In Defense of the 'Worst Aircraft of World War 2' - Boulton Paul Defiant

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Hallo all my aces. If you enjoyed this video, consider sharing it with friends, social media and ze internet, ja!

[@angeloc1340]

Yep this plane is junk they should have put some guns on it then it would have been a ok plane

[@Enthropical_Thunder]

Could you make a similar video about the He 162?

[@angeloc1340]

Or the Horton 229

[@NaniTheLurker]

Can you possibly do a video talking about the P-61 Black Widow?

[@MrJohnycomelately21]

Bismarck - Military Aviation History Strap a Bomb to the thing and use it as a dive bomber!

[@scholagladiatoria]

Thumbs up for CONTEXT!

[@Biffo1262]

It was a damned good night fighter in the right hands.

[@Peoples_Republic_of_Devonshire]

That's because it was a bomber destroyer being used as a bomber destroyer instead of being misused as a fighter

[@deralbtraumritter8573]

Some people thought the STG-44 was bad, as it would jam up. Then Russia copies it and makes it the most popular Assault Rifle. Then again ppl said that about the Tiger. Tho yes it'd break down but most tanks couldn't compete with her. T-34. Yet with as sloppy and loose gears. Yet when winter hit, moat German tanks froze BC of how well made they were versus the T-34 that ran batter BC of it. M4 Sherman family. Heavily modified by IDF, Egypt, even Syria (as well as WW2 German tanks, M60). Became the Pershing, and others. The basis of which paved way to the M60 and so on.

[@Paciat]

@@deralbtraumritter8573 AK-47 isnt a StG-43 copy. And they didnt jam, but German guns did.

[@khankrum1]

Problem was the pilots wamted to be fighter aces and flew the plane as such preventing the aircraft doing what it was built for!

[@miskatonic6210]

"Good night fighter" just means it's a horrible fighter.

[@smigoltime]

I heard that the F2A Buffalo was also known as the worst plane, although it succeded amazingly in finnish air forces

[@RemoveBolshevik]

^

[@NvrchFotia]

Smigol Time! It wasn’t bad the navy just didn’t trust brewster.

[@smigoltime]

Buffalos were butchered during the war in Singapore, they stood no chance against early Ki-43s

[@NvrchFotia]

Relatively speaking I mean. Comparable to the F4F.

[@smigoltime]

Ye F4F wasnt a succesful plane either... Until the mighty F6F appeared :)

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

Something not Italian deemed "the worst of WW2" ? This truly is a progressive society.

[@checkpointcharlie1788]

How is that possible?

[@davide498]

CheckpointCharlie because the Macchi C. 205 could kick a p-51 mustang's ass everytime

[@chillywang3659]

Fuzzy Dunlop french planes are worse

[@DLBBALL]

das auto Only because they had no time. Their aircraft were just as good, if not better, than their German counterparts (specifically, the D.520) in 1940. After the invasion of France, they couldn't work on new aircraft.

[@jharekcarnelian]

And the Italians had reasonably good hardware in many areas as I recall, every major nation involved in WW2 had some outstanding equipment, some good equipment, some indifferent stuff and some downright dire stuff.

[@NotSoMelancholy]

Man, I like the idea of a turreted bomber hunter. Makes me imagine just Air to Air gunships

[@billygraham3287]

A Mosquito with reverse schlage music (downward firing) always seemed to me like a good idea. strafe right over the top 300 meters up and quad 20's (with a 303 firing tracers first to find the target) would have been aces from my perspective.

[@worldcomicsreview354]

It was the same idea as WW1 - 1920's two-seat fighters, just updated

[@starscreammtfan]

"It was a solution in search of a problem" -Cobey Wobey.

[@davidbriggs264]

To a certain extent I would agree. BUT, give the Germans this aircraft in 1944-45 and with forward firing guns in addition to the turret, and it would be an aircraft that was deadly to the American daylight bombers. I personally think that the Boulton Paul Defiant had three major flaws that ended its front line service; first, it was underpowered. Second it did not have forward firing guns, other than those found in the turret. And third, the British were moving away from the Defensive in the Air towards the Offensive in the Air; and the Defiant just didn't meet the needs of the RAF at that time.

[@harryplummer6356]

Not really. What seems to be forgotten by many critics is the philosophy that the 'bomber would always get through'. Aircraft design changed very rapidly in the 1930's the bomber at one time would be faster than some fighters and then the fighters would more than catch up and so on. Conceptually, it made sense but practically it was outclassed as fighters became much faster. The title is misleading as it wasn't designed as a fighter per se.

[@scootergrant8683]

That's quite a good sentence for other situations too. Consider it stolen. 😀

[@johncartwright8154]

Great video! Again... One tragic aspect of the Defiant worth mentioning is the almost impossible task of baling out for the poor gunner. During the BoB, despite the huge losses and realisation that the aircraft was unsuitable for day interception in the face of fighters, the crews 'carried on'. Brave young men on a level with the crews of Battles and Swordfish to my mind.

[@teslashark]

They just don't realize they can make the Schragemusik...

[@marcconyard5024]

Firstly, and not wishing to be pedantic the name is "Boulton Paul". I have been a devoted fan of the P.82 Defiant for many years, not just because it has always had a raw deal from military aviation historians but mainly due to this aircraft being much much better than most casual observers would usually think. The Engineers at Boulton Paul used some very advanced techniques aimed at providing the design with the cleanest air smoothing ever used on any aircraft to date where flush riveting was used throughout that resulted in an aircraft that flew very sweetly. Defiants were also built in sections which streamlined assembly, another feature that was in its infancy and one also used by Handley Page when building the HP 52 Hampden. There is no question that with the weight penalty of the turret, all associated equipment and of course the second crewman the Defiant's performance would be anywhere near that of contemporary single seat interceptors. However, when placed in the front line during the Battle of Britain the shortcomings of the design were soon exposed and I believe the crews that bravely took this aircraft into battle were largely betrayed by RAF Fighter Command as front line combat against single seat fighters was never in the minds of the Designers. 264 Squadron did however devise tactics to deal with enemy fighter attacks which I won't bother repeating here, suffice it to say 264 did prove that they could at least give as good as they got in battle. The one salient truth about the Defiant is that it was the best night fighter available during the winter of 1940/41; faster than the Blenheim and much more effective than single seaters, it's tally of successful interceptions was never exceeded by either the Beaufighter or the Mosquito,14 squadrons eventually operated the type. The turret system used was actually a licensed built adaptation of the French SAMM 7B that Boulton Paul acquired licensing rights to during 1933 This turret was model Type A MkIID, the 'D' denoting Defiant. These turrets were also used on RAF bombers and even on British Liberators (B24s). The last few Mk1 and all Mk2 Defiants were equipped with radar to make them more effective in the night fighter role. It's worth pointing out that it was most likely the RAF and its Defiant crews that first devised the tactic of firing up into enemy bombers from bellow, a tactic used by the Luftwaffe to great effect with "jazz music" later on in the conflict. The highest scoring air gunner of any of the combatants was Sergeant Frederick J Barker, Defiant air gunner with 264 Squadron who finished the war with 13 confirmed victories. I was amused to hear your comments regarding flight/tactical trials. You failed to mention the tactical trial where Sqn Leader Phillip Hunter flew a Defiant whilst Robert Stanford Tuck, from 65 Sqn flew a Mk1 Spitfire in mock combat: Tuck attacked how and when he liked whilst Hunter began flying in a series of tight turns to give his gunner the best field of fire. Tuck found that no matter how he tried he could not bring his guns to bear on the Defiant without being hit- Tuck expended none of his ciné gun ammunition but the Defiant gunner expended all of his ammunition. At one point, Hunter even got on Tuck's tail. Hunter found that a well flown Defiant, turning tightly and keeping airspeed at or above 160mph always gave his gunner good firing opportunities. Tuck's Spitfire was hit multiple times as he turned, trying to avoid the Defiant's guns being hit across the arc as he turned.

[@ollimoore]

Marc Conyard really interesting, thanks

[@MuttleyMutter]

Marc, the Schräge Musik principal had been invented during WW1 by British pilots whose aircraft were fitted with the Foster mounting for a Lewis gun firing over the top center-section, clear of the propellor arc. The mounting had a curved quadrant to allow the gun to be swung down in front of the pilot so he could change the ammunition drum. Several pilots. Albert Ball amongst them, swung the gun down to a 45° position where (for that combination of gun and airspeed) the forward speed cancelled out the bullet drop leading to a zero-deflection shooting position. Such mounts were fitted to Nieuport 17, Nieuport 24 and SE5A aircraft in British service. Several other British designs were proposed between the wars, some mounting an upward-firing 37mm cannon, others with oblique 20mm cannon in the dorsal fuselage, almost exactly the same as the Luftwaffe Schräge Musik fitting. None were proceeded with, and only the Defiant came to be manufactured out of all the proposed bomber interceptor designs. Schräge Musik was a derogatory term applied to Jazz in 1930's Germany, generally being translated as "strange music" or "shaky music". However, the literal meaning of Schräge is "oblique" or "sloping", hence it's application to the oblique mounting as a kind of double-entendre.

[@kieronbevan7489]

Marc Conyard still after all that a bloody nightmare for the gunner to get out if it went down hill

[@AnIllinoisan]

Kieron Bevan I’ve read “The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner”. I sure do agree.

[@marcconyard5024]

Mark Kent, the defensive tactic you refer to was known in the trade as a "Lufbery" which as you correctly stated was essentially a descending spiral. 264 Squadron used this tactic very effectively, particularly against a huge gaggle of 109s that attacked them early in the Battle of Britain. The Luftwaffe Bf110 units also used this tactic with mixed results as the tear gunner was only equipped with a single flex mounted MG15. Two Merlin powered Mk2 Beaufighters were fitted for trials with the Type A turret in an effort to "cash in" on the Defiant's success with a greater turn of speed. The cannons in the nose were deleted and two or four .303s were retained in the wings. The two aircraft were designated as MkVs. As you stated performance was seriously effected by the turret which on the Mk2 Beaufighter was already poor as the Merlins created a nasty swing on take off and directional problems in flight gave the Mk2 a bad reputation. When the more powerful Bristol Hercules was fitted the Beau was a great success. The Mosquito was fitted in prototype form with a wooden mock up of the BP turret but never flew with one fitted. It is a pity that aero engine design wasn't more advanced during the Defiant's introduction to service as a Merlin 61 of 1300-1500 HP would have largely negated the extra weight of the second crew member and the turret.

[@EricIrl]

The main assumption in the Defiant's design was that German bombers would be operating over the UK without escort. This was assumed partly because of "the bomber will always get through" doctrine and also it was assumed the German bombers would be operating out of German bases - well beyond the range of escort fighters. In reality, the German bombers were mainly operating from French airfields, which allowed them to be escorted. The problem was that they couldn't survive when the enemy had high performance escort fighters in the same piece of sky.

[@jamesricker3997]

The Me-110 had the same problem

[@carbon1255]

You mean the BF 110. There was no ME 110. "it was built before Bayerische Flugzeugwerke became Messerschmitt AG in July 1938, the Bf 110 was never officially given the designation Me 110." maybe you know otherwise?

[@Jupiter__001_]

Carbon 12 The Bf 109 was also known as the Me 109 in official German documentation such as manuals. The two terms were interchangeable, even within the same document. I don't see why that couldn't be true of the 110.

[@growlanser5600]

Yeah and the German bombers would fire back at them anyways.

[@pauladams4886]

They didn’t have the range to escort the bombers to London

[@NickRatnieks]

The best thing about the Defiant was that the Airfix model was black plastic, so you did not have to paint anything when you had assembled it. If you were really keen, you could paint the exhaust red. No mucking about with Humbrol or Airfix paint or cleaning dirty paintbrushes- an absolute winner. I suppose if you were demented, you could have painted it for its original daylight role.

[@boris8966]

I want this Thing in War Thunder :)

[@jamesmason4062]

Boris plz no, considering anything in that game with a turret is a massive pain in the ass, needless to say we esp dont need another Troll plane xD

[@sirboomsalot4902]

We need it. I love gunshiping bombers in WT

[@dave2885]

New po2 on steroids

[@R4V3-0N]

I'm all for it.

[@jamesricker3997]

Bonus triple all earnings to entice people to fly it often and a massive bonus if you actually survive a mission.

[@EnterpriseXI]

"She may have flaws, but she's got teeth." Benjamin Sisko.

[@bigemugamer]

I don't think Stug 3 117 got the reference LOL XD btw Just introduced my gf to that series. surprisingly, to her, she really likes it!! =D

[@michaelharris679]

Just teeth hanging off their ass

[@joaogomes9405]

Yeah it's a shame they forgot to put the teeth in the front of the plane like all other good plane designs. Turreted fighters don't work.

[@longlivetherailways1571]

I thought I was the only one thinking about Deep Space Nine! :)

[@taggartlawfirm]

A well reasoned look at a often derided aircraft. Thank you for the insight, it is easy when looking back with history behind you to be critical, but I had no idea the Defiant had any significant operational success. I wonder if the same can be said for RN Roc.

[@j.w.greenbaum]

The Roc destroyed...wait for it...one aircraft, per FAA and Luftwaffe records. Unlike the Defiant, which actually was pretty good at shooting bombers down in the evening, the Roc was just horrid. The irony was that it was actually competing against the Boulton Paul Sea Defiant, or P.85 Defiant. Boulton Paul pitched THIS version of the Defiant with two forward-firing .303 Brownings in the wings in addition to the turret. It had an estimated top speed of between 50 and 70 mph higher than the Roc, too. BUT, because Boulton Paul was unsure whether to fit the design with a Merlin engine or a Bristol Hercules, while Blackburn had a working prototype, what was arguably a much better version of the Defiant wound up remaining on the drawing board. As if to add insult to injury, Boulton Paul was assigned by the Air Ministry to actually produce the Roc, not Blackburn, which was determined to be working on too many projects.

[@barryslemmings31]

As a day fighter it was misguided; as a stop-gap night fighter it was very useful while its final role as a target tug on gunnery ranges was doubly valuable.

[@neilwilson5785]

I admit that I felt a wave of joy when I saw this one! Fantastic video. Thanks Bismark. The Defiant's night tactics were correct, but if you see a Beaufighter in real life (RAF Museum Hendon, for example), you will see what a difference those cannons make. It's an absolute beast. Half a second being fired at by that would do for a JU-88 or HE-111. .303 Brownings, not so much.

[@davebrown3117]

Yes you're are correct, the Beaufighters and Mosquitos had 4 x 20mm auto cannon and 4 x .303 machine guns mounted in the nose of the aircraft in later models, devastating fire power.

[@anitadolan6417]

@@davebrown3117 Beaufighter had the 4x 20mm mounted in the forward fuselage, just under the nose, as did the Mosquito. The Beau had 6 x .303, 4 in the starboard wing, and 2 in the port.

[@MyBlueZed]

Hey there Bismarck. At 1:55 you refer to the turret being designated as the “M K 2 D”. The MK actually stands for ‘Mark’ and is similar to ‘version’. The Mark 2 is an improvement to the Mark 1 etc. Marks can be further refined by Mods (modification). In the Navy we joked that we saw it with the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball. 😊

[@georgehh2574]

It also stands for Milton Keynes

[@Rainhill1829]

Would be fascinating to see it's later history if it got an uprated Merlin and a set of Hispano's in the wings.

[@RogbodgeVideo]

Check out WS Clave's gallery on Deviantart - at least one of his Fantasy Airforce images is a Super Defiant.

[@Rainhill1829]

Cool, will do.

[@colinjohnston8519]

A bit pointless since it's bigger than the spitfire due to the turret that didn't work..

[@TheMentalblockrock]

Forget Hispano's, eight 303's is what it needed!

[@starrynights467]

*the afro lancaster*

[@FiredUpAviation]

Glad to see someone else tackling the unfair characterisation of this aircraft. We recently tackled this in our own documentary. Speaking with those who knew the crews, and those that worked at Boulton-Paul, a very different, untold story emerges.

[@nutcrackit7396]

I love always seeing the subtle references between my favorite historical and military channels such as this one, MHV, lindybeige, TGW, Binkov's battlegrounds, sometimes extra history.

[@willrogers3793]

The boulton paul defiant has long been one of those aircraft that Iwas fond of even though I knew it was no Spitfire. I just remember the first time I saw a picture of one and thinking, “A quad turret? On a FIGHTER?! COOL!!” Even after I knew the reasons for its bad reputation, I still felt sorry for the plane. I’m sure space and weight would have been a problem, but I feel that if the RAF had found some way to add a forward-facing gun (maybe a 20mm Hispano-Suiza motorcannon, or a pair of them in gun pods) the Defiant might have left a better impression.

[@anttitheinternetguy3213]

i remember this plane from that ps3 game blazing angels. it was unstoppable in that game because of its gunner whose mg seemed to be a 37mm cannon and he shot bees flying 200km/h 4miles away. and thats why i hate this plane

[@CheshireTomcat68]

Don't hate it because of a computer game. This was part of the learning curve that won us the war and the pilots/gunners shouldn't be forgotten

[@anttitheinternetguy3213]

haha yeah i know, i dont mix real life and video games, but dang it was annoying in that game 😂😂

[@Corey_Brandt]

Antti Ratinen if I remember correctly It was one of the only, if not the only, aircraft that had a good tail gunner.

[@anttitheinternetguy3213]

Corey Brandt i dont rightly remember, buut i remember that Bf-110Cs tailgunner was shooting like marshmellows compared to that thing

[@willrogers3793]

It’s not just that 1 ps3 game that had a sucky rear-gunner on the bf-110. It’s at least as bad in War Thunder. If you keep flying the plane and let the AI handle it, nothing, because War Thunder’s AI gunners are horrible. And if you try to use it yourself, it has a ridiculously narrow arc of fire, your own tails are constantly in the way, and it’s just a single 7.92mm MG.

[@TLTeo]

As unsuccesfull as the Defiant was, I don't think it can out-terrible the Italian Breda Ba.88. Some production models couldn't even take off, nevermind actually carry out their missions succesfully.

[@ollimoore]

Matteo agreed, there are many aircraft worse than the Defiant. The Defiant wasn't completely useless, it was just a flawed concept

[@willrogers3793]

Yeah, according to blacktail defense’s “warplane disasters” series, they only tested the thing without any guns or other combat equipment before accepting the Ba 88. It’s performance in that state was marvelous, but the weight of everything needed to make it useful in combat made it handle like an obese walrus.

[@JosipRadnik1]

The plane itself was aqtually quite good. As far as I know there was a prototype built without turret and it's perfromance was comparable to the Spitfire, with maximum speed being somewhere around 580 to 590 kph It was really the concept that was flawed - it did work, if circumstances were right, but only then - and that is generally a bad Idea to have a weapon system that only bites if the enemy plays according to your rules.

[@MrTangolizard]

Matteo when u design a aircraft that can’t take off u know u have failed as a designer lol

[@thomasrose38]

Oh yes the famous flying salami sandwich they lubricated it with olive oil but let's face it you could make every plane a success that's how you learned when you met its replacement that's part of countermeasures and coming up with better equipment

[@nicolek4076]

Marvellous! Clear, well-researched, intelligent and well-delivered commentary. First rate!

[@Tomex13]

My old squadron was initially stood up as a Defiant sqn, and enjoyed limited success with them to little loss themselves. Good to see a video that doesn't just insta shit on the type. Keep up the good work!

[@enker26]

Even if its considered the worst i love it, i'm a sucker for any plane with turrets.

[@frederf3227]

The dingy launcher at the end is a complete surprise. I suddenly want a whole video on land and sea ASR operations!

[@willfarkas2445]

What a coincidence. I actually know this aircraft from that book “The World’s Worst Aircraft”. I’ve had it ever since I was a very little kid.

[@TheIndogamer]

Had the pilot been armed with a 30mm autocannon, it could have been a ground attack plane with a supporting turret

[@bradleyfisher9814]

It could of been better as 1. A dive bomber 2. Torpedo bomber 3. A scout plane

[@dallasgardener3166]

Would love to see a vid on the Westland Whirlwind

[@lornespry]

I do not think it would belong on the list of "worst aircraft". According to my late father (who by the way had hours in Defiants, as well as Beaufighters and Mosquitoes) the Peregrine powered Whirlwind was an excellent aircraft. Its armament of four 20 mm canons concentrated in the nose was very destructive. Its top speed was similar to the Hurricane, and arguably equally reliable. The Westland Whirlwind acquitted itself well against enemy fighters. While operating in Scotland in 1940, Whirlwinds did not see action down south during the Battle of Britain. Later, it was used in strikes over occupied France (Rhubarbs) and night intruder missions. Equipping two RAF squadrons, it served well in the role assigned to it without modification until late 1943. Only 116 airframes were made. My father posited that production was limited in order to concentrate production on specific marques. Thus, the Napier powered the Hawker Tempest succeeded in its place as one of the icons of WWII in the air.

[@billetede2peso113]

@@lornespry Ik, just their design is similar

[@Charlesputnam-bn9zy]

@@lornespry One unjustly underrated aircraft.

[@KarayaYT]

There's worse fighters than that, the Blackburn Skua and Roc come to mind...

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

The FLOATPLANE Roc especially.

[@Easy-Eight]

The Skua was not as bad as you think and the RN admits they screwed up getting rid of them in '40, Swordfish were worthless on cruisers or destroyers. The RN went over to a Fulmar & Swordfish mix, good for hunting U-boats, worthless against anything else. That's why in '42 and '43 the RN carriers were as Grumman filled as a USN ship.

[@KarayaYT]

As a fighter aircraft the Skua was worthless. It was hopelessly slow, in fact slower than aircraft like the Ju88, Do17 and Do215. It was, underpowered, undergunned and simply obsolete. Whenever they met modern fighters like the Bf109 they were murdered.

[@Easy-Eight]

@JG4, the Skua was a dive bomber. The RN had no good fighters in WWII. The Fulmar flat out could only do 280 MPH. The Firefly Mk I of 1943 could only do 316 MPH; the F6F Hellcat could do over 370 and the F4U over 400. The Skua had some success against German cruisers and shipping. BTW, the Skua in air-to-air was not much worse than the SBD. BTW, the Do17 would have been worthless in the Pacific.

[@blacktiger974]

Considering that Germany didn't have ANY naval planes in wwII, British didn't give high priority to development of their naval airplanes

[@EdMcF1]

Excellent video, but what about the Fairey Battle? Merlin engine, but crew of 3, a greenhouse for a canopy, and a small bomb load. And yet the Fairey Swordfish crippled the Bismarck, and knackered the Italian Navy at Taranto.

[@mikeyforester6221]

yep

[@obfuscated3090]

Swordfish was ACCURATE because it was slow. It was clearly fit for purpose.

[@tonyfairey7733]

@@obfuscated3090 Apparently it flew so slow and so low , the Bismark`s guns couldn`t calculate it.

[@GreenHoleSun]

Swordfish succeded because they encountered no real opposition at Taranto nor against the Bismark...

[@Yaris510]

Hi, Bismarck; many thanks for uploading this excellent (and refreshingly sympathetic) account of the troubled history of the Defiant - nicely embellished with crystal clear graphics. Just one minor correction to your captions: at 09:34, you refer to the 'Pylon for underslung dingy on Defiant'. That should be ding*h*y ('dingy' is an adjective, meaning somewhat dirty).

[@spartancam-rs5ru]

I live in Wolverhampton and specifically by where the pendeford airodrome once was during ww2, there is a local memorial dedicated to the defiant as many flew out of the airbase here

[@stevekitt52]

My old hometown.I remember the BP factory at Pendeford when i used to drive by it.Have you seen the Defiant at RAF Cosford?

[@istvan5674]

As a night fighter the Paul Defiant introduced what became a practice by both German and Japanese night fighters. Namely, oblique firing guns shooting upwards into the belly of the bomber. For the Luftwaffe, it was called "Schräge Musik" which some say was a name applied to Jazz. What doomed the Defiants was its weak armament and limited ability to locate enemy bombers. The crew had to guided by ground radar rather than rely on its own radar, to bulky and heavy for the Defiant airframe. This is why most successful nigh fighter designs, such as its successor, the Beaufighter, were two engine planes which could mount both radar and heavier armaments. Thanks for the video!

[@bbb462cid]

LW night fighter also enjoyed oblique cannons fired by photoelectric cells

[@madseavets]

Istvan56 All night fighters had to be guided from the ground till the the target was withing range of their own radar. The Defiant had AI Mk IV but the aircraft was very cramped and it was difficult to use.

[@TheArgieH]

Jay Moh. Yes it did, I've even seen one with Yagi aerials on the wings (in a museum, painted matt black). There's another post on here (further down) saying who got to view the radar tube, turns out it was the pilot. So sniper doctrine, it had a spotter and a shooter!@Jay Moh

[@anitadolan6417]

@@bbb462cid Photoelectric cells don't work well in darkness.

[@bbb462cid]

@@anitadolan6417 I'll assume you're not an expert in this technology, unlike German engineers in the 1940s. What I mentioned has been known since the 1940s, you could simply look it up before posting crass things you're ignorant about.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

What were they thinking? The Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter (2 seated version) And Bristol Fighter of WW1 showed that an Aircraft with a rear facing MG with good traverse could be effective. The thing was that these aircraft handled like fighters and had a forward facing machinegun as well. Apparently forward facing machineguns were too heavy for the defiant (dropping 2 MGs in the turret for 2 forward MGs somehow either did not occur to the designers or they were forced to use a stock turret for parts supply reasons).

[@safe-keeper1042]

They designated a plane "1 1/2"? Like, one and a half? What's the story behind that?

[@NashmanNash]

@@safe-keeper1042 It was called 1 1/2 Strutter because that´s what it had... A full sized set of struts outside on the wings,and a shorter set mounted on the fuselage..Biplane after all

[@Philistine47]

Remember that at this same time the RAF was putting 8 .303s in the wings of its day fighters - and training pilots to fly in tight formations and fire in unison to bring 24(!) guns to bear on a target simultaneously. So you see there were serious concerns about the effectiveness of the .303; thus the reason for not splitting the armament between fixed forward and the turret may be that the RAF felt this would effectively neuter the Defiant's sting without actually giving it effective teeth.

[@alecfoster4413]

Your videos are well-researched, informative, balanced, mature, and interesting. Well done!

[@mrd534]

MrD53 Dear Sir Most interesting and informative. I modelled the Airfix kit some time ago but did not appreciate the history behind the model. Your knowledge has rectified that for which I thank you and thank you for your generosity in sharing it which I must say has moved me to consider another build. Thanks for keeping the hobby alive and kicking. MrD53

[@zrty6512]

It looks like a British IL2 but it's completely different and not isn't used like one

[@judahboyd2107]

3:38 They at least considered similar tactics for defense.

[@ur2c8]

The main problem was that the Defiant had the same engine as the Spitfire and Hurricane, but was bigger and heavier. Its performance was bound to be inferior. The Fleet Air Arm had the same problem with the Fairey Fulmar. Also, the Defiant was not the only British turret fighter. The Fleet Air Arm's Blackburn Roc was far worse in terms of performance.

[@TheBespectacledN00b]

ur2c8 Few decades later Blackburn redeemed themselves in the eyes of the FAA when they built the Buccaneer, though.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

I think it was Bill Gunston who described Blackburn as having "a tradition, skirted by the Buccaneer, of producing damned awful to fly aircraft." But nothing could be more infamous than their Botha patrol torpedo bomber, of which the official report said: "Getting into this aircraft is difficult; it ought to be made impossible." Apparently, among other things, the stability characteristics had been calculated for adequacy with the torpedo on board. Drop the torp, and suddenly it becomes a very difficult airplane to fly.

[@paladin56]

Curiously enough the Fulmar was the most successful fighter, in terms of aerial victories, used by the FAA. Over 200 kills if memory serves me right.

[@brianprice544]

ur2c8 i

[@anitadolan6417]

@i. rob No, a twin.

[@thepezfeo]

Seems like any plane the Brits and Yanks loved the Soviets hated (Spitfire)... and any plane they hated the Soviets loved and were actually successful with (P-39).... they should have given these planes to the Soviets and this video would be talking about the Soviet Defiant Aces.

[@growlanser5600]

The Soviets would have put at least two cannons on this thing like they did with the Hurricane.

[@TheArklyte]

It also comes down to difference in combat situation. Aircobra was far superior fighter to Mustang in many aspects, however the latter was better at flying in a completely straight line with basically no opposition from underequipped trainee pilots that had no fuel at thier disposal so it is stereotypically regarded as better fighter.

[@danzervos7606]

Cajus Bekker, a German, who wrote "The Luftwaffe War Diaries" clearly considered the Mustang their most serious opponent in the Battle of Germany. So he would disagree with you. Anyone who has seen Mustangs perform at air shows knows your analysis is wrong.

[@Philistine47]

@TheArklyte It DOES come down to a difference in combat situation. The single-stage single-speed supercharger on the P-39's Allison engine gave absolutely fantastic performance... at altitudes below 10,000 feet. Down on the deck, it was a match for all comers (and better than most), which stood it in good stead in the low-altitude combat of the Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War. The Soviets considered it an even match for the Fw190, and clearly superior to the Bf109, in the environment of that theater. Above 15k, though, the P-39 simply couldn't keep up with the competition - which led to it being quickly relegated to ground attack duties by other air services in other theaters, where higher altitudes were more common (and to the P-39 being nicknamed "Iron Dog" by its pilots). The P-51, OTOH, had a two-stage, two-speed supercharger on its Packard Merlin. This was a slight drag on engine performance at low altitudes, but at high altitudes kept it competitive with the best of its piston-engined peers. The P-51 also had the excess structural strength to add bags and bags of fuel, leading to the old saw: "A Spitfire can do anything a Mustang can do, but a Mustang can do it over Berlin."

[@teslashark]

@@TheArklyte The P-39 and 63 are successful as bomber hunters, not dogfighters.

[@Mrobertnoel]

Your vids are wonderful. I love that you include your sources. Thanks!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Another good video from Bismark. I feel that the lack of forward firing armament is a huge oversight. Forward firing armament has been standard on combat planes since early WW1, even most bombers had it. Leaving it off of a bomber destroyer just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[@DazBull26]

I have always known it was not a very good plane, but when i was a child i thought it was beautiful. Still has a place in my heart today thx for the vid and all your great content.

[@blankblank6545]

I can strongly relate

[@WolfoftheAurora]

Huh, for some reason I kept calling it the "Paul Boulton Defiant" for years. Also, I have a question: Did fighter aircraft like the P-51, FW 190, etc., have weapon safety switches (or something similar) for their guns? I remember History Channel mentioning something about it for the P-51, but I don't think they are too reliable of a source anymore.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Hah, for some reason many people (including me) mix up the order. Had to make a conscious effort in this video to not get it wrong. Paul Boulton just rolls of the tongue, Boulton Paul however... Yes, quite a number of planes had weapon switches.

[@WolfoftheAurora]

Thank you. Keep up the quality content. :)

[@joshualandry3160]

Every aircraft with weapons has a safety of some type just like every gun has a safety. Accidental gun fire can and has killed many ground crews or aircraft.

[@russg1801]

I think there was a trigger lock over the gun trigger.

[@mulgerbill]

The P51 was equipped with a 3way toggle switch on the lower forward console. P1 disabled the fire control circuits, sight and gun camera. P2 enables the sight and camera. P3 was hot. All under-wing stores were enabled and sequenced by a series of toggle and rotary switches near the gun controls, release being made by a thumb button atop the stick. As for the FW 190, I'm less informed, but the stick was equipped with two buttons, one under the thumb and one the forefinger. The stick was fitted with a small lever which when flipped up, blocked access to the top button. When flipped forward and down the top button could be operated by the thumb and the lever itself fitted between two ribs protecting the gun button and acted as a trigger. I've no idea if there was any other form of controls as I've not had the good fortune to sit in a 190 cockpit, I've only seen a stick in a museum. Hope this helps

[@ollimoore]

Always liked the Defiant, puzzled as to why they never fitted it with proper forward facing armament though

[@abeherbert6603]

Probably weight issues, you probably want at least four forward-firing .303's to be effective, coupled with the four in the turret and you would struggle to keep that in the air.

[@nicklong4291]

It was completely intentional. It was no way the first RAF turret fighter, and its supposed predecessor- the Hawker Demon, did have forward facing firepower. However, during the Air Exercises, it was found that the pilot naturally focused their forward-facing guns instead of trying to get into a better position for the gunner to attack. This lead to poor performance by the fighter against bombers. Another point is that when the aircraft was designed it was considered almost completely impossible that fighter escort - at least single seaters - could penetrate airspace, this changed dramatically with the fall of France and the huge development of fighters during the time that the Defiant started to roll off the lines. The absence of a single seat fighter meant that the Defiants only possible targets would be fast and large bombers. Another point is of course weight, additional crew training, expense all for a part of the RAF that was could be argued was designed as a deterrent against Aerial attack as in April 1935, war still seemed a long way off. It should also be noted that the RAF was expecting the large 2 enginned turret fighter, The Paul Boulton P.92 to come into service.

[@Easy-Eight]

Weight. A set of 2 MGs in .303 weigh about 150 pounds. Toss in the ammo and feed system and you're looking another 150 pounds, 300 pounds just for two MGs. The avionics for the sight system would have added another 25 to 50 pounds. Now for 2 guns you're lugging 350 pounds of weight. 4 MGs would weight in at over 500 pounds. The Royal Navy had an similar size and weight aircraft called the Fairey Fulmar and it flew at less than 285 MPH. When an F4F-3 is considered a "hot rod" next to the Fulmar or Defiant then you've really screwed up.

[@blacktiger974]

There were some prototype versions with forward armament.

[@ollimoore]

Oh I am well aware forward firing guns weren't a part of the concept, but armament can be changed/rethought so I was meaning after the concept was proven flawed they might have put forward facing guns on it. Surely they could have done an interruptor at the very least to make the turret actually useable when facing forwards

[@bobmountford9216]

Thank you!..a nice mini - documentary Bismarck!!

[@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.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

The concept might have worked better if France hadn't fallen and the German bombers had had to try and get through without Bf109 escort, which I think was the general picture imagined before the war began. I am imagining here the Bf109 simply not having the range, the Bf110 largely being distracted by French single-seat fighters, and the RAF being in the perfect position to assault the bomber formations at leisure. Hordes of Luftwaffe bombers with those big glass noses and all the essential personnel packed close together should have been the Defiant crews' wet dream. Then of course France fell and everything went to blazes, and all of a sudden the air defence of Great Britain got complicated and dogfighty. That being the case, the RAF did (as you describe) manage to make quite a bit of lemonade out of its unexpectedly lemony turret fighter.

[@JohnyG29]

@@carlosandleon The Nazis really never had a chance of pulling off a successful invasion, their navy was far too small and they had no proper landing craft.

[@carlosandleon]

@@JohnyG29 Shame

[@ZeFluffyKnight]

How could this be called the "worst aircraft of WW2" when the Breda 88 exists?

[@CrescentGuard]

I've got a question: why wasn't it used as a dive bomber? I know it wouldn't be able to hold a massive load, but something with fighter speed and that extreme of a defensive armament would at least have better survivability than the freaking Skua or Barracuda. Just slap some dive slats on her, and you've got something pretty solid as a light bomber.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

RAF and dive bombing wasn't really something you'd put in the same sentence back then.

[@TheFrenkenator]

Even if you ditched a few of its machine guns the bomb load would still be very low, it probably wouldn't be worth it. And like the expert said, raf and dive bombing don't go well together. The only dive bombers owned by the raf I could find were american designs.

[@agusti92]

Besides previous points, you start adding ground armour and offensive payload (plus added drag) and that fighter speed rapidly turns into a crawl.

[@blacktiger974]

Blackburn Skua?

[@CrescentGuard]

Fair enough then.

[@iansprescott]

Thank you, I am impressed by the quality of your research and the facts you present. I did a rare thing, for me, I subscribed. Thanks again.

[@ashersmarvelmcocexamplesof450]

A well researched and written piece. Good job.

[@fdsdh1]

The Fairey Battle was probably the worst I can't think of any redeeming features about them

[@heathroi]

that was probably my grandmothers doing, she was put to work on the line, building it and proved to be a terrible machinist even jokingly accused by her supervisor of being a German Saboteur. After which she was was moved to the pay department

[@barryflick54]

It is interesting to note that the Ju-87 stuka and the Fairey Battle represent almost exactly the same level of technological development.....yet one was very successful the other not.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

An early form of Schrage Musik in its' night fighter role then?

[@ShinyaKogamiawesome]

Never understood why they didn't have guns installed in the wings or at the very least allow guns to be installed on wing mounts to give the fighter more firepower. I'm just an armchair general but I think that a modification like that would have at least salvaged this fighters reputation as a bomber destroyer that can dogfight.

[@Jabber-ig3iw]

Yellow-13 probably down to the extra weight affecting performance

[@carbon1255]

It is surprising they didn't strip out the turrets and put them on bombers, and put some machine guns in the wings instead though.

[@TheMrFudge]

What a great and informative video, thank you. Look forward to seeing more pop up in my feed!

[@EdMcF1]

There is a Defiant at the RAF Museum in Hendon, in matt black night fighter scheme. When I saw it a few years back, I had the vaguest of memories of reading about it as a kid. It was like a trip to the Land that Time Forgot, a sort of Pterodactyl amongst birds, it just looked as if a Dalek had humped a Hurricane.

[@DaveC45110]

Now moved to Cosford RAF Museum near Wolverhampton.

[@viniciussouza3139]

Wasn't the Breda Ba.88 worse?

[@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870]

Without said filters no. With sand filters yes.

[@hoodoo2001]

The only D-17z found semi-intact in the world had been shot down by a Defiant.

[@xGoldriever]

Thank you for this video. Excellent work as always!

[@phillipneal9289]

Another excellent piece I'm glad I stumbled upon this by accident. Keep up the good work 😉

[@Karagianis]

Blackburn Roc was worse. All the design issues of the Defiant, plus a much lower performance airframe that could not keep up with most German bombers (Heinkel 111 and Junkers 88 were both too fast for it to keep up with). When you have an anti-bomber fighter that literally cannot keep up with large twin engined bombers you have kind of fundamentally failed at everything you set out to do. Oh, and the Roc was in production at the same time as the defiant, so it wasn't even bad because it had become outdated, it was out classed when it was BUILT.

[@paladin56]

I believe the Roc was best employed as an airfield defence gun emplacement. To build an aircraft that is more useful on the ground than in the air is quite an achievement. It did make one 'damaged' claim however.

[@JoshuaBenitezNewOrleans]

Lot of “military history visualized” vibes going on right now

[@JoshuaBenitezNewOrleans]

Dr_ RedEyez69 I was trying to be gentle

[@deezboyeed6764]

@@JoshuaBenitezNewOrleans pretty sure mhv don't mind

[@JoshuaBenitezNewOrleans]

@@deezboyeed6764 for sure, like I said, it wasn't done out of malice or anger. Though, I now know KZbin is full of content theft, and a part of me doesn't care, yet as an artist myself, it's a confusing line for me. Since, we don't know how MHV interprets this, my first instinct is to think of a relatively amicable perception

[@howcanyoureadthistheresnop9244]

Dr_ RedEyez69 how his he a copy there friends i think so why would he copy his friend

[@thehellyousay]

"..., this would shred the propeller... Not good." 🤔 🤪

[@Gunny1Highway]

Nice research. Good Job!

[@davidfreitas3992]

Nicely done once again!

[@briansteffmagnussen9078]

In the right time and place the Defiant deserves justice. The idea of an interceptor as flying flak is good, It is in some respect an scaled up Hurricane right ?? If it have had the speed and agility of the Spit with the turret and some forward firing armament it could kiss the bombers hello and a quick spray as goodbye. In this role it would not be a fighter, but a group could give the German fighters more than a handful by mutual protection when able to fire from the wing mounted guns and the protective fire from the turret. But when it had come to this stage in the war the type of intercepting planes time was up an the role would no longer be needed. It would for long have been passed from the inside by new more capable planes. Yes my grammar is rotten sorry, All people on the earth can not live in England.

[@ivorbiggun710]

More like a Spitfire in that it was a fully metal stressed skin aircraft, whereas the Hurricane was partially fabric covered. One wonders what it would have been like had it been equipped with wing guns rather than a turret. Despite the weight and drag of the turret it wasn't that much slower than the Hurricane.

[@stekarknugen9258]

What was the utility of a turret for use against bombers? Wouldn't just a more heavily armed fighter like Germany's FW190 bomber-hunters be a lot more practical to produce in war?

[@blacktiger974]

Attacking bombers from below, in their dead zones. Germans had Schrage Musik, a simpler system that filled similar role.

[@Ermy1996]

Fw 190 was a very modern design.. this one is based in WWI techniques

[@RFTL]

The bomber always goes thru concept was from a time when Fighters weren't much faster than bombers. Modern WWII fighters just made the concept itself Obsolete.

[@bbb462cid]

In the 1930s, engineers and tacticians didn't have the ability to use 80 years of hindsight

[@stekarknugen9258]

Yet they were already designing and building heavy fighters and cannon-armed light fighters for the aforementioned purpose alongside these, wiseass

[@babehunter1324]

The Boulton Paul Defiant wasn't THAT bad... The Blackburn Roc however was atrocious.

[@teslashark]

Roc: What if Defiant is even cheaper

[@microbicorb5592]

Defiant: Who are you? Roc: I'm you, but shittier

[@Wombat1916]

@@microbicorb5592 Some bright spark in the Admiralty suggested putting the Roc on floats. He had to be taken aside and have it explained that in that configuration the top speed and the stalling speed would be about the same!

[@joe15000000king]

A very balanced and enjoyable video. Thank you for your research, I have heard the Defiant described as the best example of a terrible idea. Thank you.

[@danielwarren7110]

I remember reading a book in the 1980s in the UK called the deadly defiant, the start of the story was everyone was getting shot up, but over time as the crews learned it had some amazing tricks when flown low to the ground, if a ME came in behind them the pilots dropped to the deck, so a plan trying to get behind it had to drop lower and lower and lower to get out of the range of the read facing guns, forcing the ME into the ground

[@tSp289]

Ah, the turret was French? I wondered why it was facing backwards.

[@tSp289]

bless

[@stigg333]

French is spoken on 5 continents but the universal language is of course ENGLISH, and yes the French have won a lot of battles but have also lost a lot as well and don't forget the World Wars when the French had to be liberated!!

[@ey7290]

Well the French are used to looking backwards

[@billybill6604]

+улиточка диктатор I salute you. You sound very educated and I'm glad you dropped a line. Massive respect whoever you are

[@afrenchdude5331]

the thing that Americans don't understand is that Europe is filled with small countries and France is one of them and war can be very fast, no strategical mistakes are permitted. France don't have the luxury of the british who have a sea or the Us which can comfortably arrive in the middle of a war from an other continent, or even Russia with a giant territory and a deadly winter.. and in all WW, all countries depends on each others. the UK and Russia would have been fucked without France as well in ww1

[@jmirsp4z]

funny how the british actually kinda did schräge musik before the germans but they still took so long to figure out what was shooting down british night bombers later on in the war.

[@iatsd]

They knew exactly what was shooting them down. The problem was sorting out a solution within the constraints they had. Remember, the RAF was the same size as the USAAF, far more technically advanced, and was doing it on an economy 1/3 the size and population 1/10th the size. In the end, rather than redesign and try to introduce into production yet another Mark of Lancaster, they opted for lightly modifying existing night fighter Mosquitos into hunter-killer aircraft that proved very effective sweeping ahead of and around the bomber formations and their flight paths.

[@TheArgieH]

Nokturnal It goes back even further. The SE5a of WW1 had one Vickers in the fuselage and a Lewis mounted on the top wing. The Lewis could be tilted down to replace the pan or for shooting enemy two seaters from underneath (allegedly). The Sopwith Dolphin had two Vickers in the fuselage and two Lewis on the cockpit ring that the pilot could fire upwards - though one was often deleted to save weight. The Dolphin was the first four gun fighter (probably).

[@carbon1255]

in fact, it may be the case that they assumed that the British were using that layout first, and they "copied" it.

[@Jan-cs4kw]

wait ... i thaught the worst plane was the f104 starfighter?

[@tafnac75]

guess you missed the part about world war 2, the F104 or Lawn Dart as it was nicknamed wasn't made until the mid 50's

[@glenndemoor3020]

I wouldn't say the F-104 was the worst of its time either. Not that it had much opportunity to prove itself. Its only long term engagement (and main source of criticism) was Vietnam with about 5000 sorties total, with no air-to-air kills and one F-104 lost in air-to-air combat, but that figure alone shows that while they saw little combat in their intended air-superiority role, they worked pretty damn well as a deterrent.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

No, we can do worse than that one.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Agreed. The F-104 actually outlasted most of the competition. Italy was last to give them up I think.

[@yahatinda]

NO IT WAS IN SERVICE FOR 30 YEARS

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

*Thanks for letting us know, good work!!!*

[@boycotgugle3040]

07:35 Hey is that not the "Wilde Sau"/"Schräge Musik" German night fighter attack pattern, in essence...?

[@benpeltola1364]

My money would be on the LaGG-3 as the worst aircraft of WWII.

[@babehunter1324]

Not even close. For starters, without LaGG-3 there wouldn't had been La-5 or La-7.

[@Derpy-qg9hn]

It wasn't great, but to say it was the worst is a bit of an overstatement. Plus, a lot of its poor performance was for the same reason as other Soviet planes didn't live up to expectations; shitty farmboy labour that invariably produced lemons 50% of the time.

[@spawnof200]

la-5s and la-7s good performance doesnt change teh lagg-3s shit performance

[@babehunter1324]

It kind of does though. When you go down to it there really aren't more differences between a LaGG-3 and La-7 than between a BF-109A and BF-109K. The fact one is considered a separate type while the other is considered a modification of the same aircraft is kinda of semantic. Also they were many modifications of the LaGG-3 itself, the difference in performance between a Series 4 and a Series 66 would be on a similar order of magnitude that the one between the original Yak-1 with a VK-105PA engine and a Yak-1B if not greater. As a matter of fact the latest modifications of the LaGG-3 outperformed the original La-5 in several flight parameters.

[@tonyv2819]

Was that the one that was so bad that Stalin had the designers executed? Or did I just dream that...

[@tunnsie]

Well done report on the subject

[@CaptainGyro]

Well done and interesting video.

[@Wayzgoosey]

Excellent video, very cogently argued and very well laid out. I'd just mention also the Blackburn Roc - the British navy's take on the turret fighter concept, the link to the (very succesful ) WW1 Brigotl fighter and - finally - wonder why the defiant didn't even get a single forward firing weapon. Even the Fairey Battle got one!

[@Glen.Danielsen]

Interesting, fair perspectives. Dankeschön, sir!

[@vipertwenty249]

Thanks for this video Bismark. The Defiant was an answer to a mistaken RAF requirement dating from before the more advanced single engined fighter designs of the mid to late 1930's came on the scene, when the future of air warfare was as yet unclear. There were several different aircraft from different manufacturers of this turreted type designed and flown of which at least two enered service. The BP Defiant was by far the better of the two. In my opinion changing the wing design to accept guns and deleting the turret could have provided the Royal Navy with a far better carrier-bourn fighter than they had available until late in the conflict. I must admit a slight bias - my family are distantly related to the manufacturers!

[@jmfa57]

I built my first plastic model airplane in 1960 when I was 3 years old (Dad helped a bit but I did most of it. Dad taught me about the evils of styrene cement and Mom's table!) The VAST majority of planes I built, and still build, are WWII aircraft. The Boulton Paul Defiant is one of them that I just never got around to... kits were rare, you took what you got at the local hobby store, and the few times this one came around, it just looked, well... WRONG. GREAT video of a little known aircraft!

[@DC.409]

An intuitive video, I recall a fascinating conversations with the RAF aerospace engineers who reassembled the Defiant at Cosford. They explained that it was an advanced engineering and manufacturing example of an all metal design of the time. The Hawker Hotspur they other contender was effectively a hurricane with a turret. Undoubtedly the logic of the design followed the previous success of the Bristol Fighter, during WW1. An exceptionally engineered and manufactured aircraft designed to fulfil an obsolete tactical objective. Whilst undoubtedly successful has the first night fighter, it ultimately wouldn’t compete with the Beaufighter, due to capabilities but the operational need for the pilot to work the radar whilst flying, against the more efficient method of a radar operator providing direction to the pilot

[@automatiiik]

Dude, in Blazing Angels this was one of the most awesome planes. The quad turret on the back had crazy range and massive damage. Honestly was my favorite in that game

[@richpurslow3283]

This was a very decent and fair vid on this aircraft that often gets a bad press. Like mentioned, anything that ceased to be of use during the day was often found a role in the night time and the BP Defiant was no exception. Even the Blenheim did a few night fights. The Beaufighter was the best pre mosquito. Often wondered if there could have been a limited ground attack role for the Defiant. Perhaps if 'gifted' to the fleet air arm as a coastal patrol aircraft watching for u-boats and surface craft? It could get on the horn if jerry showed up and fighters could come and save it.

[@nanorider426]

Good job Bismarck. :)

[@paulrogers3738]

A fascinating plane, which I remember building in AIRFIX back in the 50's! We are told that there was no forward facing armament. What then, is the 'cannon-like projection, facing forward from the left wing? It looks like the cannons featured in other British fighters! Sincerely, Paul Rogers.

[@simonmorris4226]

Pitot static tube which measures the airspeed at a guess.

[@ForceSmart]

I was aware of the Defiant, but I never looked into them in any detail. Good job giving them their due justice in this video.

[@fakshen1973]

The Stuka was a pre war design that was quickly overwhelmed by the realities of WWII. Both planes had different roles. But who knew what the next big war would be like?

[@hook86]

Great video! Didn't really know about this plane prior to the video. It was kinda cool looking at least!

[@DocLois2010]

Great work! What did you use to create the presentation?

[@brianstanness5973]

It made a good stop gap night fighter

[@timothylyons5686]

One of my friend's grandfather flew Defiants from 1939 to 1943, the longest serving Defiant pilot, he had 3 confirmed and one probable kills. Later it flew as the first airborne electronic counter measure aircraft.

[@bradmartisius2625]

I would love to see a piece on the BV-141, perhaps compared/contrasted to the FW-189. Good episode on the Defiant.

[@marcconyard5024]

For anyone interested in what may very well prove a definitive work on the type, a new book on the P82 Defiant titled 'The Defant. By Day, By Night' is expected to be released hopefully during 2018. Publisher will be Frontline/Pen & Sword. A Facebook page, named as the book has been set up for previews. Extensive research is ongoing to make this volume a first rate addition to any military aviation buff's library.

[@thethirdman225]

Good work. How about one about the Fairey Battle?

[@simoncampbell-smith6745]

Excellent video. By some accounts the Defiant's night attacks were an inspiration for the German Schrage Musik on their night fighters. They did test the Defiant without the turret and it was better than the Hurricane in performance. However, Britain needed night fighters. Also it could also be fitted with 8 small bombs as well. I would love it in War Thunder to, Could be really fun tier I/II plane. Of the three forgotten fighters of the Battle of Britain it is my favourite. Oh the other two. Blenheim IF and Gloster Gladiator.