The Ridiculous Plane with the Sneakiest Weapon of WW2

Introduced in 1939, the Boulton Paul Defiant was Britain's innovative countermeasure against the German bombers of the London Blitz. This fighter stood out with its rear-mounted turret housing four .303 caliber Browning machine guns. Its deceptive resemblance to the Hawker Hurricane allowed it to surprise and engage enemy bombers.
However, the Defiant's design, focusing on turret firepower over speed and forward guns, presented operational challenges. It struggled in direct confrontations with faster, more agile fighters like the Luftwaffe's Bf-109. Despite these limitations, the Defiant played a pivotal role in advancing aviation technology, particularly in developing ejection seats, serving as a testbed for the first Martin-Baker ejection seats.
As the Defiant patrolled the night skies during the Blitz, this aircraft, initially designed to protect London from aerial bombardment, was about to achieve a record-breaking performance in the history of aerial warfare.
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.

[@raypurchase801]

The Defiant was intended to oppose bombers which lacked a fighter escort. Introduced at a time when it was assumed France couldn't fall to the Germans, and the British coast was out of range of fighters flying from Germany. The Defiant was misused by being put into 11 Group in 1940, instead of a more-distant group where German fighters couldn't go. This might be a misjudgement by 11 Group's commander, Keith Park, who'd been an ace on Bristol Fighters in WW1. The Defiant was an updated equivalent of the Bristol Fighter.

[@markphilipwillis7095]

Maybe it would have been better to station it in Scotland. The German bombers coming in from Norway had no Fighter escorts.

[@raypurchase801]

@@markphilipwillis7095 True. It's easy to be wise after the event. Matters were developing very quickly. No conflict like this had ever previously occurred in history.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

The basic problem was there wasn't enough power in a single Merlin engine to drag it along with the turret. It would have made a good night fighter, but the early on-board radar was heavy, and that slowed down the Defiant further. The Bristol Beaufighter introduced at the beginning of 1941 had two Hercules (or Merlin) engines and lots of power to carry early radar, radar operator and 4 x 20 mm cannons and still be fast enough to catch enemy bombers.

[@wbertie2604]

It was used as a nightfighter, with radar.

[@etherealbolweevil6268]

Conclusion - Britain continued to innovate / develop / enhance / better understand air warfare needs at a more rapid pace between 1938 and 1942 than its opponent, continuing that process through to 1945. And the experimental aircraft were built and flown, unlike Goering's war winning paper planes. Some credit is due to permitting resources to be allocated to some of the fringe concepts, whilst avoiding ludicrous excesses.

[@geesehoward700]

basic problem was the defiant was too slow, too heavy, and lacked fire power and wasnt even used correctly tactically. the hurricane mk1 has 8 of the same gun instead of the defiants 4 and was faster, more maneuverable and cheaper.

[@veeeks2938]

There was a version of the BP Defiant without the turret, ie the Boulton Paul P.94. The first Defiant prototype had not been fitted with a turret at first and had an impressive top speed. In 1940, Boulton Paul removed the turret from the prototype as a demonstrator for a fixed-gun fighter based on Defiant components. The armament offered was either 12 .303 inches (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns (six per wing) or four 20 millimetres (0.79 in) Hispano cannon in place of eight of the Brownings. The guns could be depressed for ground attack. By that time, the RAF had sufficient quantities of Hawker Hurricanes and Supermarine Spitfires and did not require a new single-seat fighter. With a calculated top speed of about 360 miles per hour (580 km/h) at 21,700 feet (6,600 m) the P.94 was almost as fast as a contemporary Spitfire although less manoeuvrable. Imagine that thing being unleashed on the Luftwaffe in 1940 lol.

[@wbertie2604]

@@veeeks2938 A Spitfire I with a bullet-proof windscreen was hard pressed to quite reach 360mph in 1940. But then 360mph calculated for the BP might not take into account a bullet-proof windscreen either.

[@timothylyons5686]

My friends grandfathrr was one of the pilots shot down during the five of six sircraft losses. Pilot Officer S. R. Thomas. He survived however his gunner wasnt so lucky and was killed. RlP a/c John Bromley.

[@PedroConejo1939]

Excellent video. If I may comment that RAF squadrons are normally referred to as 'number two-six-four squadron' or just 'two-six-four squadron', not 'the 264th squadron'.

[@sshcondor2756]

I spent a significant amount of time at the Boulton Paul museum (formally the factory) in Wolvohampton as a youth.

[@Sam_Green____4114]

Is it still there !?

[@Sam_Green____4114]

I think you mean Wolverhampton don't you !?

[@EdMcF1]

Great little museum, really liked it. Sadly the site owner had to close it in the 2010s.

[@vincedibona4687]

Thanks for another great video, Dark guys.

[@JSFGuy]

Great video? You haven't even watched it yet the time you posted. Still playing

[@vincedibona4687]

@JSFGuy You poor soul. Bless your little heart.

[@JSFGuy]

@@vincedibona4687 why are you deflecting?

[@antonrudenham3259]

It should be remembered that at the Defiants time of development nobody ever even imagined that NW Europe would fall to Germany as quickly as it did in mid 1940 and that therefore German bomber raids on the UK could be escorted by short ranged fighters based just across the Channel along the Pas De Calais, it was reasonably assumed that any German aircraft over the UK would be unescorted. In fact that thought prevailed in the Luftwaffe too and we see evidence of that through the development of the big heavy long range 110.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

Indeed. In fact both Spitfire and Hurricane were also designed primarily as bomber interceptors/ destroyers, and priority was given to heavy armament and rate of climb over dogfighting ability. That's one of the reasons why some later Spitfires had their wings "clipped" to improve agility and speed (for taking on enemy fighters) at the expense of climb rate.

[@janich9406]

And, almost unimaginable, the one simple reason how this blitzkrieg maneuvering of large mechanized troops over vast distances within days, was possible because of just one even more simple chemical compound: Methamphetamine (Pervitin pills), today known as meth, crank, crystal, glass, speed ... and i guess that was one of many similar phenomena of the 3. reich which doomed the whole enterprise from the beginning on - battling human condition is not a way to any form of victory, we are human ...

[@yamakawa511]

My first Airfix model. Fond memories. Y

[@a-b.e.6663]

Koszonom a film feltöltést!!!Egy idos ember, aki nem tud angolul orulne ha az alamondas magyarul lene ,koszonom. Laci

[@lucasmembrane4763]

The WWII novel, "Piece of Cake," had the Hurricane pilots saying that the Defiant got its name because it defied logic, and had said that the Hurricane pilots had so much sympathy for the Defiant crews that they would wind up flying escort duty for the Defiants when squadrons of each of those planes were sent up together against the German Blitz. That novel was written by a long time RAF member, too young to have been there, who had studied the history. Myth or menace, IDK.

[@shaneintheuk2026]

The video makes me laugh. There’s a FW190 and DC3s towing Horsa gliders. Many of the aircraft are from much later in the war. Good topic and interesting to hear a defence for the poor Defiant.

[@GordonDonaldson-v1c]

Defiants of 141 Squadron based at Ayr broke up the Luftwaffe attacks on Greenock during May 1941.

[@dennisud]

With a more powerful engine, and front firing wing machine guns, They could have been used for a longer time with less losses.

[@seanbigay1042]

I think they already had something like this -- the Spitfire. Maybe you've heard of it?

[@philiphumphrey1548]

​@@seanbigay1042 Same engine was in the Spitfire, the Spitfire just didn't carry the extra weight and drag of the turret and gunner. So climb rate and maximum speed were far superior

[@bobthebomb1596]

Ripping out the turret and placing the guns in the wing would have produced an equivalent to the Hurricane. One of the issues with operating the Hurricane (and Spitfire) in the night-fighter role was that flashes from the exhaust ports destroyed the pilots night vision.

[@wbertie2604]

A version with just forward firing guns was prototyped as a way for factories producing the Defiant to produce something with the performance of the Hurricane.

[@eric-wb7gj]

They didn't have a more powerful engine at the time (up to the Battle of Britain), & as the RAF High Command didn't like the Defiants (thinking overall, a single seat fighter would be better, which even the Squadron Leader of the Defiant's most successful daylight squadron conceded), they didn't give them the new, variable pitch propellers either. The concept died out due to Operational requirements & new technologies. Enemy bombers (those that were left after most departed for Russia) could be dealt with better by twin engine planes, & single engine fighters were used over Europe until the end of the war.

[@BeardmanVaush]

I bet this was inspiration for the German Shraege Musik upward firing cannons.

[@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg]

Schraege Musik.

[@BeardmanVaush]

@@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg Thanks

[@wbertie2604]

Upward firing guns were used as early as WW1

[@_od_7825]

264 as in 2 6 4 squadron not the 264th squadron. Every time you talk about the RAF it’s the same. We’re not American. Why the constant close-ups on the most of a Spitfire?

[@alwaleedalthani9624]

Nice video thanks

[@frostyfrost4094]

Nice shot of Dakotas towing gliders

[@csjrogerson2377]

It was not a "controversial bomber destroyer", it was not a bomber destroyer, period. Here endeth the lesson.

[@Rob-157]

Good stuff 👍🏻

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

It could have been flown upside down for ground attacks 😂

[@roboshack7698]

I can not find an image anywhere that has the Defiant with a gun sight, confirming the pilot rarely, if at all taking control of firing the guns locked at 19 degrees. I imagine handing off control back and forth between the pilot and gunner would cause disruptions and maybe even confusion during tense battles.

[@stuartmcnaughton1495]

The guns weren't synchronised with the propellers. In theory they could have fired forwards, but they would have shot their own propellers off if they had tried to do it.

[@eric-wb7gj]

Defiant was not supposed to fight other fighters, it was supposed to be escorted by single seat RAF fighters into battle, to deal with enemy bombers. If caught by enemy fighters, the rear gunner was supposed to shoot the enemy fighter down/drive it off (in coordination with the pilots manoeuvres), especially if the Defiants could form a circle. Whilst theoretically it could fire forward by the pilot, in practice, this wouldn't be used.

[@qwerk707]

I wonder what sort of fighter it would have been without the rear turret and the same armament as the spitfire and hurricane. 8 machine guns in the wings

[@notyou6950]

One of the versions came with 12 .303 cal guns all firing forward. That was a nice thought butnothing come out of that.

[@michaelnaisbitt7926]

That was a Hurricane not a Definiant

[@notyou6950]

@@michaelnaisbitt7926 I'm positive it was defiant. I had a poster on my wall with all versions shown. That one was my favorite. I did build a model of this aircraft too.

[@hansmueller3029]

Rifle caliber projectiles weren't the medicine for enemy aircraft.

[@kymvalleygardensdesign5350]

Douglas Bader preferred 8 X 303 Browings to 4 canons, he said at close range the effect was catastrophic with 4 canons you missed. But then he also favoured the big wing.

[@kensvay4561]

Cannon too slow firing and less ammo carried.

[@terry_willis]

A similar video was made by Dark Skies just a few days ago called "The WW2 Plane with the Most Bizarre Killing Technique".

[@Mooseski117]

The one about the Blackburn Roc? Basically the radial engine naval version of the defiant

[@GosWardHen98]

Never had any front firing guns...

[@kymvalleygardensdesign5350]

Not the worst fighter of WW2 the Brewster Buffalo takes that crown, the Defiant was beautifully designed and built with a wonderful engine but in response to a hopeless ministry specification. I often wonder how it would have performed without the turret and gunner and instead having 12 forward-firing brownings.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

So, basically a Hurricane II then? Would've been a pretty good early war fighter in that case.

[@kymvalleygardensdesign5350]

@@FelixstoweFoamForge Thats my thinking

[@macmcgee5116]

The buffalo actually performed pretty well for Finland against the Russians. They loved it. But the Russian Air Force wasn't very good then.

[@kymvalleygardensdesign5350]

@@macmcgee5116 Agree but the ones the RAF had were terrible

[@macmcgee5116]

@@kymvalleygardensdesign5350 I feel it had less to do with the Finnish version being better. Rather they seemingly performed better because the Russian planes, this early in the war, were worse. Lol

[@VincentNajger1]

Is this a re-upload? Im sure I just saw this vid s few days ago. Am I the only one?

[@gerhardris]

Interesting video. Yet, Defiant was the product of what a committee comes up with. Tasked with building a horse they built a camel. As a horse it was a dud. The success of the Bristol Fighter inWW1 was misunderstood. In biplanes with a strong engine having a gunner won't empede effectiveness. Fokker grasped the problem with the C5 and later C10. A low and slow light bomber scout. Praying on enemy spotter aircraft. As a high end fighter it was already a dud on the drawing board. As an afterthought a dud camel. There wasn't a role it could do best. Only when bombers were unescorted could it do a what the Germans did as Schreage Music. Fokker again got it right with the G1 heavy fighter. Greater endurance for a required standing patroll. I don't know or think the Defiant was a concept made before radar or such a concept. 13:50

[@spritbong5285]

Cannot understand why they didn't just redesign and add wing mounted machine guns.

[@freeman8128]

The word is AEROPLANE, not "Airplane". (See Oxford Dictionary of the English Language - OUP)

[@EdMcF1]

They were used later in the war in electronic warfare jamming German radars looking out for RAF night bombers.

[@tyronemurphy2905]

It couldn't fire forwards and once the Germans found that out they just attacked it from the front.

[@bernardedwards8461]

The Defiant was, predictably, not much good as a day fighter, the weight and aerodynamic penalties of having a turret seriously handicapped its performancr. On the other hand, by the standards of the time it wasn't a bad nightfighter. Apart from the turret handicap the plane was on a par with Hurri and Spit, and I always thought that the turret should have been removed, the gap faired over, centre of gravity restored by shifting the fuel tanks, and forward firing guns installed. At least a few experimental aircraft of this kind should have been tried. I saw a Defiant flying low over Tuffnel Park during the 1940 blitz, a black silhouette against a rosy night sky, its roundels lit up by the flames below

[@elennapointer701]

Point of order: 264 Squadron's claims over Dunkirk are extremely exaggerated as a result of the over-claiming typical in dogfights of the time. For instance, if three separate aircraft fired independently at the same enemy aircraft - each unaware of the other fighter's presence - and that enemy plane was shot down, the result was that back at base three separate "kills" would be logged when in fact only one had been scored. 264's actual claim for the day is closer to 12 or so. Still impressive, but nothing special.

[@wbertie2604]

Typical squadron kills in an engagement would be low single figures, so 12 is still rather special.

[@songperformer_NET]

Only video ever scene that didnt describe it as a pig, against unescorted bomber and in a group, it was a lot of firepower, and it is good you didnt rehash, the same misgivings, the brave pilots who flew this, did shoot down a significant number of aircraft, and they knew it was game up if intercepted by ME109, but they still managed to shoot some down.

[@peterkirgan2921]

There was no front armament ! Like the fairey battle

[@rconger24]

3:27. 4:37. Almost looks like a chubby P40.

[@ScottTo1967]

It exceeded the design specifications it was meant to meet. Just that the design specifications were outdated.

[@BeardmanVaush]

This could've made a great ground attack aircraft, like the IL-2 Sturmovik. It could've been fitted with 4x 20mm cannons 16 rockets and 2,000lbs of bombs, with significant modifications. The fact that it wasn't used for this is wasted potential.

[@TheTyrantOfMars]

There’s a huge difference between between 4x7.92mm and 4x20mm

[@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg]

2000 lbs of bombs: how? More to the point? Why? The Mosquito did all this, much better.

[@ДартКоммунистус]

Blud, that ain't a Firefly

[@BeardmanVaush]

@@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg The British never had an effective single-engine strife aircraft before 1942 (then came the 'Hurribomber' in North Africa). This could've replaced the Fairey Battle and held the line until the 'Hurribomber' and later Typhoon filled that role.

[@BeardmanVaush]

@@TheTyrantOfMars I know, but 7.92mm aren't going to destroy German tanks. Yes, it would've been heavy, slow and unmanuverable, but if it had Spitfire/Hurricane escorts, it could've been really effective.

[@Sam_Green____4114]

Why didn't they fit forward facing guns on the wings then ? If it was better without the turret ,performance wise , why not leave the turret off , make it a single seater and put guns on the wings ?

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

That would be a hurricane then. the Defiant is a bit of an odd bird, in that it fulfilled the requirements demanded off it, but that those requirements were deeply, deeply flawed. It was. quite frankly, a decent design, made to a shite specification. And as a result, a death trap in the real world.

[@wbertie2604]

​@@FelixstoweFoamForge they made perfect sense for attacking unescorted bombers. German bombers, without bases in France, would have been unescorted. What scuppered the Defiant was the Battle of France. Also, 303s were an interim solution and Boulton Paul was working on cannon armed turrets. However, such development was stopped in 1939 as the requirement was to have powered turrets with belt fed guns for all bombers as not all had them at that point.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

@@wbertie2604 And that's exactly my point. For attacking unescorted bombers, the defiant would have probably performed ok. That was what the specification called for, and what they were designed to do. But there's the problem; The specification relied on the enemy always doing what was expected of them. Never a good idea. Yes, no one could have predicted the Fall of France. But someone could and should have expected the Germans to eventually have increased the range of their fighters.

[@wbertie2604]

@@FelixstoweFoamForge many good points, although at the time of the specification there was a mismatch - our bombers would be so great they'd not need escorts but the enemy planes would be vulnerable but somehow they would fail to grasp this and not use escorts. So there was some logic but also a lot of wishful thinking. Luckily for the Defiant, it worked at night.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

@@wbertie2604 Definately. Somehow the dictum "the bomber will always get through", only applied to our planes, not the enemy's.

[@deetesmin]

Yet another daft idea from the airministry. Responsible for numerous aircrew deaths

[@rogueriderhood1862]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

[@mark-anthonyconti684]

No forward firing guns in the wings . . . Ooooops

[@rogueriderhood1862]

Couldn't carry the weight of wing mounted guns and the gun turret, shame really.

[@JSFGuy]

Let's find out.

[@dianestanley2072]

The turret could be rotated 360 degrees and fire straight ahead.

[@dionisiohug]

It was a complete failure, my father was a WW2 RAF pilot andno ody wanted. Easity shot down

[@tireballastserviceofflorid7771]

Looks that way. It did shoot down a lot of aircraft.

[@chriscarbaugh3936]

Flaw philosophy, period!

[@CIMAmotor]

My mate now owns the Boulton Paul brand. He bought it for 50 quid! He also got Sopwith.

[@stuartmcnaughton1495]

During the interwar period Tom Sopwith became increasingly concerned that his companies might be hit by a windfall tax on their WW1 profits. To avoid the possibility he put Sopwith Aviation Company into voluntary liquidation and created an entirely new company. To avoid any possibility of a legal connection with Sopwith Aviation he named the new company after his Australian long time chief test pilot - George Hawker. Sopwith didn't really disappear. It went on to produce planes like the Hurricane and the Harrier.

[@seanbigay1042]

Whose bright idea was it to put this plane's guns where they could only fire up and to the back?

[@Mooseski117]

WWI veterans thinking that the ways of the skies wouldn’t change beyond the days of zeppelins and wooden airplanes even though the technology was already changing exponentially from that.

[@MrCateagle]

Turret fighters were a concept of the 1930's that didn't work out. Still, the Defiant was more successful than other takes on the concept.

[@Mooseski117]

@@MrCateagle The Defiant was equivalent in my opinion, in fact it served better as a target-tug and a lab-rat for new powerplants. The Defiant TT.I being my main example

[@MrCateagle]

@@Mooseski117 One could argue that both the Defiant and the Battle, while unsuccessful in thei original roles, did yeoman work in secondary roles such as target towing.. Too, I'd argue that the Defiant was a significant improvement over the other turret fighters that Britain flew, the Blackburn product for the FAA and the turrret Demon (which, ISTR, was more a testbed, but still..)

[@Mooseski117]

@@MrCateagle I agree with you on the Defiant being slightly better than the other turret-based fighters now that I looked more into its combat history, it managed to shoot down at least more than 2 aircraft in the daytime, and served well as a nightfighter prior to the Beaufighter’s arrival around 1942. I even tried it in a game and found it to be useful in the sense that you can get bombers in unconventional angles thanks to the turret, I just recommend not getting into a dogfight against a regular fighter, the Defiant’s main role was to intercept enemy bombers and take them out in angles where the gunners can’t reach, essentially hitting the bomber in the blind spots where the gunners can’t defend against the Defiant. Had the Defiant been given pylons for bombs/rockets, I think it would be a slightly better version of the Battle.

[@benjaminmanning5309]

I love your videos and the content is always informative and in depth but your titles are fucking click bait and you need to stop.

[@jamesragus1577]

Complimentary algorithm enhancement comment!😊

[@Orangesjesus]

8 y/o me, thought this a great design...

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

37 kills, in two missions, in one day, by one squadron? German records show way less losses for that day from all causes. Total and utter rubbish. I expect better from this channel, you know better. And you know this aircraft was the result of a very, very very bad idea. It's basically a peice of shite.

[@francislutz8027]

Don't blame the author because your boys can't count kills correctly. It's known that British aces would count a kill if they only winged the bird. So if 5 planes all shot 1 German plane down then all 5 brits got a kill.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

@@francislutz8027 Very vert true. All air forces overclaimed, and the bigger the dogfight the bigger the overclaims. To be fair, in a swirling melee, it's easy to see how it can happen. But the author, who knows this, should know better

[@Pokafalva]

The toal claimed was 39 in the most recent research. The true figure was around 4 at best.

[@MrSimplyfantabulous]

An ejection seat was added to this aircraft only after painful experience showed the Brits they could expect to give it plenty of use, the aeronautical equivalent of lipstick on a pig.

[@Pokafalva]

On 29th May 1940 in two missions, 264 claimed a total of 39 German aircraft destroyed. The Luftwaffe did not lose 39 in total on that day! It was overclaiming on a massive scale. The actual total was around 4 that could be attributed to 264. For example, they claimed 11 Bf 110s destroyed when in fact none were lost. Their claims for Stukas were also off the scale. You should research the subject properly, not regurgitate decades-old myths and lies...

[@thatfeeble-mindedboy]

Too bad they didn’t produce a fighter version without the turret and with only a single pilot and dedicating some of the weight savings to much greater forward armament. Without the drag of the turret and the weight of a second crewman and the turret and ammo, I wonder if such a “fighter” version would have such an increase in speed, maneuverability, and firepower, yet still be almost indistinguishable from the standard version, and always deploying a mixture of the two, would have made them a much more formidable target for the 109’s, and bring the loss statistics down. I would further suspect that a single seat, un-turreted version would actually come off the same basically unaltered assembly lines faster than the standard version, and any that they displaced would be compensated for by reducing losses in battle. Just a thought.