# Worst Aircraft of WW2



## wuzak (Jul 28, 2022)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2022)

Breda 88

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2022)

The Me163 hardly qualifies for that list unless it's failure to produce combat results out of 300 built is a factor.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Big Jake (Aug 2, 2022)

Some airplanes like the Botha and the Me 210/410 were just plain bad designs. Sometimes the specifications were the problem as in the case of the Roc. Sometimes the design was great aeronautically but was so degraded when it was made into a fighting machine that the end product was useless. That was the case with the Breda 88. The 163 was just a crazy design with a half-cooked rational behind it. One can have a lot of airplanes to choose from when it comes to selecting the worst - but which worst? worst fighter, worst bomber, worst transport?


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 2, 2022)

Good aeroplane, not a good idea...





DSC_0049

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## AerialTorpedoDude69 (Aug 2, 2022)

nuuumannn
as bad as it performed in fighter-vs-fighter combat, the Boulton Paul Defiant was designed for bomber interception using a Schrage Musik-style turret. It was actually the first of its kind. I think it was so far ahead of its time that commanders had problems conceiving a suitable role for it. Still, definitely worth mentioning in this sort of list because of how controversial it is.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 2, 2022)

The Defiant was a "turret fighter" - "Schrägemusik" is fixed, upward firing armament.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 2, 2022)

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:


> nuuumannn
> as bad as it performed in fighter-vs-fighter combat, the Boulton Paul Defiant was designed for bomber interception using a Schrage Musik-style turret. It was actually the first of its kind. I think it was so far ahead of its time that commanders had problems conceiving a suitable role for it. Still, definitely worth mentioning in this sort of list because of how controversial it is.


A suitable role would be defending Scapa flow or the NE of England an Scotland.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 2, 2022)

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:


> as bad as it performed in fighter-vs-fighter combat, the Boulton Paul Defiant was designed for bomber interception using a Schrage Musik-style turret. It was actually the first of its kind. I think it was so far ahead of its time that commanders had problems conceiving a suitable role for it. Still, definitely worth mentioning in this sort of list because of how controversial it is.


Actually, the Hawker Demon was the first turret fighter, its Nash & Thompson FN.1 Lobsterback powered gun emplacement preceded the Defiant into service. The de Boysson turret was a marvel of sophistication and compact engineering and Boulton Paul got the best technology out of it and applied it to their subsequent turrets and it was a neat installation in the Daffy, but the concept as applied by the RAF, as a bomber destroyer was found to be flawed in the melee of combat. The idea was for the Defiants to dive among enemy bomber formations to break them up and attack bombers in first passes, then single-seat fighters would take care of the stragglers. It appealed because the Air Ministry saw the powered turret as something akin to a silver bullet that would improve efficiency, but in essence, the concept for a fighter was flawed, and it isn't just about the Defiant's performance against fighter opposition.

The Defiant was a well designed and crafted aeroplane that was widely regarded for its viceless handling, making it pleasant to fly and fight in, it got a reputation as being a gunner killer because egress for the gunner was difficult, to say the least. Aside from that little quirk, the idea of approaching a bomber from different approach vectors and directing fire in various directions is all very well and good in theory, but it requires a considerable amount of piloting skill and positioning in a extremely fast evolving set of circumstances but not only that, the gunner's role becomes almost superfluous as the pilot had the capacity to fire the guns once the gunner had turned the turret and aimed the guns (although the pilot didn't have a gunsight, there as a switch in the gun that could change firing control over to the pilot), which seems like a far too elaborate and hackneyed way to achieve a kill, when deleting the turret could achieve the same result with a faster, more manoeuvrable mount.

For its qualities, the Defiant was slow to accelerate, which was the biggest criticism that came of it, and its top speed was low, too. That Sqn Ldr Hunter of 264 Sqn devised tactics (the Lufbery Circle) as a defensive measure when approached by enemy fighters, this crucial piece of information was not shared by the sqn ldr of the other Defiant unit during the summer of 1940, 141 Sqn, and by consequence the unit suffered a loss of aircraft in a combat scenario that effectively killed the aircraft's career as a day fighter, although the "Slaughter of the Innocents" as it became known was subjected to a severe bout of Chinese whispers by the time Dowding got wind of it. It's interesting to note that the Bf 110s practised the same Lufbery Circle manoeuvre when attacked by multiple single-seaters.

Where the Defiant shone was as a night fighter and it proved that in the dark of night its qualities, two sets of eyes and a turret that was multi-directional, proved highly advantageous. The other factor leading to it success was a lack of fighter opposition, but again, its lack of speed did hamper it and there are ample combat reports where the enemy bomber once acquired slipped away in the darkness. Some 13 RAF squadrons fully or partially equipped with the Defiant between late 1940 and the end of 1942, when the type was finally withdrawn from the frontline. In late 1940 its replacement specification was released that was to see a turret armed twin-engined night fighter enter service, but the growing effectiveness off the radar-equipped Beaufighter and the sheer performance advantage of the de Havilland Mosquito meant that the turret armed night fighter would not continue past the Defiant.

The concept of the turret fighter was a good sounding idea, but in practise was hampered by its own complications and offered no real advantage over non-turret equipped fighters, although at the time the turret fighter concept was conceived that had yet to be discovered under real-world conditions.




DSC_1137

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AerialTorpedoDude69 (Aug 2, 2022)

Here's a passage from the Schrage Musik Wikipedia page on the Defiant:



> With such high losses in day operations, the Defiant was transferred to night fighting and there the type achieved some success. Defiant night fighters typically attacked enemy bombers from below, in a similar manoeuvre to the later German _Schräge Musik_ attacks, more often from slightly ahead or to one side, rather than from directly under the tail. During the _Blitz_ on London of 1940–1941, *the Defiant equipped four squadrons, shooting down more enemy aircraft than any other type.*[30]​ The Defiant Mk II was fitted with AI.IV radar and a Merlin XX engine. A total of 207 Defiant Mk IIs were built but the Defiant was retired as radar-equipped Beaufighter and Mosquito night fighters entered service in 1941 and 1942.


It basically says that the Defiant was the most successful fighter of the '40-'41 Blitz even though it only equipped four squadrons? Does anyone know if that's true? Gotta say that the four aircraft in the video are real dogs in comparison to a cancelled aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2022)

Schräge Musik was a fully fixed installation of upper firing MG or cannon. It was not placed in a turret like that of the Defiant.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 2, 2022)

Is that last photo jazz-music?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 2, 2022)

Capt. Vick said:


> Is that last photo jazz-music?



You can count on it!

I'll show myself the door.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 2, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Schräge Musik was a fully fixed installation of upper firing MG or cannon. It was not placed in a turret like that of the Defiant.
> 
> View attachment 680372
> 
> ...



No argument with the different installation methods but, fundamentally, the objective was the same for both the Defiant and Schräge Musik...the ability to perform zero-deflection attacks against bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 2, 2022)

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:


> t basically says that the Defiant was the most successful fighter of the '40-'41 Blitz even though it only equipped four squadrons? Does anyone know if that's true? Gotta say that the four aircraft in the video are real dogs in comparison to a cancelled aircraft.



It equipped more than four squadrons in that period. They were as follows: 125, 141, 151, 153, 255, 256, 264, 307, 409, 410 and 456 Sqns, with 85 and 96 Sqns receiving a small number only. 

That wee statement might not be completely true. Beaufighters racked up a similar kill ratio during the same period and based on different sources might have exceeded the number of Defiant night fighter kills. Beaufighters suffered numerous issues on their entry into service as night fighters, their radar was unreliable and the Beaufighter Mk.II powered by the Merlin had a high accident rate and proved very difficult to handle on the ground, which led to accidents, but it was, in the air very effective. Nevertheless, figures from different sources conflict with each other, meaning this statement about the Defiant might not be accurate.

Which aircraft was cancelled? The Defiant wasn't. It remained in frontline use by the RAF as an interceptor from late 1939 through to mid-to-late 1942, when it was declared obsolete in that role.

to be clear, Schragemuzik described the installation, not the tactic. The use of the turret to fire upwards into the belly of bombers was definitely used before the German Schragemuzik installation, and it was the result that was the same, not the installation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## AerialTorpedoDude69 (Aug 2, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> It equipped more than four squadrons in that period. They were as follows: 125, 141, 151, 153, 255, 256, 264, 307, 409, 410 and 456 Sqns, with 85 and 96 Sqns receiving a small number only.
> 
> That wee statement might not be completely true. Beaufighters racked up a similar kill ratio during the same period and based on different sources might have exceeded the number of Defiant night fighter kills. Beaufighters suffered numerous issues on their entry into service as night fighters, their radar was unreliable and the Beaufighter Mk.II powered by the Merlin had a high accident rate and proved very difficult to handle on the ground, which led to accidents, but it was, in the air very effective. Nevertheless, figures from different sources conflict with each other, meaning this statement about the Defiant might not be accurate.
> 
> ...


Wasn't it phased out of production in '42? I think the Hurricane was produced well beyond that. Although I just read that they continually upgraded existing production in order to meet overseas orders.

IIRC, the British had the option to upengine the Defiant but instead chose to cancel its development (and production) and instead upgraded Beaufighters and Mosquitos. I've read numerous "accounts" of how bad the Defiant was although after reading the Wikipedia page and some of what you've written, it seems that reputation is undeserved. Seems like it wasn't bad at all.


----------



## John D. Voss (Aug 3, 2022)

My vote for the worst US WWII aircraft goes to the Curtiss SO3C Seamew.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2022)

A problem with evaluating the Defiant as a night fighter is that NONE of the British night fighters were very successful until about March of 1941. 

At least one month over the winter saw no German bombers shot down at all and several other months only saw 2 -6 planes a month. 

The most successful month in terms of planes shot down per night was May and because the the Luftwaffe packed up part way through May left for Russia. The Germans were mostly active in the first two weeks of May. 

Old book by Bill Gunston says that the RAF destroyed 22 German planes in March of 1941, 48 planes destroyed in April and 96 destroyed in the first two weeks in May. 

In the first two months of the night blitz British night fighters shot down eight (yes eight) German aircraft out of 12,000 hostile sorties. The German accident rate was much worse than the losses inflected by night fighters. The next 3 months were even worse for British shoot downs. 

Some of this was do to weather, some of it was more hours of daylight (less hours of darkness) some of it was more Beaufighters coming on line. Lets also remember that the Defiant didn't get radar until Sept of 1941, well after the night Blitz was over. 

until April and May of 1941 the British simply were not shooting down enough German planes to have any idea what was working and what was not. The Success rate of the British night fighters were pure chance. 

Things were so bad that the Defiants looked good. 
Please look up the LAM (Long Aerial Mine) and the Turbinlite (one success for each, unfortunately for the Turbinlite it was an "own goal".)

The Defiants "success" was pretty much pure luck, paid for the deaths of many crewmen flying hundreds of missions in the dark in crappy weather.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 3, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> A problem with evaluating the Defiant as a night fighter is that NONE of the British night fighters were very successful until about March of 1941.
> 
> At least one month over the winter saw no German bombers shot down at all and several other months only saw 2 -6 planes a month.
> 
> ...


All true, but a major part of the story was the increasing success of GCI RADAR. Ground Controlled Interception

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 3, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Good aeroplane, not a good idea...
> 
> View attachment 680252
> DSC_0049


Put a Griffon, four blade prop, a bomb rack, two pod mounted 40 mm cannons (see Hurricane below), and eight 3in RPs onto the Defiant and we have a British IL-2. She won’t be fast at this weight, but our Defiant will kill tanks and woe to any fighter trying to attack from above and behind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 3, 2022)

John D. Voss said:


> My vote for the worst US WWII aircraft goes to the Curtiss SO3C Seamew.



No Brewster Buccaneer?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 3, 2022)

I'm sticking with the Lerwick. The Fisher Eagle was both terrible and great. It did great job of keeping GM out of the B-29 program.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2022)

Uh, you do realize the Defiant used a smaller wing than the Hurricane? 

An IL-2 used a wing very close in size to a Bf 110 or about 10 sqft smaller than SB2C Helldiver or only 5-6 sq ft larger than a Fairey Barracuda. 

Even with a Griffon you are going to need JATO rockets to get it off the Ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 3, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> The Fisher Eagle was both terrible and great. It did great job of keeping GM out of the B-29 program.



Is that a good thing?

Fisher were in charge of making an engine module to fit the V-3420 in place of the R-3350s. The resulting aircraft would be the B-39.

Spending the time on the XP-75 delayed the XB-39 so that it would only fly after most of the issues with the R-3350 were solved.

The XB-39 showed slightly improved performance with slightly reduced range.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 3, 2022)

wuzak said:


> Is that a good thing?
> 
> Fisher were in charge of making an engine module to fit the V-3420 in place of the R-3350s. The resulting aircraft would be the B-39.
> 
> ...


No, I don't think it was a good thing at all.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 3, 2022)

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:


> Wasn't it phased out of production in '42? I think the Hurricane was produced well beyond that. Although I just read that they continually upgraded existing production in order to meet overseas orders.



Yup, by mid 1942 it was falling behind in capability compared to Beaufighter and the introduction of the Mosquito added performance to the mix. The Hurricane continued production until 1944 (the last Hurricane built still survives and flies with the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight). The Hurricane remained in production mainly as a strike fighter, to use a modern phrase. Even by 1942 the Hurricane Mk.II's performance was not as good as enemy fighters in service, but it remained because armed with four cannon or 12 machine guns or two even bigger cannon and its ability to carry bombs under the wings it made an excellent ground attack aircraft. Because of its rugged construction it was easy to repair in the field and so it was an asset long after it had been declared obsolete as a fighter, its advantage being that once it had dropped its bombs it could defend itself as a fighter because of its performance.



Shortround6 said:


> problem with evaluating the Defiant as a night fighter is that NONE of the British night fighters were very successful until about March of 1941.



This is true. Night fighting was hard. It's worth noting that despite this apparent poor performance, no one else in the world had anywhere near the experience nor carried out anywhere near the same amount of research in to night fighting than the RAF within the first two to three years of the war. German successes didn't really become a thing until 1942/1943 when Bomber Command began its really big raids. The Defiant was a good starting point, well, certainly better than the Blenheim, but no other country had anywhere near the same number of night fighters by mid 1941, the radar equipped Blenheim and Beaufighter, the Hurricane and Defiant and the P-70 Havoc. Not the Germans, and certainly not the Americans, Japanese nor Italians, nor Russians. Adding the Mosquito NF.II to the Beaufighter fleet in 1942 really cemented the RAF's night fighter force, but it had to go through the motions with its less effective pre-war stuff first.



Shortround6 said:


> The Defiants "success" was pretty much pure luck, paid for the deaths of many crewmen flying hundreds of missions in the dark in crappy weather.



Not to forget those lost in training by flying into the ground. In 1941 the RAF had two main night fighter Operational Training Units, 54 OTU at Charterhall, Northumberland and 60 OTU at East Fortune in East Lothian, Scotland. Both were equipped with Defiants and Blenheims and the landscape around both regions were soon littered with crashed aircraft. So much so that Charterhall became known as Slaughter Hall. It was also the airfield where Australian fighter pilot and author (his book The Last enemy is regarded as a classic) Richard Hillary took off from when he died flying a Blenheim night fighter in Scotland in 1943. As for the Defiant, 60 OTU bears the distinction as being the operator of the largest number of Defiants of any RAF unit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2022)

the British certainly payed for their expertise. You are quite right, nobody else came close. 

It is just that the claims of the Defiant's success seem to ring hollow. 
Like we are supposed to overlook it's performance in the time because it was so good at night, except it wasn't much good at night either. 
It flew around at night, it crashed at night, it shot down 0-3 bombers a month at night (at least until April and May) and if they had stayed on the ground it would have been a net gain for the RAF. 
In fact park the Defiants, yank their propellers off and put them on the Blenheim's and you might have come out ahead. 
The Blenheim was not a good aircraft for night flying and they never changed it. Poor cockpit layout, the 2 pitch props which made take-offs hazardous, depending on fuel load, really hazardous. Constant speed props may have increased the dive speed a bit (may be 20-30mph?) which may have allowed a few planes to actually pull off an interception. 

use the Havoc/Bostons as actual night fighters (guns and radar on the same plane) instead of the Turbinlite scheme might have paid dividends (even one enemy plane shot down?) 

Trying things, like the Defiant, helped acquire the expertise. Keeping the experiments going for months/ years for little result wasn't adding anything.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2022)

At least the Daffy had a better kill record than the Blackburn Roc - which shot down one aircraft during it's career.

I cannot begin to imagine the embarrassment and shame the Ju88 pilot must have endured for allowing that to happen...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 4, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> It is just that the claims of the Defiant's success seem to ring hollow.
> Like we are supposed to overlook it's performance in the time because it was so good at night, except it wasn't much good at night either.



Yes and no. From a critical situational analysis and examining each incident of interception versus actual kills recorded across Britain's entire wartime night fighter effort, it doesn't appear very impressive at all, but in context of the time, its better than perhaps what even the RAF Air Staff were hoping for. There are a number of communiques in 1940 about how ineffectual Britain's night fighter defences were in combatting German bombing raids, but what do you expect? These were early days. The Defiant surpassed expectation simply because it was able to record kills when the Beaufighter was suffering delay and the Blenheim and Havoc were almost useless. Sure, they were few and far between initially, but that doesn't indicate a specific failure of the Defiant, more like operational and systemic failures that didn't take into consideration the difficulty of finding a bomber from a night fighter even once it had been vectored to its general location by GCI.

The advent of airborne radar changed everything. The Defiant ended up on the wrong side of that development process. It wasn't perfect, not by a long shot, but it did achieve kills at a time when other British aircraft were stagnating in their efforts. The Beaufighter took longer than expected to get the radar right, but even before then it proved its efficacy, but that doesn't mean the Defiant was totally ineffectual.



Shortround6 said:


> Trying things, like the Defiant, helped acquire the expertise. Keeping the experiments going for months/ years for little result wasn't adding anything.



I disagree. The value of experience was enormous. Having those Defiant squadrons added numbers to the scorecard. This is a valuable lesson the British learned in the summer of 1940 and something you might have forgotten. Sure, lots of guys lost their lives in training, but for the loss of those lives, there was a learned experience. We don't go through life learning the greatest lessons from our successes but from our failures and the same goes in warfare. Just ditching the Defiant would have left enormous gaps in available airframes that provided capability, training and experience.

The Defiant was adding something to the mix. Every German aircraft shot down was one less that was going to return for another sortie at a later date. Every German aircraft that was damaged but returned to base was one that was kept from operations for however long until it was fixed, regardless of what shot at it. Numbers, numbers, numbers.

I suspect your expectations are higher than what the RAF had available to it technology and airframe wise. The Defiant _couldn't_ be retired any sooner than it was. Beaufighters were not available in as large numbers and what do you expect to happen once their numbers increased? Same with Mosquitoes. When the first new aircraft arrived on squadron, you didn't get 18 Mosquitoes in one day to replace 18 Defiants and voila! The squadron was ready, so let's get rid of those shitty Defiants! They turned up in small numbers at a time and even after most squadrons received their first Mosquitoes, they were not always able to declare themselves fully operational for weeks afterwards. Had all the Defiants been retired en masse once the first Mosquitoes and larger numbers of Beaufighters appeared, there would have been a severe shortage of useable aircraft. What then? Were the pilots supposed to just sit around until all their Mosquitoes and Beaufighters arrived? One Defiant kill every couple of weeks or so was better than none at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Aug 4, 2022)

Putting a short ranged AI Radar like AI MkIII/IV, with a range of about 4 miles, into an aircraft as was done by the RAF in mid-1940 with Blenhiems and Beaufighters was only part of the story of producing a successful night defence system. First those aircraft had to be brought close enough to use that radar. Hence the need for GCI which was worked on throughout 1940. 

The first operational GCI station opened on New Years Day 1941 with 5 more hand built equipments in operation by the end of the month covering the east and south coasts of Britain. This and subsequent pages have some detail.





Ground Controlled Interception


An overview of the Ground Controlled Interception radars and their capabilities



www.radarpages.co.uk





But each station could only control a single night fighter initially.

The first AI equipped Beaufighters only arrived on front line squadrons in Sept 1940 and production was slow (the 100th aircraft from Filton was produced in early Dec 1940 and the 200th in May 1941, with other factories coming on line in Feb & March 1941. But some of those were for Coastal Command). Full re-equipment of initial NF units took until well into 1941 in many cases.

The first AI equipped Havoc night fighters only arrived with squadrons from April 1941. Night fighter Mosquitoes don’t begin to arrive with squadrons until the beginning of 1942 and again deliveries were slow. The first two squadrons flew their first operational sorties at the end of April.

While there was a lull in German night bombing raids over Britain from May 1941 when German attention turned to the USSR it picked up again in April / May 1942 with the Baedeker Blitz. Their final bomber offensive was Operation Steinbock in early 1944





Baedeker Blitz - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org












Operation Steinbock - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org





Until AI could become generally available the RAF was prepared to try just about anything to tackle night raiders. So you get Pandora, an aerial mine whose use was attempted from late 1940





93 Sqn - Long History


This site covers the history of the RAF in Jever, Germany.



www.jeversteamlaundry.org





While the idea of the Turbinlite might seem bizarre today, it represents a realistic attempt to allow use of single engined day fighters as night fighters in 1941/42.








Turbinlite - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org





The Germans were experiencing exactly the same problems countering RAF night raids and developed very similar radar defences. The Kammhuber Line developed from July 1940. Initially using a Freya radar and searchlights to direct the night fighters, it developed to pair 2 Würzburg radars to each Freya, one to control the fighter and the other to track the target. The RAF counter to this was the bomber stream to swamp the system and used from the end of May 1942.

Germany too tried to use single engined fighters at night with its so called Wilde Sau tactics.








Wilde Sau - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## BlackSheep (Aug 4, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> “…… Aside from that little quirk, the idea of approaching a bomber from different approach vectors and directing fire in various directions is all very well and good in theory, but it requires a considerable amount of piloting skill and positioning in a extremely fast evolving set of circumstances……”


I wonder even if teamwork tactics were devised and practiced would early war radios be able to hack the resultant complete attacks?

And



nuuumannn said:


> “……that the Bf 110s practised the same Lufbery Circle manoeuvre when attacked by multiple single-seaters.”



A tactic carried on into Viet Nam by A-1 Skyraider pilots when Migs were reported. Must be a method to the madness..

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> One Defiant kill every couple of weeks or so was better than none at all.


Except they didn't get a kill every couple of weeks.
Over the winter it was closer to a kill every couple of months. 
And those kills were spread out between the several different types of night fighters, so the Defiants weren't scoring much at all.

March was the turning point for the night fighters, with 22 Germans destroyed it was close to the total of the previous 5 months combined. 
The first operational use of a Defiant with radar was Sept of 1941, well after the night blitz. 

The Defiants did better in April and May but also look at the other numbers.
First Beaufighters show up in Sept as EwenS has noted, but it takes until Dec to get 100 built (not issued) and the 200th built in May with the other production lines contributing a few planes starting Feb and March. 



nuuumannn said:


> The Defiant surpassed expectation simply because it was able to record kills when the Beaufighter was suffering delay and the Blenheim and Havoc were almost useless.


Well, as mentioned earlier, scoring 4 kills a month (for all aircraft) in the fall of 1940 with the Germans flying 6,000 sorties a month (and a much worse intercept rate in the next 3 months) it was pretty low expectations. And since success at those odds was pretty much luck. (In Sept of 1940 there were 6 effective Blenheim Squadrons and 3 effective Defiant Squadrons. Only 1/3 of the Blenheims had radar. 
The Blenheim was near useless because of lack of speed, 
The Havoc was near useless because they didn't put radar in them at this time and because they were just entering British service. Havocs entered service in March of 1941?
Havoc kills are sometimes left out because some of the Havocs were used as intruders and were shooting down German bombers (rarely) over their bases in France. The Intruders were not part of fighter command so kills are sometimes lost. 
Of course then the British went off on whole Turbinlite scheme which meant some of Havocs were worse than useless. 70 planes served in number of squadrons (10?) and more were converted but not issued. The Turbinlites had radar but no guns, they were given a search light to illuminate the target/s with for the accompanying Hurricanes to shoot down. 




This was after the Night Blitz.
Basically because of the need to convert the ex French aircraft to British standards (change instruments and throttles and such) the Bostons and Havocs didn't get into action in number until around April of 1941. 

the Defiant's tale of success is on very thin ice and it depends on careful editing of the dates. 
Most successful in which months?


----------



## redcoat (Aug 4, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The Me163 hardly qualifies for that list unless it's failure to produce combat results out of 300 built is a factor.


Its range of 50 miles and its ability to melt/fry its pilots and groundcrew are also factors

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> At least the Daffy had a better kill record than the Blackburn Roc - which shot down one aircraft during it's career.


Well, they only built 136 Rocs.

They built 1064 Defiants. Yes they shot down more than eight planes but both planes contributed more as trainers and target tugs than they ever contributed in combat.

Just wasted 9-10 minutes on You tube watching "Rex's hanger" on the Defiant. Time I will never get back.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## redcoat (Aug 4, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> At least the Daffy had a better kill record than the Blackburn Roc - which shot down one aircraft during it's career.
> 
> I cannot begin to imagine the embarrassment and shame the Ju88 pilot must have endured for allowing that to happen...


The floatplane version of this plane was so slow it couldn't do low level turns for fear of stalling.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Aug 4, 2022)

The Havocs were converted from DB-7 / 7A ordered by the French. These were converted to either

Intruders - which were radarless and retained the glazed nose. 23 squadron, in Fighter Command, which had been flying intruder missions since Dec 1940, traded its Blenheim 1f in Mar/Apr 1941 for these. Squadron code YP. Supplemented by Boston III from Feb 1942 they were replaced by a batch of specially built Mosquito II intruders from July 1942. 605 squadron also flew some in the intruder role in 1942/43 before trading them for Mosquitos.


Night fighters - these were given a solid nose with extra 0.303” guns (4 or 12) and were fitted with radar. 85 squadron (squadron code VY) began to receive them in Feb 1941 as a replacement for Defiants and initially alongside the Hurricanes it had been using in the night role.





25 squadron also got a few night fighter Havocs to supplement it main Beaufighter equipment between July and Sept 1941.

93 squadron received specially equipped Havoc I from Dec 1940, from 20 conversions, fitted with the Pandora aerial mine for use alongside Harrows and Wellingtons. It disbanded in Dec 1941.

The Havoc Turbinlites were initially flown by 1451-1460 Flights. These operated in co-operation with normal day Hurricane fighter squadrons to provide night defence. In Sept 1942 there was a reorganisation and the Turbinlites and Hurricanes were brought together in the same squadrons, now numbered 530-539. Most of these units also received a few Boston III. All these units were disbanded in Jan 1943.

All of the above, including the intruder squadrons, were part of Fighter Command. The only unit to use Havocs that was not part of Fighter Command, so far as I am aware, was 161 on Special Duties work.

It was the Boston III, ordered by Britain, that became the first A-20 variant to be used by the RAF and Commonwealth Air Forces in its original role as a light bomber from late 1941 with 2 Group Bomber Command in Britain and with the Western Desert Air Force in Egypt.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2022)

Thank you for the corrections. 

Basically, if I am understanding this, the gun armed Havocs/Boston's only equipped No 23 squadron from March of 1941 on and No 85 Squadron started getting them Feb 1941 and all other use was after the Middle of May when the Night blitz ended? 
Germans were still doing some stuff over England at night but at a much reduced rate?


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 4, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Except they didn't get a kill every couple of weeks.
> Over the winter it was closer to a kill every couple of months.
> And those kills were spread out between the several different types of night fighters, so the Defiants weren't scoring much at all.



You're missing the point. Again, and compared to what? Intercept to kill ratios were not high across the board for non radar equipped night fighters in that period. In fact, between September 1940 and April 1941, Defiants shot down more enemy aircraft than radar equipped Blenheims and Havocs.



Shortround6 said:


> the Defiant's tale of success is on very thin ice and it depends on careful editing of the dates.
> Most successful in which months?



Does it matter? It was there in numbers and the reason for that lack of ability in your specified time period was (and I guess I am having to repeat myself because someone is ignoring the situation and seeing it from his own jaundiced point of view) _systemic _because of the conditions under which the aircraft operated. It wasn't the fault of the Defiant that more kills were not scored. It was operational and circumstantial, nothing to do specifically with the Defiant.



Shortround6 said:


> They built 1064 Defiants. Yes they shot down more than eight planes but both planes contributed more as trainers and target tugs than they ever contributed in combat.



Actually I'm not gonna bother pursuing this with you.

So, based on your ham-fisted logic, without the Defiant the RAF would have had around 800 or so fewer night fighters and training aircraft capable of producing experienced night fighters, not to mention fewer German bombers shot down over British skies when Britain _needed _experienced crews and more night fighters. But that's okay because going on your logic the Defiant contributed nothing...


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 4, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> I wonder even if teamwork tactics were devised and practiced would early war radios be able to hack the resultant complete attacks?



Following the introduction of the Defiant into service in late 1939, Sqn Ldr Philip Hunter of 264 Sqn devised tactics for operating the Defiant in combat. He even went into one-on-one combat with Bob Stanford Tuck in a Hurricane and through several engagements, Tuck was not able to register a successful kill against Hunter in the Defiant. This is when he applied the Lufbery Circle idea (named after Raoul Lufbery in the Great War, although its origins are uncertain) to Defiants when attacked by enemy fighters. Around this time Dowding was having expressions of doubt about how effective the Defiant would be in actual combat.

Co-ordination between the pilot and gunner was essential, naturally, and in reality, the switch in the turret that toggled fire control between the pilot and gunner was wired in the off position simply because it was a silly idea. In reality, the pilots ferried the gunners around and allowed them to make the calls as to when to fire. This in itself highlights the idea as being inferior to a single-seat interceptor as the Defiant is either ahead, alongside or underneath the aircraft it is attacking.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> You're missing the point. Again, and compared to what? Intercept to kill ratios were not high across the board for non radar equipped night fighters in that period. In fact, between September 1940 and April 1941, Defiants shot down more enemy aircraft than radar equipped Blenheims and Havocs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 We did this back in Sept of 2018. 






Worst ww2 fighter


You may be able to add/delete poll choices if you go to the original post and click "edit". Not real sure, it's been years since I did a poll - @Marcel , is it possible to edit/change poll options after posting? I don't think deleting works, apart from deleting all, i mean, but I can change...



ww2aircraft.net





Unless we have new sources. 

_"With that said it appears that as a nightfighter The Defiant scored 1 kill in Aug 1940, 1 kill in Sep, 1 in Oct, 0 (?) in Nov and 1 in Dec 1940. Jan saw 1 kill, 2 in Feb,
7 (?) in March followed by 16 (?) in April and 18-19 (?) in May of 1941"_

Different source says ALL Night fighters kill 8 planes in Sept-Oct. less than 8 in Nov-Dec-Jan, 22 kills in March, 48 kills in April and 96 in the first 2 weeks of May.

Source (book) with kills broken out by Defiants gives a bit higher total in some months. 

My jaundiced point of view understands that the situation was systemic. Nobody was getting kills with anything until March-April of 1941. At least not in any fashion (numbers) that indicate much of anything except pure luck. 
Which British plane happened to be flying on a particular night in an area where a ground controller was able to vector the crew to a target and they were able to spot it. Or in some cases the crew may have picked out a target without the aid of ground control. 

My objection is the jumping of the systemic failure of the whole system (until March) into accolades for the for the Defiant as the "most successful" based on such a miniscule sampling. Starting in Aug we have 7 kills total for the Defiant through the end of Feb. Perhaps the Defiant did beat whatever plane had the 2nd highest total for those months. But the rate of success is so low that attributing any qualities of the Defiant to the success is like whistling into the wind. 

In March the weather got better, the nights got shorter, the ground controllers were getting better (and had better equipment?) and the Beaufighters with radar were, after months of trying, starting to get a few kills. The Havocs don't seem to have done much until Feb-March, if then, that is when they started flying. 

As noted 4 years ago the Defiant's claimed about 1/3 of the kills in March (7 out of 22?) and 1/3 of the kills in April (16 out of 48?) and 1/4 of the kills in May (19 out of 96).
I will go with the lower number of kills to make the Defiant look better. 


Blenheims were being phased out. 
Havocs were in 2 or 3(?) squadrons by May, those that weren't towing explosives around on 2000ft cables. 
Hurricanes were flying around but I don't have details. 

Roderick Chisholm claimed 5 victories starting 13th of March (2 in one night) and followed within March or early April with 3 more of the 5. By July of 1941 he had a total of 7 victories, one probable and one damaged. This was extraordinary but also shows the change in the dynamic. 

The Defiant doesn't go operational with radar until Sept. Fault is with the installation, not the aircraft. 
But many accounts tout the Defiant's use of radar in the night fighter role. 
They certainly flew with it. They are supposed to have shot down a German plane with it. But it was well after (months after) the Night Blitz. 

Useful factoid if you are trying to fill up space in an article of the Defiant. A bit misleading if they leave out the dates or claim that the Defiant was leading the way in late 1941 for night fighters. 

The Defiant was used, but the situation wasn't good for any of the types over the winter of 1940-41 and to proclaim the Defiant as "the best" with such a poor sampling (and it's competitors had equally poor sampling) seems more like a PR campaign than a real assessment. 

Much like many of the websites and articles on the web repeat the claims of Defiants shooting down 27 or more planes in a single day the Spring of 1940.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Aug 5, 2022)

The conclusion to the Boulton Paul Defiant regarding the OP is that is was far from meriting being in the war’s worst aircraft list. Certainly not amongst the best either but served usefully within the situation at the time and could have been improved a little with the intended pilot gunsight and appropriate training in tactics. At night it was as good as anything else during it’s main service and remained a very useful high speed target tug thereafter. One notes that a pilot operated radar was also still used on Fairey Fulmars and Grumman Gannets later on until twin engined types were accepted as fit for carrier use.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 6, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The Defiant was used, but the situation wasn't good for any of the types over the winter of 1940-41



Finally you're getting it. It's all relative. Again, to put the systemic failures on the Defiant as you repeatedly do - to dredge up the past - is not fair and doesn't reflect the situation - how many times have I had to say that?



Shortround6 said:


> to proclaim the Defiant as "the best" with such a poor sampling (and it's competitors had equally poor sampling) seems more like a PR campaign than a real assessment.



Show me where in this thread anyone's said it was "the best" night fighter? I don't think anyone has been so bold. This is what I said:



nuuumannn said:


> Where the Defiant shone was as a night fighter and it proved that in the dark of night its qualities, two sets of eyes and a turret that was multi-directional, proved highly advantageous. The other factor leading to its success was a lack of fighter opposition, but again, its lack of speed did hamper it and there are ample combat reports where the enemy bomber once acquired slipped away in the darkness.



I have repeatedly said that over its night fighter career it was a success, and yup, it's relative, but to say it wasn't is simply not true, as the figures you provide show...



Shortround6 said:


> _With that said it appears that as a nightfighter The Defiant scored 1 kill in Aug 1940, 1 kill in Sep, 1 in Oct, 0 (?) in Nov and 1 in Dec 1940. Jan saw 1 kill, 2 in Feb,
> 7 (?) in March followed by 16 (?) in April and 18-19 (?) in May of 1941"_
> 
> Different source says ALL Night fighters kill 8 planes in Sept-Oct. less than 8 in Nov-Dec-Jan, 22 kills in March, 48 kills in April and 96 in the first 2 weeks of May.





Shortround6 said:


> As noted 4 years ago the Defiant's claimed about 1/3 of the kills in March (7 out of 22?) and 1/3 of the kills in April (16 out of 48?) and 1/4 of the kills in May (19 out of 96).



Bearing in mind the RAF was operating five different types in this period the Defiant's kill ratio looks quite good, actually. It also runs contrary to this posted by you...



Shortround6 said:


> Trying things, like the Defiant, helped acquire the expertise. Keeping the experiments going for months/ years for little result wasn't adding anything.



So, can we agree it was a success under the difficult circumstances of the time, rather than being dismissive of the aircraft and not taking those circumstances into consideration?

Nice to see a plan come together.

I'd also like to add that by March 1941, since this is the agreed datum point, there were five Defiant squadrons either available or forming and by the end of March, 54 OTU had been formed at Charterhall, with 60 OTU being formed a month later at Leconfield, before moving to East Fortune when that station opened. So before March 1941, there was _no_ operational night fighter training in the RAF except on squadrons equipped with night fighters. It was a tough time for crews being trained in techniques by their commanding officers, who had to learn the stuff themselves from manuals. It's no wonder the kill count was so low before then.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spindash64 (Aug 6, 2022)

From a purely strategic standpoint, I'd argue the Ohka could fit on the list. Sure, it technically does its job of being a manned cruise missile. But that's exactly the problem: It is marginally successful at feeding illusions that sacrificing men directly can win the war. It was far from the only aircraft used for "special attack missions", far from it. But many of the aircraft used for these missions at least have the excuse of being obsolete airframes, so you weren't incurring additional manufacturing costs on top of the manpower cost. Yes, technically the mortality rate per ship sunk was LOWER on Kamikaze missions than traditional attacks. But what that SHOULD say is that the situation has gone so pear shaped that they needed to fall back to fix both their air power and their training regimen. What is the POINT of fighting a war if you have no plans for if you WIN?

I would argue that the only thing that can be worse than a design for a good role, done badly, is a design for a self-destructive role, done at all.


I know, such a hot take: "kamikaze bad".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Aug 6, 2022)

Ki-115 rather than the Ohka.


----------



## MikeMeech (Aug 6, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> . This is when he applied the Lufbery Circle idea (named after Raoul Lufbery in the Great War, although its origins are uncertain) to Defiants when attacked by enemy fighters. having expressions of doubt about


Hi
In the RFC during WW1 this was known as the "roundabout" tactic when used by FE.2b/d pusher aircraft. It was to protect themselves from rear attacks by enemy fighters. However, the formation had to careful not to drift eastwards in the prevailing winds on the Western Front so had to gradually move the "roundabout" formation westwards as they circled. Also if the mission had yet to be undertaken (photo recce, bombing etc) the formation could hamper the completion of the task.

Mike

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 6, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> In the RFC during WW1 this was known as the "roundabout" tactic when used by FE.2b/d pusher aircraft. It was to protect themselves from rear attacks by enemy fighters. However, the formation had to careful not to drift eastwards in the prevailing winds on the Western Front so had to gradually move the "roundabout" formation westwards as they circled. Also if the mission had yet to be undertaken (photo recce, bombing etc) the formation could hamper the completion of the task.



Hi Mike, yup, there's no agreement whether or not the roundabout tactic was its first application in combat, hence my brief, barely a sentence statement. The name for this manoeuvre has come to be described as the Lufbery Circle. Why? Don't know without looking it up. Raoul Lufbery isn't even credited with inventing it. Interestingly, within the context of the Defiant, Boulton Paul historian Alec Brew, when describing tactics that Sqn Ldr Hunter applied in training operational tactics for the Defiant, described the manoeuvre as a "Defensive Circle", which is possibly (but I don't know this for sure) what Hunter called it, but it's the same thing as a Lufbery Circle or Roundabout tactic and I'm sure the Germans have a different name again for what is essentially the same manoeuvre.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Aug 7, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Hi Mike, yup, there's no agreement whether or not the roundabout tactic was its first application in combat, hence my brief, barely a sentence statement. The name for this manoeuvre has come to be described as the Lufbery Circle. Why? Don't know without looking it up. Raoul Lufbery isn't even credited with inventing it. Interestingly, within the context of the Defiant, Boulton Paul historian Alec Brew, when describing tactics that Sqn Ldr Hunter applied in training operational tactics for the Defiant, described the manoeuvre as a "Defensive Circle", which is possibly (but I don't know this for sure) what Hunter called it, but it's the same thing as a Lufbery Circle or Roundabout tactic and I'm sure the Germans have a different name again for what is essentially the same manoeuvre.


Hi
I have not come across the term "Lufbery Circle" being used by the British or French, so I presume it is a US, probably post WW1 term used in US publications. The book 'Dog-Fight, Aerial Tactics of the Aces of World War I' by Norman Franks, does mention below a comment on using a "revolving wheel" formation by No. 43 Sqn. flying Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutters (two seat):





I suspect an author (as writers have a tendency to do) put a 'famous name' to something they had nothing to do with originally, which is later repeated by other writers making it 'fact'.

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 7, 2022)

Spindash64 said:


> But what that SHOULD say is that the situation has gone so pear shaped that they needed to fall back to fix both their air power and their training regimen. What is the POINT of fighting a war if you have no plans for if you WIN?


In the late stages of the Pacific war, the Japanese command new that victory was no longer an option.

Their strategy, however, was to make Allied victories so costly, that they would be able to negotiate peace on their terms.

That idea may have sounded good on paper, but the Allies weren't going along with the plan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Comparing the figures earlier posted, the co-relation between the OTUs getting up to speed and the rise in kills from April 1941 onwards is of interest...


It is of interest. I am sure the OTUs helped quite bit. So did a number of other factors. Many of which I have mentioned.



nuuumannn said:


> So, can we agree it was a success under the difficult circumstances of the time, rather than being dismissive of the aircraft and not taking those circumstances into consideration?


No, we can't.

Was it a total failure?
No.
Now where on the total failure to success spectrum was it?





You seem to think it was in the green, I think it was in orange area.




nuuumannn said:


> Where the Defiant *shone* was as a night fighter and it proved that in the dark of night its qualities, two sets of eyes and a turret that was multi-directional, proved highly advantageous. The other factor leading to it success was a lack of fighter opposition, but again, its lack of speed did hamper it and there are ample combat reports where the enemy bomber once acquired slipped away in the darkness. Some 13 RAF squadrons fully or partially equipped with the Defiant between late 1940 and the end of 1942, when the type was finally withdrawn from the frontline.


Shone as a Night fighter????/
Shone???????
Shine......................to be eminent, conspicuous, or distinguished
..................................to perform extremely well
.................................. to be conspicuously evident or clear





nuuumannn said:


> Bearing in mind the RAF was operating five different types in this period the Defiant's kill ratio looks quite good, actually. It also runs contrary to this posted by you...


During the time period in question the Blenheim started at 6 squadrons and decreased, the Defiant started at 3 squadrons and increased to 5 The Havoc didn't even start until Feb/March and had two squadrons in April, The Beaufighter started in October but it was a slow replacement into some of the Blenheim squadrons at first. Some Squadrons may have started on Beaufighters as production ramped up? It took some months before the 1st three squadrons got up to full compliment. 
In March of 1940 1/2 of the 22 German aircraft claimed were by Beaufighters vs the 1/3 claimed by Defiant's leaving 1/6th for everybody else? 

By the time of the Invasion of Russian No 604 squadron (which had scored the first radar Beaufighter kill in March) was claiming 50 kills. 
Granted most of these kills were by a handful of pilots whatever people may have thought in the winter of 1940/41 


nuuumannn said:


> So, can we agree it was a success under the difficult circumstances of the time, rather than being dismissive of the aircraft and not taking those circumstances into consideration?


Define success, Shooting down 1 or 2 aircraft a month out of 5-6000 aircraft penetrating British airspace is not a success. 
Beaufighter scored it's first radar kill on Nov 19/201940, a second kill was scored several weeks later? Granted several more months went by before another kill. Hints of the future but not a a success at the time.

Shooting down almost 100 a month was a success, Or at least close do it. Could the Germans sustain that level of losses or higher as the nights got shorter and the British night fighters (and controllers) got even better? 

The "experiments", whatever their merits were Jan-April of 1941 should have been shut down in the summer of 1941. 
The 2000ft cable with mine on the end wasn't shut down until Nov of 1942!!!!!
The Turbinelite wasn't shutdown until 1943 ( 70 Bostons/Havos with eight/twelve 303 guns and radar in the same plane could have done something in 1942. Shooting down one German would have tied the Defiant record in late 1941/and 1942) 
And the last points out the gaslighting that is part of the Defiant's record. 
The majority of Defiant night fighter squadrons weren't equipped with Defiants until after the Invasion of Russian. Even if all 13 were not equipped at the same time and even granting that you need a least some planes to fill up squadrons the results don't justify the costs. 
The MK II Defiant didn't show up until Sept 1941. Radar, due to development problems didn't show up until Sept 1941. 
Defiants scored 1 kill from Sept 1941 on? and yet accounts of full of the Defiant providing valuable service as a nightfighter well after the summer of 1941. 

Selective use of dates can also skew things. 
When did the "Blitz" end?

Some sources say May 11th. 
But the Luftwaffe didn't show up on May 11th and then stop on May 12th. Things tapered off considerably but on 19/20 May 1941 Night fighters (of all types?) claimed 24 German aircraft while AA claimed 2. 
These 24 aircraft _should _not be counted in the 96 destroyed in the first 2 weeks of May but I don't know who was counting.


----------



## EwenS (Aug 7, 2022)

So the Defiant Mk.II entered service in Sept 1941 and was radar equipped from the get go.

But there are references to some squadrons having to “make do” with radar equipped Mk.IA. But none of them make clear when they first appeared on squadrons.

Anyone got any positive source of confirmation for a date of entry for the Mk.IA and not just an assumption based on Mk.II?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2022)

I don't know if the Defiant service aircraft showed up with both the Merlin XX engines and radar in the same aircraft or not. Bill Gunstons book indicates they did not.

Bill Gunstons book claims Boulton Paul had completed the installation drawings on Nov 19th 1940 for the AI V radar. Parts were in the right wing, behind the turret, in-between the turret and pilots seat, the display on the left and the controls on the right.
The Installation suffered from moisture and bad electrical screening and was not cleared until Aug 1941. By which time they had changed to the AI MK VI radar with wider bandwidth and with a beacon facility.
Bill Gunstons book says that radar equipped Defiant IA served with Squadron 264 and later with squadrons 96, 125, 256 and 410.
The MK IIs served with Squadron 141 and with 151 and 153 squadrons.

I have no idea what later the later mix of aircraft was and/or what other squadrons were using Defiants to get up to 13 squadrons using them as night fighters at some point.
Not saying they were used at the same point.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 7, 2022)

The Defiant was a beautifully executed machine. The fact that we're discussing radar installations for the Defiant tells me that it has positive qualities. It was built to a government requirement and built well. It's what the customer ordered. As they say in Thailand, "good idea, low IQ". 
I'm sticking with the Lerwick.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AerialTorpedoDude69 (Aug 7, 2022)

Spindash64 said:


> From a purely strategic standpoint, I'd argue the Ohka could fit on the list. Sure, it technically does its job of being a manned cruise missile. But that's exactly the problem: It is marginally successful at feeding illusions that sacrificing men directly can win the war. It was far from the only aircraft used for "special attack missions", far from it. But many of the aircraft used for these missions at least have the excuse of being obsolete airframes, so you weren't incurring additional manufacturing costs on top of the manpower cost. Yes, technically the mortality rate per ship sunk was LOWER on Kamikaze missions than traditional attacks. But what that SHOULD say is that the situation has gone so pear shaped that they needed to fall back to fix both their air power and their training regimen. What is the POINT of fighting a war if you have no plans for if you WIN?
> 
> I would argue that the only thing that can be worse than a design for a good role, done badly, is a design for a self-destructive role, done at all.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's a hot take; what you say is well reasoned.

All the suicide weapons (including aerial torpedoes to some extent) were a misallocation of resources. By 1944-45, the Japanese had developed (or were developing) a variety of guided missiles, such as the Ke-Go heat-seeking missile. Even from a cost perspective, I can't imagine that even 100 heat-seeking missiles is worth the life of one top-of-their-class college student who would otherwise go on to become a productive member of society. So from that perspective, I can't think of a more expensive weapons program that had very little impact on the war.

It's as 

 GrauGeist
said: a terror weapon designed to force Allied political leaders to the bargaining table.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> The Defiant was a beautifully executed machine. The fact that we're discussing radar installations for the Defiant tells me that it has positive qualities. It was built to a government requirement and built well. It's what the customer ordered. As they say in Thailand, "good idea, low IQ".
> I'm sticking with the Lerwick.






The Defiant was a lot better than either Lerwick or the Botha.

It was what the Customer ordered. It was well built.

Still leaves a lot of room before the needle gets into green.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Aug 7, 2022)

Those pilots trained to fly the Ki-115 were given basic stick and rudder instruction and only take off knowledge. Some authors say the pilots are to be mid teenagers.

Regarding the defensive circle, in Vietnam when MiG-17s were caught together, they formed the classic defensive circle against the F-4s. Since there were not generally enough MiGs to completely fill the circle ( and no rear gunner), the F-4 driver tactic was to use superior speed to bisect the circle and hope to get a hit or at least break up the circle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Aug 7, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't know if the Defiant service aircraft showed up with both the Merlin XX engines and radar in the same aircraft or not. Bill Gunstons book indicates they did not.
> 
> Bill Gunstons book claims Boulton Paul had completed the installation drawings on Nov 19th 1940 for the AI V radar. Parts were in the right wing, behind the turret, in-between the turret and pilots seat, the display on the left and the controls on the right.
> The Installation suffered from moisture and bad electrical screening and was not cleared until Aug 1941. By which time they had changed to the AI MK VI radar with wider bandwidth and with a beacon facility.
> ...


The 13 Defiant squadrons:-
85 - Mk.I Jan-Feb 1941 alongside Hurricanes in the night role. Only flew 3 sorties on them before switching to Havocs.

96 - converted from a Hurricane night fighter flight in Dec 1940. Defiant Mk.I/IA Feb 1941- June 1942. Mk.II from Feb 1942-Jun 1942. Converted to Beaufighter II.

125 - formed as a Defiant NF unit Jun 1941. Operated Mk.I to Apr 1942. Beaufighter II started arriving Feb 1942.

141 - Defiant Mk.I day fighter Oct 1939-Sept 1940. Sept 1940 det sent to southern England in NF role with rest of squadron following in Oct. Began to receive Beaufighter I in Jun 1941 and last Defiants left in Aug.

151 - Hurricane squadron switched to NF role in Nov 1940 when Defiants began to be received. Hurricanes left Feb 1942. Defiant Mk.I Dec 1940-Apr 1942. Mk.II Apr 1942-Aug 1942. Mosquito II began arriving in Apr 1942.

153 - formed Oct 1941 from a flight of 256 Sqdn. Defiant Mk.I until May 1942. Beaufighter I started arriving Jan 1942.

255 - formed Nov 1940 as Defiant Mk.I NF squadron, which it used until Sept 1941. Also Hurricanes from Mar-July 1941. Beaufighter II began to be received in July 1941.

256 - formed Nov 1940 as Defiant Mk.I NF squadron. July 1941 received some Hurricanes. Both types swapped for Beaufighter I in May 1942.

264 - Defiant day fighter squadron switched to NF role at end of Aug 1940. Defiant Mk.I to Sept 1941 then Mk.II. Converted to Mosquito II in May 1942.

307 (Polish) - formed as Defiant NF squadron Sept 1940. Used Mk.I until Aug 1941 when it swapped them for Beaufighter II.

409 - formed as Defiant Mk.I NF squadron Jun 1941 which it used until Oct 1941. But Beaufighter II began to arrive in Aug 1941.

410 - formed Jun 1940 as Defiant Mk.I NF squadron which it used until Jun 1942. But Beaufighter II began arriving in April 1942.

456 - formed June 1941 as Defiant Mk.I NF squadron which it used until Nov 1941. But began receiving Beaufighter II in Sept 1941.

So we have squadrons using Defiants in the NF role for as little as 2 months (85) and as long as 2 years (410) with several also using Hurricanes in that role alongside them. Conversion to more able twin engined NF types begins in early 1941 as aircraft become available (Havocs, then Beaufighters then Mosquitos).

The ASR squadrons began to receive Defiant Mk.I/IA from Nov 1941.

Taken from Halley’s “Squadrons of the Royal Air Force and Commonwealth 1918-1988.”. There seems to be little distinction between Marks used however.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 7, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The Defiant was a lot better than either Lerwick or the Botha.
> 
> It was what the Customer ordered. It was well built.
> 
> Still leaves a lot of room before the needle gets into green.


Never said it was a world beater. It just doesn't deserve to be listed with the truly awful. It wouldn't to try kill you just by being in it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Never said it was a world beater. It just doesn't deserve to be listed with the truly awful. It wouldn't try kill you just by being in it.


As long as you didn't try to use it in combat 

Somewhat kidding.

However, like a number of American Aircraft, it's combat numbers are seriously overblown by claimed victories during wartime. Which was fine at the time, that is all they knew. It was OK in the 1950s, nobody was doing a lot of research but we are getting the same kind of inflated statistics about the Defiant as we are from the Dauntless and the F6F (19 to 1 kill ratio?).

The Defiant's claim of 37 (or 38) in one day (My 29th 1940) is claimed by some to be only 14 by German records. 
Ok, everybody over claimed, but that is one of the Defiants main claims to fame, one squadron on one day. 
SBDs overclaimed like crazy during the battle of Coral Sea and established that whole "_used as a fighter_" thing that has persisted to this day. 
Skua has a much better claim as a fighter based on what it actually did. And only about 3 squadrons used Skuas? 

The Defiant as a night fighter is another rathole.
Yes, they used them, But it doesn't seem that they were much better than anything else? (maybe better than Hurricanes?) 
The 6 squadrons of Blenheims (don't know if they added to that number or how quickly replacement by Beaufighters cut the number of squadrons) changed.
There were 3 squadrons of Defiants in Sept of 1940 and another 4 were added by May of 1941 during the Blitz (not counting Squadron 85 with 3 sorties) 

The Biggest use was after the Blitz ended and since the Luftwaffe did not cooperate by sending large numbers of bombers over Britain for Defiant to shoot down in late 1941 and early 1942 we don't know how well they would have done or not done. The Defiants flew, they don't seem to have crashed at a higher than normal rate compared to other planes of the time and that is about it for the after Blitz record. 

The Blenheims were in 6 squadrons but only about 1/3 had radar at the start of the Blitz and a number of those squadrons were slowly up graded to Beaufighters. By the end of Dec 1940 5 squadrons had at least some Beaufighters. 

For a number of these nightfighters during the Blitz operational losses (crashes) exceeded enemy kills until about March, just due to hazards of night flying. 
The machines were getting better radios and homing beacons over the winter and with more pilots getting experience things got better, but No 604 Squadron lost it's most experienced pilot (in number of night hours flown) in late spring of 1941 (?) so things were never easy. 

Perhaps the Defiant belongs on a list of most overrated and not worst aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 7, 2022)

I do believe this is the first time I've ever read "Defiant" and "overrated" in the same sentence.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 7, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I do believe this is the first time I've ever read "Defiant" and "overrated" in the same sentence.



I've seen them together, but that was as an adult book-store manager. Take it for what you will.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## AerialTorpedoDude69 (Aug 7, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> No Brewster Buccaneer?


Dear lord, I just read about Brewster's other aircraft, including its version of the Corsair. Brewster's planes were so bad they were falling apart in the air and pretty much none of their aircraft made their performance estimates.

The factory conditions were something out of a Russ Meyer film. Or perhaps Porky's or maybe Gung Ho is more accurate? Regardless, the article is a very sad read and summarizes how little the government thought about Brewster's aircraft.

People were having sex on the assembly floor inside the planes. Crews were notorious for forgetting tools in the aircraft after they were completed, leaving pilots to wonder what the rattling sound was. The Brewster plant was seized by the government at one point and it even had a worker strike in the middle of the war.

The Brewster XA-32 also deserves some discussion. It was a really bad airplane, particularly for the year it was released (and cancelled).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 8, 2022)

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:


> Dear lord, I just read about Brewster's other aircraft, including its version of the Corsair. Brewster's planes were so bad they were falling apart in the air and pretty much none of their aircraft made their performance estimates.
> 
> The factory conditions were something out of a Russ Meyer film. Or perhaps Porky's or maybe Gung Ho is more accurate? Regardless, the article is a very sad read and summarizes how little the government thought about Brewster's aircraft.
> 
> ...



I can't speak to sexin' on the work-floor, but I'm pretty sure their Corsairs carried a bad rep, and of course the Brits rejected the Buccaneer outright.

You've got to be pretty crummy to be a defense contractor going out of business during a world war, essentially.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 8, 2022)

My bit of "what-iffery" regarding the Buffalo is what if had just been built to spec? What if it was built with new engines, including all the little parts I always have leftover?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 8, 2022)

Several things about Brewster.
First of all, their manufacturing plant was an antiquated, multi-storey building designed for coach and hand-built automibiles. The aircraft had to be mived about in a partially assembled state.
There was also the issue of poor management.
The union initiated strikes and the aircraft were found to be sabotaged in many instances to the point that the government stepped in and seized the company.
The Brewster built Corsair (F3A) never saw combat, most that were found to be air worthy were relegated to training service only.

The SB2A was such a failure, many were scrapped without ever having been flown.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pb43 (Aug 8, 2022)

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:


> Dear lord, I just read about Brewster's other aircraft, including its version of the Corsair. Brewster's planes were so bad they were falling apart in the air and pretty much none of their aircraft made their performance estimates.
> 
> The factory conditions were something out of a Russ Meyer film. Or perhaps Porky's or maybe Gung Ho is more accurate? Regardless, the article is a very sad read and summarizes how little the government thought about Brewster's aircraft.
> 
> ...


I was about to vote for ANYTHING produced by Brewster. They were dreadful. The USN knew this, so foisted all the F3A Corsairs onto the Fleet Air Arm!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Aug 8, 2022)

And in the last few posts there seems to be a bit of the usual anecdotal stuff about Brewster & the Corsair. But is it in fact true?

Dana Bell who has written several books on the "Bent Winged Bastard" has this to say about the Brewster Corsairs:-

_"Though Brewster Corsairs are often cited as inferior, Navy records do not agree. By January 1944, BuAer considered production of the first F3A-1Ds (beginning with BuNo 11467) or F3A-4s when the first Corsair III order finished. Brewster engineers had handled special projetcs, such as the shorter British wingtips, the centerline bomb rack, and a (poorly documented) high-lift Corsair wing. Brewster, however, had management and labor problems - raising the costs and delaying the F3A deliveries. By early 1944, the Navy was pleased with Brewster production, but in April a new board of directors was elected. Unhappy with several of the members, the Navy terminated Brewster contracts 22 May, allowing completion of up to 150 more aircraft by 1 July. lawsuits followed, and most of BuAer's Brewster files were pulled by legal offices - leaving little documentation in today's archives."_

Brewster built 735 Corsairs. Only 430 (60%) of those came to Britain. The others were used by the USN. Only in the months of Feb-April 1944 was all Brewster production allocated to Britain. About the last 130 off the line to Jul 1944 went to the USN.

6 FAA squadrons received them fresh from the factory when working up in the USA but swapped them out for Corsair II & IV (built by Vought and Goodyear respectively) before becoming operational.

Neither navy used the Brewster built Corsairs in their front line carrier air groups. But both navies were content to see them used in second line roles or as part of air groups working up all the way through to the end of the war. So for example in Aug 1945 in the USN VBF-5, then working up had 5 F3A-1 alongside 11 FG-1A and 22 F4U. VBF-15, 19, 84, all had some amongst their aircraft complement. All these units were at bases in the USA.

So why not use them on the front line? I suspect that, like other US aircraft types, there were manufacturing differences (and I don't mean shoddy build quality) between factories making them less compatible with Vought and Goodyear aircraft. The formed only 22% of Corsair deliveries to Britain and an even smaller proportion of USN deliveries.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Aug 9, 2022)

AerialTorpedoDude69 said:


> Dear lord, I just read about Brewster's other aircraft, including its version of the Corsair. Brewster's planes were so bad they were falling apart in the air and pretty much none of their aircraft made their performance estimates.
> 
> The factory conditions were something out of a Russ Meyer film. Or perhaps Porky's or maybe Gung Ho is more accurate? Regardless, the article is a very sad read and summarizes how little the government thought about Brewster's aircraft.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately the article you link is not available to us in the UK (GDPR restrictions)

There were 3 Brewster plants.
Brewster Building, Long Island, New York - the main pre-war factory and company headquarters.
Newark, New Jersey - where aircraft from New York were assembled and flown
Warminster Township, Pennsylvania - acquired in 1941 and where the SB2A Buccaneer/Bermuda was built.

F2A Buffalo production came to an end at New York in April 1942 with only 20 aircraft produced that year.
SB2A production of completed airframes acceptable to the customer began in the Pennsylvania factory in July 1942 and continued until May 1944. That was despite there being contracts in place with Britain & the Dutch since mid-1940 and the USN since Dec 1940.
F3A Corsair production contract was awarded 1 Nov 1941 and the first production aircraft was produced in June 1943 at Long Island. It peaked in May 1944 at 122 aircraft and continued until July 1944.

By way of comparison Goodyear was awarded a Corsair production contract in Dec 1941 and was able to start production in April 1943. By May 1944 its production was 220 aircraft. I don't know how the size of the workforces compared in the two plants.

The USN took over all the Brewster plants by Presidential Order in April 1942 due not to the quality of the product, but because there was no product at all emerging from the factories. And many of the problems with the Buccaneer/Bermuda, which had already started rolling off the line, were design problems, in particular related to aileron flutter in the dive, as well as quality issues. But those problems in the company couldn't be sorted due to various management problems, including the main shareholders being in jail! Add to that labour issues and rumours of sabotage. A lot of this is laid out in the Congressional enquiry that took place. transcripts of that can be accessed for free via Google Books. This is a good place to start.








Investigation of the Progress of the War Effort: Brewster investigation






books.google.co.uk





As for the strikes, Brewster was not the only company affected. I've found one occasion reported in the NY Times that there had been a strike by both Ford and Brewster workers at NY plants at the same time, with the Ford plant affecting about 3 times the number of employees as Brewster. Sadly WW2 did not somehow miraculously make strikes go away. In Britain 1944 was the peak year for strikes with over 2000 occurring with an estimated loss of 3.7m days production. And this article about strikes in the USA in 1942.








US military steps in to halt strikes


As strikes across the U.S. slow down the economy, President Roosevelt has chosen to intervene: four times he has ordered the Army or Navy to take over striking factories. In the six months between …




blogs.shu.edu





And before being too critical of Brewster employees in WW2 leaving tools etc in wartime built aircraft, there is an example in the recent past concerning the quality of various Boeing products coming out of their factories with tools and other materials left in airliner fuel tanks etc.

I won't try to defend the Bucanneer/Bermuda. It was an aircraft with problems which Brewster never got on top of, probably due to all its internal corporate problems. But there were other aircraft in WW2 which also had major gestational problems before reaching front line service. Take a look at the problems that befell the SB2A competitor from Curtiss, the SB2C Helldiver. Prototypes of both had been ordered by the USN in April / May 1939. Production contracts awarded by the USN in Nov/Dec 1940. First flights were in Jun 1941 & Dec 1940 respectively. But it took until Sept 1942 for the first production SB2C to be accepted (2 months after the SB2A). The first squadron formed in Dec 1942 but it took another 11 months before it entered combat, much of it sorting out teething problems. It too came out of a brand new factory.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Unfortunately the article you link is not available to us in the UK (GDPR restrictions)
> 
> There were 3 Brewster plants.
> Brewster Building, *Long Island, New York* - the main pre-war factory and company headquarters.
> ...


Brewster DID NOT have a plant on Long Island! The facility you are referring to was located at "Long Island City" which is in the borough of Queens. I had an uncle who worked there. Brewster Building (Queens) - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2022)

EwenS said:


> So why not use them on the front line? I suspect that, like other US aircraft types, there were manufacturing differences (and I don't mean shoddy build quality) between factories making them less compatible with Vought and Goodyear aircraft. The formed only 22% of Corsair deliveries to Britain and an even smaller proportion of USN deliveries.


From what I was told by people who worked for Brewster, the Corsairs produced by them had many manufacturing errors (that were corrected by approved repairs) and it was decided that these aircraft would never see fleet service. There were major workmanship issues at Brewster

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2022)

Actually Queens is on Long Island.






Granted Long Island City borders on the East River about where Roosevelt Island is and perhaps the residents of Queens consider the rest of Long Island to be a separate land mass..........

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually Queens is on Long Island.
> 
> View attachment 681183
> 
> Granted Long Island City borders on the East River about where Roosevelt Island is and perhaps the residents of Queens consider the rest of Long Island to be a separate land mass..........


NOPE! All part of the same land mass but two different cities/ counties!!!!! You're talking to someone who grew up there!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 9, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Brewster DID NOT have a plant on Long Island! The facility you are referring to was located at "Long Island City" which is in the borough of Queens. I had an uncle who worked there. Brewster Building (Queens) - Wikipedia


All those times I drove by there and never knew it was the Brewster factory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 9, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> NOPE! All part of the same land mass but two different cities/ counties!!!!! You're talking to someone who grew up there!!!


Truly, the man doth speak! FWIW the pizza in Brooklyn (my home county) is better than the pizza in Queens (my home county).

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Aug 9, 2022)

Elsewhere, somewhere, on the forum is a discussion of the Bucanneer/Bermuda problems one of which was the tailwheel design. Apparently taxiing was a problem and getting the tailwheel aligned for take off was a problem. Also somewhere on the forum is a video of the SB2A taxiing and it shows a definite tailwheel problem. As with anything slightly usable, give it to the Marines.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 9, 2022)

Speaking as a Nassau native, the stereotypical "Long Guy-land" accent is actually a Queens accent. No one I have ever met that is native to Nassau or Suffolk counties (in Long Island) spoke that way. Yet another "border" between them and us. But I have always considered Long Island to have 4 counties...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 10, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Define success, Shooting down 1 or 2 aircraft a month out of 5-6000 aircraft penetrating British airspace is not a success.



The problem is what it is that you're choosing as your measure of success. According to you, shooting down 42 aeroplanes between the end of September 1940 and May 1941 is not successful. Using an aircraft's total kills as a standalone measure is not rewarding and doesn't illustrate the entire picture. _Again_, you're missing vital context, as you so often do, SR. Here's why you can't use kills alone as a measure of success, or the lack of it.

The aircraft type that shot down the highest number of German airships during the Great War was the Royal Aircraft Factory BE.2c. It was more successful at this than the Sopwith Pup and Camel, both of which recorded airship kills but not as many as the good ole Bee Eee. Does this mean the Bee Eee is more successful than these two types? Based on your metric it is.

Now let's add that vitally important_ context_. The reality was that the BE.2c was slow, had next to no endurance and airships could easily evade it by climbing higher out of its reach. Its success comes from the introduction of incendiary ammunition, which changed the game and saw airships being shot down more frequently than before, in one case, two in one night. The Camel and Pup began appearing as airship activity declined. *This all illustrates that there is always more to it than just kills and losses.*

So, back to the Defiant. It shot down 42 enemy aircraft in that time period, that's _more than three squadrons_. That's more than 200 Germans that are not going to come back and fight again. Given the Defiant was available in numbers to equip the OTUs for training night fighter pilots within a structured system, its availability is crucial, especially since you keep banging on about how useless everyone was at shooting down enemy aircraft at that time.

As I mentioned, the Defiant *WAS *a success as a night fighter. It held the line at a time when it was very thin indeed and became available in numbers to provide vital training and to equip 13 squadrons as a frontline interceptor before better types became available in sufficient numbers so it could be retired. What's_ not _successful about that?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> The problem is what it is that you're choosing as your measure of success. According to you, shooting down 42 aeroplanes between the end of September 1940 and May 1941 is not successful. Using an aircraft's total kills as a standalone measure is not rewarding and doesn't illustrate the entire picture. _Again_, you're missing vital context, as you so often do, SR. Here's why you can't use kills alone as a measure of success, or the lack of it.



OK, my definition of success is different than yours.
I seldom, if ever, judge solely on "box scores". Like plane X shot down XX planes without taking into account the number of planes involved. 
I judge the Skua as successful, in fact very successful. 
This is based, not on total number of aircraft shot down but on the number of enemy aircraft shot down in relation to the number of Skuas either deployed or manufactured. Take your pick. That is part of the "context". In other Threads I have said the Skua was much more successful as a fighter than the SBD for example. 

The Defiant gave a poor return on investment. 

It is also a poor argument to say that if there had been NO Defiants that the 42 German planes would have been saved. 

An equal number of other airplanes would probably have shot down _something_. Maybe just a few or perhaps beating the Defiant total, I don't know since we don't know what the British could have/would have substituted. 

So lets look at the Defiant from that "context". 

Lets even say that around 400 Defiants did valuable work at target tugs. 

42 kills out of 600 fighters? 

Or for the MK II, 1 kill out of 150 or so fighters? (trying to factor in that some of the MK IIs were converted after being built in addition to the ones built as tugs on the production line)

Now we do have to add other elements of context, like operating conditions (poor for everybody/all types in the Fall and Winter) and target density (went way down after the middle of May, you can't shoot down what isn't there, much like the Camels of WW I). 

But we also have to apply context to some of the other planes involved also. Like the number of missions/sorties done by Blenheim's and Havocs. Fewer months in combat with different numbers of squadrons. Some squadrons had mixed equipment. 

Not all 13 squadrons may have been operating at the same time which makes things a bit better for the Defiant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 10, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> NOPE! All part of the same land mass but two different cities/ counties!!!!! You're talking to someone who grew up there!!!



Is not the island named long Island?



> The island comprises four counties; Kings and Queens counties (the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, respectively) and Nassau County share the western third of the island, while Suffolk County occupies the eastern two thirds.











Long Island - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 10, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The Defiant gave a poor return on investment.



Again, according to whom? A jaded Aamerican who rubbishes anything British until pulled up on it?



Shortround6 said:


> It is also a poor argument to say that if there had been NO Defiants that the 42 German planes would have been saved.



Whose saying that except you? What is being said, quite obviously that the Defiant's contribution by shooting down those aircraft was valuable. You're taking their losses individually instead of collectively. What I am saying is that the Defiant gave the RAF aircraft that it would not have had, had it not been available. That adds value. No Defiants, far fewer night fighters at a time when the RAF needed night fighters. No Defiant, no basis of creating OTUs, of which the Defiant provided numbers for. No Defiant, no stop gap night fighter available in numbers and you can't prove those 42 aircraft wouldn't have been shot down, simply because they were shot down by Defiants.

Your fatalistic metric for measuring these things simply doesn't take circumstances or the value that having those Defiants available meant. So, only target tug Defiants were of value? Never mind the several hundred RAF aircrew that learnt their night fighter and gunnery trade on Defiants? Nope. not buying it.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 10, 2022)

wuzak said:


> Is not the island named long Island?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ugh, out of towners. 🙄

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 10, 2022)

At one time it was a green and verdant island. There were many delightful settlements scattered about its length. It even had a city, Long Island City. Then, during the Great Tymes of Doing Great Thyngs, the great inter dimensional force of the Empire City of the Empire State that came to be known as Greater New York reached out across the Eastern River and absorbed the pleasant but lesser townes that were upon the western shores of the island. They would never again be joined by any mortal force except maybe roads, streets, foot paths, bus routes......


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2022)

I am tired of being gaslighted by the Defiant "legend".


nuuumannn said:


> No Defiant, no basis of creating OTUs, of which the Defiant provided numbers for. No Defiant, no stop gap night fighter available in numbers



Apparently the Blenheim's were incapable of being used in OTUs? 
Especially as Beaufighters replaced in service Blenheim's? 
And any Defiants in OTUs in the spring of 1941 didn't have radar. 
Better than nothing but not quite the standard of training one might have wished for.
The Blenheim might have been slow but at least it offered a more complete training mission. 

Let's see about the no stop gap night fighters.

Only 8 Squadrons used them during the Blitz. They started with 3 and ended in May with 8 squadrons. 
OK, No 85 squadron used them for 3 operational sorties while they went from Hurricanes to Havocs so call it 8 1/2 or however you want to count it.



Now the British took several squadons of twin engine aircraft with a speed of over 300mph and 
1. Hung a 2000ft steel cable on them with an explosive charge on the end to tow through the air in hope of tangling the cable in a German bomber.
2. Used the radar equipped aircraft to mount a big searchlight but no guns to shoot at the Germans with.

Net result of these 70 aircraft were one German aircraft caught with the steel cable which impressed every one so much that they carried on until well into 1942 and the searchlight scheme resulted is shooting down one British aircraft with the result that they didn't give up totally on the search lite scheme until Jan 1943. 

What they didn't do in the Spring of 1941 was put guns on them and fly them like Beaufighters.

I don't blame them for trying, I blame them for keeping up the experiments for so long after they should have been seen as rubbish.

Much like the Defiant. Use what you have in 1940 and into 1941. 
But don't try to gaslight me with claims that the radar equipped Defiant was a success (one plane shot down?) or formed an important part of the British defenses in the winter of 1941/42. They may have been flying around but they didn't do much.

The use of the Defiant is something like the Typhoon in 1942. The Typhoon wasn't working for a number of reasons. But they didn't have much in the way of other choices (the two stage Merlins weren't on line yet) and they ordered over 1000 of the Typhoons and factories all over Britain were making forgings for assemblies, landing gear parts, brake parts and other things to be shipped to Hawker/Gloster for assembly.
You couldn't stop Defiant production and make Hurricanes or something else (Fulmars?) without a large drop in production and workers standing around doing next to nothing. 
So you keep them busy building Defiants. 

Not just a British thing. Most of the American P-43s were a make work project.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 11, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> And any Defiants in OTUs in the spring of 1941 didn't have radar.
> Better than nothing but not quite the standard of training one might have wished for.
> The Blenheim might have been slow but at least it offered a more complete training mission.



Actually, Blenheims, Defiants and Beaufighters were used by the OTUs.



Shortround6 said:


> Only 8 Squadrons used them during the Blitz. They started with 3 and ended in May with 8 squadrons.



Actually, it was eleven in total. I listed them in an earlier post.



Shortround6 said:


> I blame them for keeping up the experiments for so long after they should have been seen as rubbish.



By whom? Again, talk about not doing your research!

So, we'll say it again, The Beaufighter was slow to enter service in large numbers and was proving unreliable, despite its good performance when they could coax the radar to work. The Mosquito was simply not available in numbers until mid 1942, the Blenheim was wholly inadequate and that leaves Hurricanes, Havocs and Defiants. I'll repeat again what I said, *The RAF needed as many night fighters as it could get its hands on and Beaufighters and Mosquitoes were not appearing in whole squadrons all at once, but in ones and twos to the squadrons in 1941 and 1942, which meant the Defiants had to stay in service until full squadrons could be declared operational on the new types, simply because there would have been a shortage of aircraft.*

So the RAF certainly didn't agree with you about either the Defiant or the turret fighter, and although it was a flawed concept, it worked better in a night fighter capacity, but don't take my word for it, take the Air Ministry's.

Specification F.18/40 was released on 11 October, which called for a fixed gun, two-seat night fighter equipped with six 20mm Hispano cannon to be put into production and service relatively quickly. On 9 December 'Corigendum No.1' was added to the text: "Armament changed to include dorsal power operated turret. Endurance increased by one hour." Actual wording from the original specification text. The specification was designed to replace the Defiant in service and Boulton Paul, Fairey, Miles, Hawker and Vickers submitted tenders. Bristol fitted a Boulton Paul Type A turret to a couple of Beaufighters and in April 1941, following demonstration of the Mosquito prototype's excellent performance, de Havilland was instructed to build two prototype Mosquitoes with a gun turret.

Now, the Beaufighter Mk.V with a turret was offered a production contract, but it was not undertaken as operationally the aircraft was slower than the Defiant it was meant to replace, and the turret obstructed the pilot's entry and exit point from the aircraft. de Havilland couldn't get the Bristol built turret to work and the performance of the Mosquito NF.II, which was ordered in 1940 to specification F.21/40 proved better than the turret fighter Mosquito and the two built were converted into the T.III trainer prototypes.

So, the Defiant was doing what the RAF expected of it and it was believed, rightly or wrongly that its replacement should have a turret. Defiants were well entrenched into the OTU training syllabus and had to remain in service into 1942 until sufficient replacements arrived. The RAF had* no choice* but to hold onto them. Otherwise we are doing that wishful thinking thing that you hate so much where we conjure up non-existent aeroplanes, engines and units before they are available.



Shortround6 said:


> But don't try to gaslight me with claims that the radar equipped Defiant was a success (one plane shot down?)



Who specifically mentioned Defiants with radar? I think _you're_ doing the gaslighting! You're changing your story with every post! Now you're agreeing with me that the Defiant was useful in that first period after banging on for so long about how few enemy aircraft it shot down back then, so it was rubbish! Now you are mentioning its dearth of radar kills as the reason you think it should be retired!

Pick a line and stick to it. Your argument's getting desperate.


----------



## Big Jake (Aug 15, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> NOPE! All part of the same land mass but two different cities/ counties!!!!! You're talking to someone who grew up there!!!


 The Brewster factory was in Long Island City which is part of Queens. Any which way you look at it - Queens, NY is on Long Island.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 15, 2022)

So...this means the Bay Area is _actually_ part of California??

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 15, 2022)

Big Jake said:


> The Brewster factory was in Long Island City which is part of Queens. Any which way you look at it - Queens, NY is on Long Island.


Sorry Jake and my fellow current and former New Yorkers will agree with me. Although the same land mass, Long Island starts at the Queens east border!

Scotland and England are on the same island, are they the same!? Do we say Farnborough is in Wales because they're on the same landmass?!?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 15, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Scotland and England are on the same island, are they the same!?



Actually, yes...depending on which question is being asked.

They are both part of the British Isles (which is a a purely geographic construct without political considerations), as well as being part of Great Britain (England Scotland and Wales), and the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 

Just to add to the confusion, there are separate national football and rugby teams for England, Scotland and Wales, and in rugby there are also the British Lions and Great Britain (depending on whether you're a fan of League or Union).

Confusing isn't it? 

I'm sure the Scots among us would tell a different story but that's the current state of things.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 15, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Actually, yes...depending on which question is being asked.


Or who is answering it! LOL!


buffnut453 said:


> They are both part of the British Isles (which is a a purely geographic construct without political considerations), as well as being part of Great Britain (England Scotland and Wales), and the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.


And again, Queens is part of a land mass in geographic construct BUT WITH political considerations! Besides the Pizza is better in Queens!


buffnut453 said:


> Just to add to the confusion, there are separate national football and rugby teams for England, Scotland and Wales, and in rugby there are also the British Lions and Great Britain (depending on whether you're a fan of League or Union).
> 
> *Confusing isn't it?*


Naw - Just talk to a NY Islanders fan!


buffnut453 said:


> I'm sure the Scots among us would tell a different story but that's the current state of things.


As with Long Islanders!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 15, 2022)

I explained it all before and Brooklyn pizza RULES!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 15, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I explained it all before and Brooklyn pizza RULES!


Hey, Staten Island Pizza is right up there but then again more than half the people living there are from Brooklyn anyway!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 15, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry Jake and my fellow current and former New Yorkers will agree with me. Although the same land mass, Long Island starts at the Queens east border!
> 
> Scotland and England are on the same island, are they the same!? Do we say Farnborough is in Wales because they're on the same landmass?!?



The island of Great Britain has England, Scotland and Wales, though parts of those countries are also on other islands.

The equivalent of saying Queens is on Long Island would be that Farnborough is on Great Britain.



> The westernmost end of *Long Island* contains the New York City boroughs of *Brooklyn (Kings County*) and *Queens (Queens County)*. The central and eastern portions contain the suburban *Nassau *and *Suffolk counties*. However, *colloquial usage of the term "Long Island" usually refers only to Nassau and Suffolk counties*.











Long Island - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Economic regions of New York:







https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Map_of_New_York_Economic_Regions.svg/638px-Map_of_New_York_Economic_Regions.svg.png



Counties of Long Island





https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Map_of_the_Boroughs_of_New_York_City_and_the_counties_of_Long_Island.png/800px-Map_of_the_Boroughs_of_New_York_City_and_the_counties_of_Long_Island.png

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 15, 2022)

I guess the colloquial distinction comes because Queens and Brooklyn are part of New York City and the rest of Long Island is not.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 15, 2022)

wuzak said:


> The equivalent of saying Queens is on Long Island would be that Farnborough is on Great Britain.


As is saying Long Island City Queens is on Long Island!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 15, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As is saying Long Island City Queens is on Long Island!



It is on the island of Long Island, but not in the "economic region" of Long Island.

Now, a person who is from a part of Long Island that is not part of New York City is a Long Islander, those from the parts of Long Island that are a part of New York City are New Yorkers?

But is a person from the state of New York also a New Yorker. Meaning that a Long Islander is also a New Yorker?

Or are you all just Yankees?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 15, 2022)

wuzak said:


> It is on the island of Long Island, but not in the "economic region" of Long Island.


Yep


wuzak said:


> Now, a person who is from a part of Long Island that is not part of New York City is a Long Islander, those from the parts of Long Island that are a part of New York City are New Yorkers?


Yep


wuzak said:


> But is a person from the state of New York also a New Yorker. Meaning that a Long Islander is also a New Yorker?


Yep


wuzak said:


> Or are you all just Yankees?


Exactly! - But who's on third?


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 16, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep
> 
> Yep
> 
> ...


Who's on second. What's on third.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Who's on second. What's on third.


No who's on first, what's on second!


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 16, 2022)

It's late. I'm tired.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 16, 2022)

It's late and I REALLY don't care anymore.

One more comment about Long Island and I'll start throwing in cricketing quotes. That'll learn y'all.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2022)



Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 16, 2022)

Just going to put this here:






_(image courtesy of Matt308)_

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Aug 16, 2022)

Isn't the screaming ground hog the sound the groundhog makes as it tumbles/spins toward the ground?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2022)

special ed said:


> Isn't the screaming ground hog the sound the groundhog makes as it tumbles/spins toward the ground?


Yep!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 16, 2022)

But when it tumbles/spins its center of gravity changes, regardless of where you put the radio.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 16, 2022)

vikingBerserker said:


> But when it tumbles/spins its center of gravity changes, regardless of where you put the radio.



Or the number/location of heaters.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 16, 2022)

That pesky nose armor is always messing things up!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Aug 16, 2022)

I actually some times miss "our expert" but then I read some of the old thread and I get over it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

