defiant-o-phobes

[He111]

LOL!! to coin a common phrase .. Whenever i watch weekly update videos, when a defiant is show, it's always being shot down by 109 or 110 or Storch etc without any defensive moves or counter fire by the gunner! .. Why? Has the defiant been classified a "clay pigeon" ?

He111.

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Are you talking about the newest video's?

The scene in which the Bf-110 dives in on the port high side of the Defiants and and then down and under?

I think that I read that video was made on "arcade" settings, which would explain why the Defiant gunner didn't shoot during the approach.

For myself, I don't ever plan to attack a Defiant unless it's head on or from below. Start my dive early - go a good bit under his tail at high speed, then come up under.

S!

Gunny

[He111]

The 109 attacked from about 5 o'clock high, a very dangerous way to attack a defiant but gunner was asleep (or 109 AI cannot handle deffys), the 110 came in about 5 O'clock level, the defiant should have banked right, into the enemy, and allow the gunner full view .. but nothing! :confused::confused::confused:

Plus, I noticed Stuka's flying straight and level while being shot at by a beaufighter! OH DEAR! :confused::confused::confused:

just a few small points on a totally excellent sim so far.

He111

[kimosabi]

Defiant needs .50 cal.

[Moggy]

For myself, I don't ever plan to attack a Defiant unless it's head on or from below. Start my dive early - go a good bit under his tail at high speed, then come up under.

S!

Gunny

Oh dear, if the Defiant is accurately modelled, you'll have to attack the Defiant from directly head on or slightly below the prop for the best result. The Defiant is unable to fire through it's prop but can fire just above it at an angle of 19°, anything above the prop would be bad for you but of course the turret needs to be aiming in your direction for that. Your other method of attack from below and behind is ok but beware of the Defiant banking suddenly to expose it's guns on you.
I am a bit of a Defiant fan for my sins. ;)

[Avimimus]

Defiant needs .50 cal.

A version with twin Hispanos was proposed... probably too much of a kick to be practical though.

The defiant was apparently intended to be used in massed formations of a couple dozen aircraft - shooting up the underside of bomber formations and defending each other.

Something which interests me is whether the AI can switch to a fixed forward firing configuration (as was commonly used in real life).

[Moggy]

Something which interests me is whether the AI can switch to a fixed forward firing configuration (as was commonly used in real life).

I haven't heard of this happening, what's your source for this? I know the guns could be trained and fired forward at an angle of 19° or above. I also know there was a switch in the turret to allow the pilot to fire the guns in case the gunner was wounded in action and unable to do so. Although again, I haven't heard of this happening during the war.

[bf-110]

It's strange that the Defiant is a fighter,since it haves no forward firing guns.
However,I hope it gets flyable.I would love to be the gunner of a flying flakvierling.

[BigC208]

It's strange that the Defiant is a fighter,since it haves no forward firing guns.
However,I hope it gets flyable.I would love to be the gunner of a flying flakvierling.

You could use it as a static vierling flak. Park it at an airport and man the guns.
Two 20mm cannon in each wing, 2000hp Merlin and you would have had a 1940 Brisfit.

[ATAG_Dutch]

You could use it as a static vierling ack. Park it at an airport and man the guns.

About the best idea for it too.

Even as a night fighter, they weren't too successful, with only four brownings against all that armour plate.

The lack of forward firing guns was a big mistake, but even with them, it wouldn't have been manoeverable enough to vie with 109's with all that weight to carry around. The turret and gunner I mean.

I reckon it was designed by people of a similar mindset to those who thought the 'big wing' was a great idea.

Poor old Defiant.:(

[TinyTim]

Even as a night fighter, they weren't too successful, with only four brownings against all that armour plate.


The idea sounds neat though, the defiant flying infront and below the bomber with gunner shooting into exposed cockpit and engines at angles where these weren't usually armored.

[The Kraken]

It's part of why I find the early war period so interesting: a lot of concepts that had been established before the war were put to test, with often disastrous results (I realize the poor guys suffering from those concepts didn't find that nearly as interesting back then...). That includes the Defiant as well as the German Zerstörer concept, or the idea that B-17 formations would be able to defend themselves without escorts. Some of those planes could be adapted successfully to other roles; as for the Defiant, I think using it as a nightfighter was only slightly more efficient than scrapping them.

Still love crap planes though, and agree it would be nice to fly it one day, no matter how unlikely that is.

[rga]

Defiant was a very succesful night fighter AFAIK. Flying alongside the enemy bomber undetected and opening fire only when in enemy's blind spot.

As far as AI is concerned, I found it more promising than disappointing. AI doesn't react means you can in circumstances bounce them without being noticed (which is impossible in current IL-2).

[He111]

Defiant was a very succesful night fighter AFAIK. Flying alongside the enemy bomber undetected and opening fire only when in enemy's blind spot.

As far as AI is concerned, I found it more promising than disappointing. AI doesn't react means you can in circumstances bounce them without being noticed (which is impossible in current IL-2).

One big advantage the Defiant had was eyes looking forward as well as behind, a true Janus! LOL! Very hard to jump a defiant unlike spit or hurri.

He111.

[Friendly_flyer]

One of the aspects I really look forward to is to try out if some of the pre-war ideas would actually work. The Daffy was intended to destroy un-escorted bomber formations. It was in a sense an answer to the "the bomber will always get through" doctrine. During 1940, the Daffy was thrown against fighters with disasterous results, the original concept was never tried out. Now, with FMB and/or some mates over for a LAN party, we can put the original idea to the test: Daffy against Schnellbombers (Do 17 would do nicely)!

[meplay]

Hi FF, i was just wondering what the 'Daffy' is?

[Moggy]

Hi FF, i was just wondering what the 'Daffy' is?

It's the Defiant's nickname amongst it's aircrew.

I'd love the Defiant to be made flyable too. I think I've got enough good data for both the pilot and gunner positions. Once CoD has been released, I'll approach Oleg and co and see if they're willing to make it flyable.

[He111]

One of the aspects I really look forward to is to try out if some of the pre-war ideas would actually work. The Daffy was intended to destroy un-escorted bomber formations. It was in a sense an answer to the "the bomber will always get through" doctrine. During 1940, the Daffy was thrown against fighters with disasterous results, the original concept was never tried out. Now, with FMB and/or some mates over for a LAN party, we can put the original idea to the test: Daffy against Schnellbombers (Do 17 would do nicely)!

Yes, that would be good to test. Also good to setup, if possible, the defensive circle, Sqn leader Hunter devised (264 Sqn) when faced with 109s. Actually I think line-astern, descending, would also have been hard to attack.

He111.

[Moggy]

Sounds a bit like the defensive circles sometimes flown by BF-110s when they were attacked during the Battle of Britain.

[major_setback]

It's the Defiant's nickname amongst it's aircrew.

I'd love the Defiant to be made flyable too. I think I've got enough good data for both the pilot and gunner positions. Once CoD has been released, I'll approach Oleg and co and see if they're willing to make it flyable.

I think Oleg might be too busy with updates/bugs and the next releases of the game etc.

We could really do with some sort of outlet for supplying various third party companies and amateur modellers with this type of information. The Anson could easily be made flyable too.

I certainly don't mind helping commercial companies if it means we get more aircraft to fly.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I think using it as a nightfighter was only slightly more efficient than scrapping them.

Still love crap planes though, and agree it would be nice to fly it one day, no matter how unlikely that is.

Don't get me wrong, if we get this as a flyable sometime, with the possibility of multicrewing, I'd love to get an inkling of what it was like to fly it in anger.

Such a strange concept with hindsight, but at the time was thought viable, except strangely enough by Hugh Dowding. He was sceptical of them from the word go, and was soon proved 100% correct.

Can't help being a bit fond of the old pig though.:)

[major_setback]

Don't get me wrong, if we get this as a flyable sometime, with the possibility of multicrewing, I'd love to get an inkling of what it was like to fly it in anger.

Such a strange concept with hindsight, but at the time was thought viable, except strangely enough by Hugh Dowding. He was sceptical of them from the word go, and was soon proved 100% correct.

Can't help being a bit fond of the old pig though.:)

Dowding was certainly not a pig!

:-)

Just kidding.

[Friendly_flyer]

Hi FF, i was just wondering what the 'Daffy' is?

As Moggy said it was the planes nickname. I get these annoying habits from reading "FlyPast" too much ;-)

On a related note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rKYL0tW-Ek

[AWL_Spinner]

Re: effectiveness as a night fighter. I've shamelessly bumped an earlier post on the topic containing an excellent first-hand account (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=237073#post155820). There's also interesting mention of De Wilde ammo.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

The Defiant was designed to intercept unescorted German bombers in daylight.

At the time of it's conception in the mid-1930's, it was not anticipated that France would be defeated.

It was expected that German bombers would have to fly from Germany. And without escort.

British experience in WW1 was that two gunned forward firing fighters such as the Camel were not effective against Gotha bombers attacking London.

The Defiant fully met the Air Ministry requirements at that time. But times changed. France was defeated and German bombers were now escorted by Me 109s.

Interstingly, the best pilots in the RAF and the Luftwaffe during the 1930's were assigned to bombers. How times changed!

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Dowding was certainly not a pig!

:-)

Just kidding.

I'm quite fond of both those old pigs then!:)

[Moggy]

I think Oleg might be too busy with updates/bugs and the next releases of the game etc.

We could really do with some sort of outlet for supplying various third party companies and amateur modellers with this type of information. The Anson could easily be made flyable too.

I certainly don't mind helping commercial companies if it means we get more aircraft to fly.

Oh absolutely but there's no harm in asking. On a related subject, are there any sims which have the Defiant flyable or even in game, I'm struggling to think of any?

[JMB]

Are you talking about the newest video's?

The scene in which the Bf-110 dives in on the port high side of the Defiants and and then down and under?

I think that I read that video was made on "arcade" settings, which would explain why the Defiant gunner didn't shoot during the approach.

For myself, I don't ever plan to attack a Defiant unless it's head on or from below. Start my dive early - go a good bit under his tail at high speed, then come up under.S!

Gunny

Watch out Gunny, that approach could be dangerous :grin:

http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd322/Easy_Kill_Here/UpsideDownAce.jpg

Commando books eh, bless em.

All that picture needs is a 'Gott in Himmel' in a speech bubble appearing from that 109 cockpit and it would be complete :grin:

JMB.

[Avimimus]

I haven't heard of this happening, what's your source for this? I know the guns could be trained and fired forward at an angle of 19° or above. I also know there was a switch in the turret to allow the pilot to fire the guns in case the gunner was wounded in action and unable to do so. Although again, I haven't heard of this happening during the war.

Unfortunately, it was an editorial quip made in a book I read several years ago. It was probably based on one or two incidents at the beginning of the war.

However, it appears that the guns could be fixed to fire forward (if the turret was facing directly forward, the guns could be lowered so that they had no elevation). This allowed the airplane to fight conventionally.

One of the aspects I really look forward to is to try out if some of the pre-war ideas would actually work. The Daffy was intended to destroy un-escorted bomber formations. It was in a sense an answer to the "the bomber will always get through" doctrine. During 1940, the Daffy was thrown against fighters with disasterous results, the original concept was never tried out. Now, with FMB and/or some mates over for a LAN party, we can put the original idea to the test: Daffy against Schnellbombers (Do 17 would do nicely)!

Yes, it is great to test these old concepts isn't it? Try taking a flight of Gladiators against a TB-3 formation in Il-2 (or setting an SB squadron against pre-war fighters)...

[He111]

Watch out Gunny, that approach could be dangerous :grin:

http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd322/Easy_Kill_Here/UpsideDownAce.jpg

Commando books eh, bless em.

All that picture needs is a 'Gott in Himmel' in a speech bubble appearing from that 109 cockpit and it would be complete :grin:

JMB.

No need to show your belly to the world, In reality I could imagine rolling a heavy aircraft with a turret would be sluggish and full of peril! Just bank port or starboard which would achieve 2 things (1) evade enemy fire, (2) allow gunner full view to what's below. Trails done before the defiant was made operational, between a spit and defiant, found that the spit pilot had difficulty attacking the defiant without being within the deffys field of fire. Unfortunately german aces hadn't read this report! ..

He111.

[Moggy]

Unfortunately, it was an editorial quip made in a book I read several years ago. It was probably based on one or two incidents at the beginning of the war.

However, it appears that the guns could be fixed to fire forward (if the turret was facing directly forward, the guns could be lowered so that they had no elevation). This allowed the airplane to fight conventionally.



Yes, it is great to test these old concepts isn't it? Try taking a flight of Gladiators against a TB-3 formation in Il-2 (or setting an SB squadron against pre-war fighters)...

Ok then but how would the Defiant fire without an interuptor gear for the prop? I know the Defiant had an interuptor gear but I'm pretty sure this was only designed to avoid hitting the aircraft.