Interesting RAF bit-players 1939-1941 No.2: The Defiant

...c'mon guys, seriously? The Defiant it's a proper case of mother's love..

btw I have a night gunsight as used on Defiants, Hurricanes and Beaufighters, anybody wants it?

[Moggy]

Did you know there were 8 Defiant aces during it's service? Apart from the well known day and night fighter duties, it was used in air sea rescue. Also there's a hell of a lot pilots today who (maybe in the smallest of parts) owe their lives to the unsung Defiant. After the war, it was the Defiant which was used to test ejection seats and systems.
Yes, it's easy to love the Spitfire, Mustang or 109 and who could blame you for that. But it takes something special to do research on an unloved aircraft and see it for what it truly was. I love the Defiant for it's uniqueness, for the fact it challenged convention. It didn't win but it fought a good fight and it stood up to be counted alongside it's beter known contemporaries.
For instance, 1 of our squadron member's Grandfather was a navigator or rear gunner (I forget which) on Fairey Battles during the Battle of France...he won't hear a bad word against the Battle.

[Trooper117]

Good videos.. info on the Defiant is something I'm lacking..

Originally Posted by Moggy

Did you know there were 8 Defiant aces during it's service? Apart from the well known day and night fighter duties, it was used in air sea rescue. Also there's a hell of a lot pilots today who (maybe in the smallest of parts) owe their lives to the unsung Defiant. After the war, it was the Defiant which was used to test ejection seats and systems.
Yes, it's easy to love the Spitfire, Mustang or 109 and who could blame you for that. But it takes something special to do research on an unloved aircraft and see it for what it truly was. I love the Defiant for it's uniqueness, for the fact it challenged convention. It didn't win but it fought a good fight and it stood up to be counted alongside it's beter known contemporaries.
For instance, 1 of our squadron member's Grandfather was a navigator or rear gunner (I forget which) on Fairey Battles during the Battle of France...he won't hear a bad word against the Battle.

I have never doubted that it was used with moderate success, all in all you use what you have (they managed to make use of the Typhoon which was a proper widowmaker!), but it doesn't change the fact that the plane was a piece of aeronautical junk, like most of the British planes produced in the 30s..

If you want to talk in matters of pride I agree with you, but technically and performance wise planes like the Defiant weren't a game changer.

The Hurricane, Spitfire, Lancaster, Beaufighter, Mosquito and Lysander for instance were incredibly excellent designs, but the rest simply wasn't.

Now if we talk under an historical point of view of course it's important to retrieve all the documentation available and preserve the planes: a guy I know has a lot of Farey Battle pieces and would love to restore one, but god knows what an awful machine it was..

So yes, I can understand the enthusiasm and love for quirky planes, but let's not get carried away.. a simple plane like the Lysander or the Storch have saved way more lives than a Defiant..

[Moggy]

See now that's a far better argument than your 1st statement and well done for that. You've listed some great aircraft and in a way you've touched on the very heart of the problem the Defiant (and Hurricane for that matter) suffered...it had to compete with the Spitfire for engines and that's a battle it was never going to win. Personally I would love to see where it's development could of lead but that's something we will never know or find out. I'll let the Defiant's record speak for itself.

152 victories against 37 losses, a ratio of 4 to 1. I think you'll agree that for a fighter considered a failure by most...it's not too bad.

Originally Posted by Moggy

See now that's a far better argument than your 1st statement and well done for that. You've listed some great aircraft and in a way you've touched on the very heart of the problem the Defiant (and Hurricane for that matter) suffered...it had to compete with the Spitfire for engines and that's a battle it was never going to win. Personally I would love to see where it's development could of lead but that's something we will never know or find out. I'll let the Defiant's record speak for itself.

152 victories against 37 losses, a ratio of 4 to 1. I think you'll agree that for a fighter considered a failure by most...it's not too bad.

the problem of the Defiant wasn't the lack of engines, was the fact that it was a very heavy and cumbersome machine afflicted by a heavy turret (which unfortunately was a trap for many gunners), poorly armed and above all designed to respond to a completely useless Air Ministry specification, and there was no further development cos the RAF realised the plane made no sense..
And just for the record, Hurris, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters performed incredibly better in the night fighting roles.

[David603]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

Now if we talk under an historical point of view of course it's important to retrieve all the documentation available and preserve the planes: a guy I know has a lot of Farey Battle pieces and would love to restore one, but god knows what an awful machine it was..

Most of the stories about how terrible the Fairey Battle was come from either the RAF leadership or the crew who flew them (the survivors, that is).

What they overlook is the Battle was not actually such a bad aircraft. It compares favourably with the likes of the Stuka for speed, range, armament, payload and combat survivability.

Which is to say, either of those planes will get slaughtered when thrown into an environment where the enemy controls the sky with modern fighters.

The difference is the Stuka had already demonstrated great effectiveness in Spain, Poland and France, so when its limitations were shown up in the BoB theatre it was given new roles, turned into a ground attack aircraft and tank buster, and enjoyed more success in those roles until increasing Allied air superiority again made it too vulnerable, and it was replaced by Jabo Fw-190s.

By contrast, the Battle got slaughtered in horrible situations at the start of its career, and was immediately branded a failure. Much easier for the RAF leadership to blame the aircraft rather than the missions they had given it. Not to mention, with good reason, the crews considered it highly vulnerable to fighters and were understandably reluctant to fly it.

Given better planning and some upgrading with a more powerful engine and armament, it could have been a successful night intruder (good payload/range/plenty of room for more guns or radar/has navigator), or filled the Stuka's later role as a ground pounder/tank buster (of course, it would be more vulnerable in this role than a fighter-bomber, but endurance and payload are much better).

In these roles, the Battle could have had a successful career until at least 1942-3 before better aircraft became available to replace it.

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

the problem of the Defiant wasn't the lack of engines, was the fact that it was a very heavy and cumbersome machine afflicted by a heavy turret (which unfortunately was a trap for many gunners), poorly armed and above all designed to respond to a completely useless Air Ministry specification, and there was no further development cos the RAF realised the plane made no sense..
And just for the record, Hurris, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters performed incredibly better in the night fighting roles.

I'm not sure the Hurricane had a better night fighting record than the Defiant but yes certainly the Mossies and Beaufighters did. I'm actually looking at 2 of the proposed designs to replace the Defiant, the P.92 (twin engine aircraft) and P.96 (imagine a Typhoon with the type A turret in the back and you'll get the idea) 4 different designs fitted with either the Sabre or Centaurus engines and either 4 or 6 cannon.