. Really the Defiant was an idea that could have worked if France hadn't been knocked out the war. The RAF would have had a home defense fighter that would have been able to engage any bomber formations directed at Britain as the 109 would have never had the range to escort them. I suspect that they'd probably been phased out as the RAF realized that Hurricanes were just as capable and easier to produce. The Defiant would have gone the same way as it did, moved to a night-fighting role then dropped in favor of more capable machines. In this case it would have probably gained a better reputation as being the machine that freed up the Spitfires and Hurricane squadrons to support France. As it is it's one of those machines which might have seemed like a good idea on paper but didn't work out in practice.

[@ehold6877]

Nah . would have made it even heavier and slower. Maybe split the armament? Dual gun turret, instead of quad, having 2 forward facing guns? Personally I would have had a dual gun turret with a single hispano cannon through the prop. Also getting rid of the hydraulic mechanical aspect of the turret to a manual since 2guns would be easier to manipulate in a turret and save weight.

[@jirja3192]

@@ehold6877 I think best would be to just get rid of turret, maybe have simple tail gunner but not turret because that thing was heavy and produced lot of drag. From what i heared, there was idea of turretless version of defiant with forward facing weaponry considered as heavy fighter with predicted speed close to spitfire. However i can't prove this information but it would certainly be more practical...

[@ehold6877]

@@jirja3192 maybe get rid of the turret, have a single gunner with an hispano cannon and regular armament of a standard fighter. Sort of like a il-2?

[@josephtreacy667]

@@jirja3192 Then just fly Hurricanes. Rear gunner not a lot of good on a fighter.

[@Markus_Andrew]

I never knew that many Defiants were built, just over a thousand. That's a considerable number, I'd always assumed maybe a couple of hundred at most. Great video, thank you!

[@lokiwiseyt8608]

Same

[@Dave5843-d9m]

Why were BP Defiants not quickly adapted to carry wing mounted guns?

[@chrisrichards2544]

Not as easy to do as it sounds ... guns and their ammo are bulky and heavy and to fit the Defiant with wing guns would require a major redesign. Why bother anyway when you already have better fighters available?

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

@@Dave5843-d9m easier when you have full production going to just put out a new hurricane instead

[@dovidell]

the most upbeat assessment of the Bolton Paul Defiant that I have encountered to date !!

[@connclark2154]

This was a much more informative video than others I have seen. All others paint this plane as a total disaster. Thank you for making it.

[@Caseytify]

No, it was just a near disaster. LOL.

[@donaldduff-mccracken448]

I think so too. It was easy to paint it as a totally foolish design but it was reasonable to assume that the modern bombers would not have escorts. Not that it was great but it was of it’s time (much like the heavy fighters like the BF110). Aircraft design changed so fast in the 30s that you had lots of these near misses.

[@Len_J_]

It was misdeployed by the RAF. Left red faced, they labelled it a bad aircraft and tried to erase it from the history books. When deployed appropriately it faired well.

[@TheDkeeler]

Maybe if each Defiant had a hurricane assigned to be it's wingman to protect it and provide forward firing guns things would of been much better for this unique and elegant fighter.

[@jamesh6024]

Or a three plane wing comprised of Defiants, Hurricanes, and Spitfires

[@Pokafalva]

@@jamesh6024 Yeah, let's use our two best fighters to protect an incompetent one. Sheesh...

[@davidvestey6014]

Or just a forward firing gun?

[@tooboukou8ball702]

Or use the hurricane to fight the enemy instead of trying to defend a useless fighter

[@thatontariofarmer]

Why would you waste two of your best fighters on escorting the abomination that served no purpose for daytime combat

[@karabenomar]

Pilot: "Aight mate, get ready to strafe some ground targets!" Gunner: "But the guns will only shoot upwhoooooooaaaaaaa...."

[@hicknopunk]

😂

[@thomasb1889]

It is one of my favorite planes because it is so wildly behind the times while that being behind the times made it a good night fighter. Ironically an earlier British plane was also behind the times but ended up being a good and even great night fighter, the Royal Aircraft Factory's BE2

[@acomingextinction]

Hah you're absolutely right. They had a very similar career trajectory, so to speak.

[@aker1993]

if this plane have 4 more guns firing forwards and have bomb racks this plane will be passible as a light bomber

[@c.morees9698]

The BE2 could shoot also forwards..... The people who gave order to built this fighter plane probably didn't leave their office for a second...... their fantasy was zero( that was a real fighter plane😁)

[@thomasb1889]

@@c.morees9698 The BE2 was a prewar design for reconnaissance and one of the major requirements was extreme stability for camera work. That requirement made the plane about as maneuverable as a 1970 Cadillac Coupe de Ville because no one knew how to design warplanes.

[@raypurchase801]

The Defiant was ill-used in 11 Group. If it had been used in the north instead, it would never have been opposed by 109s. This misjudgement might be partly down to 11 Group's commander, Keith Park, who'd been an ace on Bristol Fighters in WW1. The Defiant resembled an updated Bristol Fighter. I suspect Park expected better from it.

[@daszieher]

That makes sense.

[@donjones4719]

@@bfc3057 "it would have been good if it had no opposition" Actually, according to the beginning of the video that was the design philosophy behind it. Meant to go after the bombers that planners in c.1936 thought would be unescorted. So, if bombers were actually flown this way in the north, send the Defiant there. Park aside, whoever decided the disposition of various aircraft had to deal with the fact that during the Blitz the situation over southern England was desperate. Churchill said that one of the bad moments of the war for him was when he was at Fighter Command at the height of the Blitz. After following the building crescendo of action on the plotting boards for a while he asked how many squadrons were left in reserve. None, the answer came back. Every plane was committed to the battle. Fortunately that was enough that day.

[@Axterix13]

@@bfc3057 He isn't trying to find a reason for it. He's trying to find a place it can be used for its strengths, while minimizing having its weaknesses used against it. Note that what he is suggesting is similar to what the British actually did. It was vulnerable to enemy fighters, so they shifted its use to when enemy fighters were less of a factor: at night.

[@neilbone9490]

Squadrons were rotated between groups from quieter to busier groups like No.11 and weren’t up to the group commanders. You make a good point though the Defiant squadrons could have been kept in the North or West where the Me109s were out of range.

[@raypurchase801]

@@neilbone9490 Gladiators were stationed in the north east of England, on a just-in-case basis. They saw no combat during the BoB but, if a hundred Me 110s had attacked Liverpool, Chain Home could've given the Gladiators plenty of time to reach altitude and the Gladiators would've done their best.

[@Dr_Jebus]

"bf109s were not yet submarines" XD Also, I would love one of these in IL2 for multicrew!

[@Luddite-vd2ts]

Another commentator once noted that the Defiant, in attacking German bombers from beneath, pre-dated the Luftwaffe's fatally successful schräge musik technique by several years. Interestingly, they later used a battery of angled guns for this, mimicking the Defiant's turret.

[@raypurchase801]

Boulton & Paul constructed biplanes under licence from Hawkers during the 1930s. Both the Hurricane and the Defiant should be seen as the direct descendants of the Hart/Fury series of single seat fighters and two-seat light bombers.

[@hyltonswemmer4824]

I've always loved this plane - for 40 yrs ! Delightful to see so many photos here never seen before ! Thumbs up !

[@tonybaker55]

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.

[@jamienevill1768]

An excellent video. Thanks. The last remaining Defiant is now at RAF Cosford Museum in Shropshire. There's a replica built by the Bolton Paul Association in an aerospace museum in Kent. I believe Defiants were stationed there during the war. Wolverhampton historian Alec Brew has also written a book about the Defiant.

[@ElGravy]

A fascinating plane, loving the channel content!

[@RexsHangar]

Thanks!

[@kellybreen5526]

One crew became 13 victory aces in the plane in daylight. BP also produced a single seat version with 4 303's I the wings. In the 2 seat version the pilot could also fire the guns because it was intended to use the turret like the Foster mount was during the Great War. There was no sighting equipment because this is called "No allowance shooting". It was meant to be do e at close range, with the elevation both clearing the propeller, and compensating for projectile drop. It very much parallels the jazz music installation that both German and Japanese night fighters would develop. It is interesting that with all the roles that they tried to reassign to the aircraft that it never became a 2 seat advanced trainer.

[@michaelarchangel1163]

It should have become a trainer. The Harvard my father got his wings in was reported to have handled like a bus, although he having been formerly a bombardier, maybe that was the actual idea !

[@kellybreen5526]

@@michaelarchangel1163 Respect to your dad. I grew up knowing a lot of veterans. They were from all services, but I knew a lot if Bomber Command veterans. Most were aircrew, not pilots. My science teacher was a flight engineer with 617 squadron and flew with them in 1944-45. He retired at 65 in 1987 and while we were in the middle of exams we heard he dropped dead from a heart attack while visiting the Science Centre in Toronto. I regret not being a bit closer to him. He was prickly, but no doubt earned the right to be that way. I was just a tad too young to get it at the time.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

K8310 was converted by having its turret removed and fitted with wings with12 .303 machine guns. This occured around August 1940 and was given the company designation P.94. It could also replace 8 of these machine guns with 4 20mm cannons. But by 26th September 1940 it was recorded by Boulton Paul that the Air Ministry was not interested due to the need to concentrate on the fewest designs to meet the current threat.

[@kellybreen5526]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 That makes a lot of sense. It was also probably wise to keep the 2 seater in production and not start a second line of single seater in order to prevent a disruption of delivery. This suggests that rhe RAF felt that the plane WAS useful. If it was as terrible as is often suggested production would have stopped much sooner than it did and the resources as well as factory space turned over to building something better, be it other aircraft or even equipment for the Army.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@kellybreen5526 after the Fall of France we kept building the 2-pounder anti-tank gun, even though we knew that it was of limited capability against Panzer III and Panzer IV even though the 6-pounder anti-tank gun was ready to go into production as it would have disrupted the supply of anti-tank guns. Fortunately, the Germans were unable to get troops across the channel.

[@Defiant1940]

As a youngster in the '60's I always carried a torch for the Defiant, and even at that young age I could shoot holes through all of the aviation historians 'reasons' why it was a failure as a daylight fighter. Recently a book was published, 'Defiant, the untold story of the Battle of Britain' and all my early beliefs were fully vindicated. The cause of the Defiant's unwarranted reputation as a failure is chiefly down to the commanding officer of 141 Sqdn, an arrogant man who refused to take advice from the commander of the far more experienced 264 Sqdn. Incidentally, you're video is a little inaccurate when it said all nine of 141's flight were shot down, the correct figure was 7 out of the 9. But what is often not known is that this flight of inexperienced aircrew were jumped by a full wing of 30+ 109's, a veteran group with several aces among them. Even so, they managed to bring down 4 109's in return. The Defiant was a victim of gross mismanagement at higher levels, and poor leadership on the front line. Handled correctly by playing to it's strengths it was the equal of the 109, and in a mock dogfight against a Spitfire flown by Sqdn Ldr Stanford-Tuck, a leading British ace, it flew rings around the Spitfire, recording one 'kill' after another, while Standford-Tuck never once got the Defiant in his sights.

[@RexsHangar]

I'm waiting for my copy of that book to arrive. If I have time I plan to cover some of these aircraft in depth sometime in the future (probably 1 hour videos) and I plan to feature the Defiant again :)

[@nowthenzen]

a great post and excellent points. However, if the core of the argument is " .. when expertly handled .." the question then becomes, will the pilots survive to become experts?

[@riazhassan6570]

Flew rings round the Spitfire? Surprising, when you compare performance statistics

[@Pokafalva]

What is the recently published book that you mention?

[@Pokafalva]

@@madisntit6547 Oh dear! That guy persists with the view that 264 Squadron actually shot down 39 Luftwaffe aircraft on 29th May 1940. And no amount of proof being provided that he is wrong on internet pages will convince him otherwise. He will not accept actual facts, but instead goes with decades-old incorrect falsehoods and myths. The better book to get will be the one due out next year by Andy Long.

[@simongee8928]

Imagine if the RAF had the foresight to instal twin fifty calibre instead of four .303. The improvement in hitting power and range would have been considerable.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

That would have meant introducing a completely new gun, and all the logistical difficulties that come along with that. New gun production lines with new tooling. New ammunition production lines. New maintenance and training requirements. Aircraft out of service if refitted, or a wait for the new aircraft production lines to be modified. Changing a gun caliber on a large scale is an intensive process. And just changing it for a single model brings different headaches. The .303 was adequate enough in the early war that it wasn't worth the investment to change gun caliber. By the time the Brits finally came to the conclusion that the .303 was inadequate, it was felt best to jump right to a 20mm, which was even better than the .50 cal. And by which time the Defiant was no longer in front line service.

[@simongee8928]

@@mikearmstrong8483 Also Douglas Bader was totally convinced by the .303 against the 20mm Hispano. But due to installation issues, the Hispano was unreliable at the time.

[@suburbiapheonix7960]

Boulton Paul had such a design ready to go using cannons. Rarely mentioned anywhere however was the kick back from the guns which knocked the aircraft about on firing and did give the pilots challenges when moved to fire sideways due to wind resistance and recoil. Two reasons why it never made it beyond a drawing board.

[@PeteCourtier]

@@mikearmstrong8483 all the American lend lease aircraft arrived in Britain fitted with .50 brownings. The infrastructure was there.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

@@PeteCourtier To my knowledge, the infrastructure was not there. Lend Lease planes were tailored to the customers. In the case of the British, the armament of aircraft was changed to match what the British were using as standard. Most planes would arrive without guns, but with modifications that allowed for installation of .303 guns after delivery. Those that arrived with .50s (still looking to see if any did at all) would have come with technical instructors to teach maintenance, and a steady supply of ammo was provided. I cannot identify any source indicating .50s were manufactured in Britain.

[@YARCHLRL]

Love your page. Clean, clear reviews and details... BRAVO

[@sandgroper4044]

A better combat record then i realised. Always liked them anyway. Thank you for the information. Subbed

[@Pokafalva]

264 combat claims were massive overclaiming. To get an accurate view of what happened on 29th May 1940, get hold of 'Dunkirk Air Combat Archive' by Simon Parry and Mark Postlethwaite, published by Red Kite.

[@esmenhamaire6398]

I've always wondered why, when the turret-fighter concept didn't pan out, they didnt remove the turrets and blank off the space for them, adjust the rear of the cockpit so that the pilot could see all around, and add some wing-mounted guns. They might've been able to add an extra fuel tank or even a little more armour for the pilot, with the weight saved from removing the turret and second crew member. It might well have made a reasonable fighter then (local defence in areas away from the Channel, perhaps?), and with development, I suspect might have become a very capable fighter, especially with thinner wings. When you look at the numbers for the thing - engine HP, mass, performance, etc, it looks to me that it might have -by the numbers - surpassed the Hurricane. Which of course doesn't mean it would have been practical to convert the Defiant whilst the country is fighting desperately for survival, when you can just crank out more of the already perfectly good Hurricane instead! But I've always had a soft soft for the Defiant, more for what it could have been if it didnt have that silly turret, than for what it actually was.

[@Straswa]

Great vid Rex! The Defiant is a very interesting design.

[@eduardodeandres3864]

Thanks It's very interesting. The rear turret was a good idea but the facts of the war changed and the plane was old enough... I have learned a lot today

[@jarkkomakela7751]

A very good video, interesting subject of a lesser known and unappreciated aeroplane. Well written and narrated. Subbed. Thanks man!

[@randomexcessmemories4452]

Fascinating! I've always wondered about this aircraft, and this explained it well!

[@JustDarrenJ]

Another outstanding video Rex! What an unusually beautiful airplane... the Royal Navy had a very similar turret fighter known as the Blackburn Roc... again, a decent fore-thought that did not meet the demands of how the air war actually progressed.

[@PalHBakka]

The decision to design anv build the Defiand meant that the RAF had 1000 less Hurricanes in service in 19239/40 than it could have had.

[@BearHilda]

The Blackburn Roc was another similarly armed British aircraft of the era. Basically a Skua with a turret.

[@badmutherfunster]

Just came across this channel, fantastic information, keep it up fella 👍👍👍

[@ivankrylov6270]

The problem was that it's a heavy turret on a light fighter instead of a light turret on a heavy fighter. The p-61 had a similar setup but was more than twice its size and was far more effective

[@hicknopunk]

I am of a similar mind.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

After seeing that guy climbing into the turret, I presume that being assigned as a gunner was practically a death sentence; I don't see how anyone could bail out of that. I would be curious to find data on how many Defiant gunners ever made it out of planes going down.

[@elennapointer701]

Author Alec Brew has a book about the Defiant that goes into all of this. It was hard to bail out of but the gunner's clothing helped - that bulky suit he wears incorporated a parachute into it, so there was no need to clip on a parachute and then jump, the way, say, Lancaster rear gunners had to in similar turrets.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

@@elennapointer701 👍

[@suburbiapheonix7960]

A few things of note here. Boulton Paul were aware of the shortcomings of the turret for bailing out of. Air gunners were assigned a special parachute rig which covered the back entirely in a flat pack arrangement. I believe the Battle of Britain museum has one on show. Also not well known is the beneath the gun turret was a kick out panel for emergency escape. The gunner actually sat in a sling type seat and procedure was to slip down out of the seat and kick out the panel. That was the theory anyway but if it was ever used is not on record. Getting out the same way as getting in would have been a slim chance.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

There were 9 designs submitted to fill Specification F.9/35 - 2 of which were flown (the Defiant and the Hotspur). There were also the F11/37 and the F18/40 Specifications both of which used cannons instead of machine guns, none of which got of the drawing board. Then there was the Misquito F.II, which flew and confirmed de Havilland right about the Mosdie not needing the turret and the ,kiss of performance it created.

[@tsegulin]

01:14 "... fire its turret up into [a bomber formation] ..." A similar concept was very successfully employed by the Luftwaffe Nachtjäger fighters in the form of upward firing Schrägemusik cannons, mostly on Bf-110s. It seems that the Defiant also had some success with this in night time operations. Thanks Rex

[@PIERRECLARY]

thanks. I knew this plane existed but didn't know much else and i was very curious to know more. Great channel!

[@nataliejaneprior2596]

My grandfather was a production engineer at Boulton Paul in Wolverhampton. Later in the war he managed a shadow factory making aircraft parts near Gloucester.

[@rmstitanic8163]

Really nice video. You have given a great account of the Defiant. An aircraft I have always loved. It looks great with a mounted turret! And although it lacked the speed and became out classed . As you said in your film, it did have it's days! I have often wondered why they never mounted guns in it's wings to give it forward firing capability as well as the turret. Of course this would have given it extra weight and slowed it down even more. But maybe giving it an extra edge! And as the Merlin engine became more powerful, an upgrade on the poor old Defiant, may have given it that extra speed it needed.

[@stupitdog9686]

But the "Brass" in the RAF always knew best - never paid any atention to their pilots...ordered what they wanted....or maybe got backhanders to buy...and so it goes on to today!

[@rmstitanic8163]

@@stupitdog9686 Very true. A lot of things never make sense. (In the past and in modern times).

[@markbaigent8373]

To be fair the loss of nine Defiants was while they were gaining height, they were then bounced by 24 109s. So a tad out numbered. At last someone mentioned the Radar jamming role. They were used for jamming German coastal radar on D day, probably saving many lives.

[@johnanita9251]

I remember this plane a (rare?) Model kit. As I was so young I went for spitfire's and such. Wonder if it was Airfix? A very illuminating episode sir!!

[@vulture3874]

I think it was Airfix, I had one too.

[@proofbox]

The downside of the Defiant was not only its lack or forward firing guns . Which made it ineffective in combat . A more deficient effect was its need for the Merlin engine that were needed in the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters . This took 1200 fighters out of the picture . This was equal to the German Luftwaffe scoring at least 600 victory's due to the RAF shortage of fighters with no positive results . As the Defiant shot down few enemy planes a additional 1200 Spitfires and Hurricanes which were far more effective would have made a bigger impact

[@groover5524]

Always liked this aircraft . I made an airfix model of one when I was kid . It just looked right !

[@PIERRECLARY]

i never saw an airfix kit of thisone.... then i'm 56...

[@raypurchase801]

The powered gun turret was a revolutionary development in the late 1930s. The UK led the world in its development. The powered turret became necessary because, at higher monoplane speeds, it became impossible for a gunner to swing a gun towards the enemy.

[@IntrospectorGeneral]

Boulton Paul used a turret design that they licenced from the French SAMM company. The French had been going through their own version of turret fighters which they referred to as Multiplace de Combat aircraft which eventually emerged as those ungainly 1930's bomber types like the Amiot 140.

[@raypurchase801]

@@IntrospectorGeneral You are correct.

[@richardrichard5409]

Although waist gunners with huge 50 calibre Brownings managed in B17, B24 etc and UK with. 303 Sunderlands, Wellingtons, Halifax etc with beam guns

[@Bill23799]

Best Computer generated voice on KZbin. Almost sounds like a real human being.

[@willfriar8054]

What a missed opportunity. 4 machine guns with all that ammo can you imagine it circling around here forward positions knowing that it could be just like at a C-130 today. Fly around the front all day long anytime you see enemy you can shoot them up and you don't even have to dive. They missed out on an opportunity of close air support

[@samuelgordino]

Very easy target to enemy fighters.

[@geoffreypiltz271]

@@samuelgordino Not with the correct tactics of planes providing cover for each other and maintaining a low altitude.

[@willfriar8054]

@@samuelgordino during most of the wars especially WWII we had mostly air superiority by the time D-Day came around. Any old plane that could fly along a convoy Road and lay down that much Firepower would have been useful. Much better than having to aim the plane at Target. The Germans had upward firing 20 mm cannons they used underneath bombers.

[@imgvillasrc1608]

Now I'm imagining an A-10 Thunderbolt with dual miniguns on a rear dorsal turret.

[@mth469]

4:30 "Groups of BF-109s would dive down on these supposed Hawker Hurricanes only to have the nasty shock of staring down the barrel of 4 machine guns" 🙂

[@bryonrbn]

Along with the Whirlwind, this was one one of my odd-bird favourites - others being the PZL P11C and the Fokker D. XXI. Talking of the Whirlybird, have you done a video about it? Think you'd do a great job of it!

[@loveofmangos001]

I recently picked up Ospreys "Fokker D.XXI Aces of WW2" book from Amazon. A good read and alot of things I didn't know. You might enjoy it as well.

[@marcconyard5024]

My reading on the type revealed that the last batch of production Mk1s and some at Sqn level were fitted with not Mk4 but AI MkVI radar. It’s worth noting that Defiant crews soon developed a very successful night tactic of firing upwards from slightly behind enemy aircraft and scores quickly grew, a tactic that the Luftwaffe used to devastating effect with their Schräge Musik equipped night fighters.

[@sean_d]

There is a WW2-era Ronald Reagan movie called International Squadron with a poster showing a flight of Boulton Paul Defiants. It's about an American in the RAF (They wanted to use Eagle Squadron but another studio had copyright on the term). But there are none in the film, just a warning in case you come across it. They didnt even use Spitfires or Hurricanes, just US trainers, apart from some stock footage.

[@Len_J_]

Great video. I read the book. I never knew. It was mindblowing to read. Thanks for this!

[@foximacentauri7891]

Really fascinating concept, I’m sure it would’ve had more success under slightly different circumstances. And with some design changes, the turret could’ve fulfilled the roles of main armament(forward facing, pilot controlled), self defense and „Schräge Musik“.

[@AbelMcTalisker]

The turret could rotate forwards and the guns locked at a 45-degree angle upwards. Oblique attacks from below were a feature of the design concept.

[@Stroopwaffe1]

Nice video, you've won a subscriber Big Yin, I'm glad the plane found a role, its strange, last night I dowloaded a game and flew this plane and used said turret.

[@motobrikerestorations1354]

Very interesting and very well narrated; well done

[@1bert719]

The Defiant suffered due to an outdated think tank concept of a bomber destroyer that survived upto the war. As an aircraft it was exactly as good as the concept allowed but didn't take into account the enemy and there own modern ideas who rather inconveniently shot them down. They might possibly have prospered if deployed to Scotland where Norwegian based luftwaffe bombers would lack a fighter escort. Unfortunately they had already been found wanting by then.

[@Flight72]

Good, good, good!!! Thank you!! Watching the picture of the rear pilot eject himself come to my mind, how would be so dificult to bail out from the torret, you can see how it it to get in in the begining of the video! Man.... much respect for these young guys!! Do you know anything about flying formations, like tactics, why was done one way or another?! If you do, can you share with us sooner or later?! I follow some other YT channel of the same sort, and your is definitly one of the best! Thanks again for you fantastic job!

[@Pokafalva]

At 4:46 he claims that on 29th May 1940 264 Squadron shot down 19 Stukas, 9 Bf 110s, and Ju 88. The claims for 29th May 1940 actually totalled 39 across two combat missions. This was overclaiming on a massive scale. The Luftwaffe did not lose 39 aircraft IN TOTAL on that day. No Bf 110s were lost, and the claims for Stukas was ridiculous. To get an accurate view of what happened on this day, get hold of 'Dunkirk Air Combat Archive' by Simon Parry and Mark Postlethwaite, published by Red Kite. 264 can be creditedwith 4-5 victories at best. 264 Squadron in the afternoon action claimed 7 Bf 109s destroyed and 1 damaged; 2 Ju 87s destroyed, and 9 Bf 110s destroyed and the shared destruction of one other. (No Bf 110s were lost, no Ju 87s were lost, and the three Bf 109s shot down are ascribed to combat with 610 Squadron by Peter Cornwell's loss/damage tables - two other Bf 109s were damaged). For the evening action, 17 Ju 87s were claimed, with another 2 Ju 87s claimed as shared. 1 Bf 110 and 1 shared Ju 88 were also claimed. 2 Ju 87s were actually shot down, another landed damaged, and another overturned on landing. 2 Ju 88s were shot down and another damaged in combat. A fourth was damaged by AA fire. No Bf 110s were lost. Unfortunately, what was claimed by 264 on 29th May does not remotely match up to the actual losses of the Luftwaffe.

[@lingnoi2816]

Is typically english and american to claim destroyed more then 10 times the esistent hardware of the enemy. In Serbia invasion war, Nato claim more then 800 tanks destroyed, later discovered only 4 wreks.

[@Pokafalva]

@@lingnoi2816 Overclaiming occurred on ALL sides during WW2...

[@lingnoi2816]

@@Pokafalva sure, but angloamericans where obsessed in the propaganga war

[@Pokafalva]

@@lingnoi2816 I do think you are showing a a bias against the British and the Americans. Did not the Germans indulge in a propaganda war? Did not the Russians indulge in a propaganda war? I do think you should approach the matter of overclaiming in an even-handed way, not in an obvious biased way.

[@lingnoi2816]

@@Pokafalva Is true that all try to enlarge victories and reduce losses but, i say again, angloamericans are over the top. In Vietnam invasion war, at 5 pm every day there were the press conference where US Officials described the great deal vietcong killed. One day a CIA operative say: "If we add all the numbers of enenies killed, this is more then the whole North Vietnam inhabitants, so, what are you waiting? Go there and conquer, is empty."

[@robertsullivan4773]

Just when I thought I'd seen it all. Thanks great video.

[@Brian-om2hh]

The Defiant's biggest operational failing was the fact that the brain flying the plane, wasn't the same as the one manning the turret. That turret assembly weighed 3/4 of a ton too, so that can't have helped matters...

[@evancrum6811]

They should have front guns even a couple on the nose because I think it would have been a deadly interceptor if that was the case.

[@hicknopunk]

@@evancrum6811 maybe ditch the turret too 😅

[@asnrobert]

At least the Defiant made a half-way decent night fighter, unlike the Blackburn Roc (the Royal Navy's turret fighter), which was slower than the bombers it was supposed to intercept.

[@danepatterson8107]

Great production!

[@TobinTwinsHockey]

I never knew about this aircraft. Doesn’t sound unlucky at all, it sounds like it and it’s crews served effectively.

[@Pokafalva]

It got absolutely battered in the Battle of Britain and was withdrawn...

[@geoffreypiltz271]

I remember reading an RAF pilot's assessment of the Defiant. The stable handling would have made it an ideal ground attack aircraft with the turret protecting the tail, a British Sturmovik IL-2.

[@suburbiapheonix7960]

I read one of the original documents held in archive by BPA ltd. The testing pilot said the aircraft handled exactly like a Hurricane in all respects of handling but the pilot had to be aware of the shifts in the aircraft when the turret was moved. Good training between pilot and gunner resulted in a rear firing and stable gun platform.

[@victorhartman1904]

Except it was not designed to carry even more mass that would required for installation of additional armament.

[@geoffreypiltz271]

@@victorhartman1904 That was the pilot's assessment - that it would have made a good ground attack aircraft. You could have removed the turret and fitted twin Vicker's K guns on a Scarfe ring for rearward defence. That would have removed a lot of weight.

[@AbelMcTalisker]

@@geoffreypiltz271 What you are describing is essentially the Hawker Henley. But that`s another story.

[@oriontaylor]

The turretless Defiant is easily one of the most beautiful single-engine fighters ever built.

[@hauntedhouse7827]

It's basic problem is, it was designed for a type of warfare that people simply don't practice. There is no way that heavy turret could keep up with the the type of maneuver warfare that fighter pilots actually use.

[@noahway13]

I'm more than just a casual fan of WWII and I'm surprised I had never heard of this.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@johnladuke6475]

Ah yes, my favourite part of interwar military aircraft development stories... "And then somebody decided to order 50 or 100 as a test batch before the prototype had even completed a proper test flight. Curiously these planes took much longer than expected to deliver, did not perform as well as promised and were quickly deemed obsolete after combat losses to more advanced opponents."

[@WyldestZakk1980]

I remember: As a Child i saw an Airfix kit of this plane and thought "Wow! What a great aircraft! 4 MG facing backwards. I guess none of this was ever shot down!" :D

[@chrisabraham8793]

So not a failure after all. I wondered what the performance of the aircraft would have been without the turret, with forward firing guns just like the Hurricane or Spitfire. Looked a very streamlined aircraft. I did notice the gunner trying to shut the rear doors with effort getting into the aircraft, i wondered if this would have hindered him getting out in an emergency, especially if wounded or if the turret was damaged, that would be a unlucky gunner.

[@MURDOCK1500]

That's what I thought too. It was like trying to close the sliding doors on a shower with wet hands. Plus he couldn't bail out if he was facing to the rear

[@Pokafalva]

'...So not a failure after all...' Sorry, but it was. Its reputation was built around its 'claims' of 39 Luftwaffe aircraft shot down on 29th May 1940, when the 'actuals' was between 3-4. The Air Ministry continued to use two squadrons in the Battle of Britain (141 & 264) and they were withdrawn after being slaughtered in the skies of southern England. And that's a fact.

[@timmy3822]

I always thought this aircraft was an unmitigated disaster, mostly from that one incident where the entire flight was easily dispatched by 109’s. It’s good to know it succeeded at least initially in its anti-bomber role.

[@somerandomguy___]

Every plane with a turret is a turret fighter if you're dedicated enough (apologies if i already commented this, i think yt deleted my comment)

[@Luddite-vd2ts]

I seem to remember, some years ago, reading that somebody was building a replica BP Defiant. I think the story was about moving it to the RAF museum, possibly the Cosford branch. Does anybody have any further information about this? It would be interesting to see it.

[@1bert719]

The real Defiant survivor is at Cosford whilst the full size replica resides at Hawkinge in Kent where it is depicted in its original day colours. Whilst a small museum it has an excellent display including replicas from the Battle of Britain movie and a spanish Heinkel 111 used in the movie.

[@ripvanwinkle2002]

looking sat it.. it seems they could have made it so the four guns could swivel over and down along the canopy to fire forward with a cut out so the pilot could fire the guns.. this with a pilot control of the turret device, could have also made it stay in the fight if the gunner was knocked out. just hit the button and the thing swivels forward and now you have 4 forward firing guns syncro with the prop would be the biggest hurdle

[@matydrum]

My very 1st plastic model I ever made was a 1/72 Paul defiant, 25 years later I still build models and love war birds so that one will keep a special spot in my book!😁

[@infoscholar5221]

Interesting. I'm a WWII buff, and was unaware of this aircraft.

[@peterblood50]

Excellent as usual.

[@karlbrundage7472]

Eagerly awaiting your overview of the Brewster F3A Buffalo....................

[@bethelhanley5439]

The book 'Britain's Wonderful Fighting Forces' (Odhams Press) which, while undated, is clearly from 1940, which contains, in what must be a piece of deliberate disinformation, the claim that the Defiant "also has forward-firing machine guns in the leading edges of its wings" (P. 21). This indicates of course the growing consciousness that the lack of a forward-firing armament was a serious problem in the aircraft.

[@AyebeeMk2]

It's still hard to find out the external modifications to the aircraft flown on electronic warfare missions. Good of you to remembers it's other uses. As a 'bomber destroyer' it was in the same class as the ME110, this also proved unable to fight against single seat fighters, proving the whole concept was a red herring.....

[@josephradley3160]

I did hear somewhere that the RN got their hands on a few of the turrets from the defiants and bolted them to the top of the turrets on some of their older destroyers. Great for AA work and makes a mess of a German U-boat crew trying to man their deck gun... not sure how true it was as I can't find reference material. Would have loved to see it though.

[@pads-zr9ln]

We're they at least upgunned to 50 cals, can't imagine 303s doing much damage until you could see the attackers eyes

[@captainswoop8722]

No. Most of the turret is inside the aircraft, it reaches nearly the full depth of the fuselage. There is no wat to incorporate that in to a destroyer gun turret, it is full of gun. It would work if you removed the gun from the turret but then you would have to rig up a hydraulic supply to power it. See link for the various turrets used by British destroyers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_4.7-inch_Mk_IX_%26_XII_naval_gun

[@Demun1649]

If Boulton Paul had placed even just four machine guns forward facing in the wings. I think this aircraft is a beauutiful concept, let down by a designer who wasn't a fighter pilot.

[@robbybee70]

this was very interesting I was unfamiliar with the Defiant but I like the concept

[@Weesel71]

Sounds like a concept held over from WW1's SE.5.

[@peebeedee6757]

There were proposals to mount a similar turret on the DH Mosquito and there is a photo of a prototype. Thank goodness it never progressed.

[@timgosling6189]

Good summary. FYI the prototype was registered K8310, as per your images, not KA310. Double-letter RAF numbering hadn't been adopted yet. The placing of an order before it had flown wasn't just down to favouring the design; it was essential to get production rolling of at least something in what was already seen as a swiftly deteriorating situation with Germany. Witness also the contemporaneous decision by Tommy Sopwith to begin Hurricane mass production without an Air Ministry contract. Thank you for mentioning the ECM role. I'm, an ex-RAF EW guy and Old Crow and I knew the Defiant had been fitted with an AI radar in the nighfighter role (those are the funny antennae on the wings) but I'd not come across the ECM stuff to counter Freya before. Interesting.

[@exidy-yt]

Excellent article on an aircraft I knew almost nothing about. A shame this plane wasn't given a simple front-mounted cannon or machine gun, I am sure it would have improved it's longivity in a big way.

[@randomnickify]

You have to have speed and manoeuvrability to hit anything with mounted gun, this one had neither.

[@FFND16N]

I've always dreamed of a Griffon-powered Defiant...that may have kicked some serious arse....

[@mycroft1905]

Very interesting. TFP. Small matter... the Boulton Paul 'Type A' turret was not a ball turret.

[@albertperrin694]

This was very interesting. It would have been very scary to be attacked by German fighters and the losses you showed were awful. As others mentioned I was wondering why there was no front wing gunnery while I watched this. This is not related but my father was on Halifax bombers and said that they were so stripped to carry more bombs that they really couldn’t defend themselves. Like the Halifax, you mentioned that the Defiant had 0.303 bullets, while we have a photo of a German 50 cal hole right in front of my fathers flight engineer seat with him in it. These people were so brave. Thx a lot for this.

[@GarysActionManChannel1970]

As a purely night fighter with foreward armament, it would have been a huge success - its main success in this role pointed to this. Imagine the radar equipped version despensing with rear turret guns and equipped instead with two forward facing 20mm Hispano cannons and four Browning macine guns on each wing it would have been formidable. Scrapping the turret would also have increased speed and range.

[@billballbuster7186]

The similar FAA Roc fighter was actually slower than the Skua bomber it was developed from. There was some speculation that it could have been a great fighter had the turret equipment been removed and guns fitted in the wings. It would certainly have outperformed the Hurricane and come close to the Spitfire in speed. But developement was never started.

[@ScottTo1967]

You’ve got to remember, the defiant was built to a specification, it met and mostly exceeded those specifications. So the aircraft wasn’t flawed it was the specification

[@Stun-69]

There is one of these in Hendon air museum, in black, beautiful aircraft.

[@Tony-ju6yh]

Great and interesting video

[@kevanhubbard9673]

Not quite in the Brewster Buffalo or Fairy Battle catagory but close?

[@paulflak2823]

As always great research however, you did miss out on the less then pleasurable experience of the pilot being given a front row seat to the shower of sparks and shrapnel from the 303 rounds hitting the propeller when the fighter was engaging on coming fighters. The same problem if found with the Blackburn Skua, when given a rear turret.

[@paulellis6022]

Not quite sure why there is a photo of a row of hurricanes shown at 5:45 but an informative video nonetheless.

[@mikejozefowicz888]

This has to be the best rear gunner experience ever!

[@geoben1810]

If you have an airframe with good aerodynamics a good power plant and a pilot who can exploit those attributes and plays to those strengths what you would have is a formidable aircraft.

[@ronaldweir712]

I do believe it was successfully deployed in a night fighter role where it's rear torrent could fire upwards into the belly of German bombers.

[@flufflepuffle6229]

Yes, if you watched the video that was indeed mentioned

[@ronaldweir712]

@@flufflepuffle6229 yes I heard after I had posted my comment

[@carlmcdaniels1675]

If I understand correctly, the "Shrage Muzik" armament used by the Germans was "fixed" vs the Defiant's use of a 4 gun turret. I often wonder why the British did not use a quad .50 armament for the turret. I suspect it was due to weight and ammunition storage. It should also be noted that British quad turrets installed in other aircraft like the Lancaster also had .30 cal MG's not .50's.

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

A pair of .50 calibers in the wings and a trip to the wind tunnel …. But then you got to beat the mosquito to make the team… thanks for this episode.. I never new about its ECM role …