Boulton Paul Defiant

[AnkitaMishra]

In the ten days of intensive operations, which account for 25% of RAF and 24% of Luftwaffe casualties, the kill ratio in favour of the RAF was always positive, varying from 1:1 to 3.6:1. Average for the ten days, 1.8:1.

No it wasnt, you have to research it, not copy paste from RAF primary source. Real kill/loss ratio was passive. During daylight RAF FC destroyed like 1218 enemy aircraft lossing like 1430 FB/Cat 3. Of course, as I said, many hundreds of those were repaired by CRO and depots, but its cost a lot of worthy deficiency material and manpower. With severely damaged plane you could do two things, salvage for spare parts ot repair/reconstruct it. Beaverbrook ordered the second option! CRO did a lot of great work doing just that.

 

[AnkitaMishra]

If you care to examine the source I quoted, many authors, edited by Winston Ramsey, you will find 134 pages listing all Luftwaffe losses between the beginning of July and the end of October 1940, gathered from many sources, including of course those of the Germans. You are free to challenge the numbers, but you will need some good sources and several years of research.

Fighter Command had some reservations about the Defiant from the beginning. There were no proper tactics devised for a turret fighter, and Dowding obviously doubted that those suggested would work in the long run (if at all). Before the type even reached a squadron Dowding was wondering what to do with it, and asked that assessments be made of it.

View attachment 371134

The results of those trials were very unpromising. Indeed, the conclusion was that the Defiant should be relegated to 'night use only'.
This was in January 1940, long before the Battle of Britain.

View attachment 371135

That the aircraft was ever used in daylight following this assessment was unfortunate, but not stupid. It was a numbers game, Fighter Command also counted its Blenheim squadrons as part of its overall establishment. There is an argument that the Defiant should have been officially withdrawn from day light operations earlier than it eventually was, but in reality it barely flew in the BoB, following losses in France.

You really cannot bandy about accusations about the quality of British historians, or the competence of RAF officers with no evidence whatsoever to support such claims and expect to escape unchallenged.

Cheers

Steve

I like those primary sources, but you missunderstand my statement. I am war historian and I am doing long term research based on primary and secondary sources. And, yes I would love to have much more sources! Thank you. I have results, but unfortunately not published yet. Propaganda is still dominating even in 21st century. And not only in history. I am not saying that Peter Cornwell do not have real numbers now, but those in his book are incorrectly counted!

I researched losses from RAF FC and those are definitely incomplete and wrong. I do not have his current unpublished work, so I can only base my knowledge on 2011 version of Battle of Britain Then & Now. This book is full of mistakes and ommisions considering RAF FC. Sorry state.

Daylight actions by Defiants were unsuccessful from the very start, so it was stupid to continue this madness till the end of August 1940. So, I am right calling RAF Staff members supporting this policy stupid. Dowding was probably against it from the start and he was, as usual, right!

I am also right about British historians, because I have to read them even now, when I am writting those words here. It is horrible to research based on British books... Those books are so badly researched that I am realy stunded by this. I dont know how they could be paid for such a bad job Again, sorry state. More to say, many books are full of propaganda, like the danger of German invasion and many more. There was no danger of German naval invasion from the start. Churchill and his saff knew it. Hitler did not have any means to maintan any invasion attempt. It would be suicidal.

The danger of RAF defeat in the air war was nearly zero from the start, because Luftwaffe was weak. There was serious situation at the begging of September 1940 for Fighter Command, but nothing to worry about considering Luftwaffe intelligence knowledge and ULTRA, Y Service on the British side. British staff members knew that they can not be defeated in short term air war. What stunned them was bad RAF FC kill/loss ratio.

 

[stona]

You are full of crap, and revisionist crap at that and I won't be entering into a numbers game with you. I couldn't even if I wanted to, as I will be away in the Baltic States and Finland for the next three weeks

Nobody seriously thinks that a German invasion was possible, WITH HINDSIGHT. Some didn't think so at the time, but some did. If you choose to conflate the myth of the Battle of Britain with the historical facts, that's your problem.

Cheers

Steve

 

[AnkitaMishra]

You are full of crap, and revisionist crap at that and I won't be entering into a numbers game with you. I couldn't even if I wanted to, as I will be away in the Baltic States and Finland for the next three weeks

Nobody seriously thinks that a German invasion was possible, WITH HINDSIGHT. Some didn't think so at the time, but some did. If you choose to conflate the myth of the Battle of Britain with the historical facts, that's your problem.

Cheers

Steve

Your problem is that you are not historian and definitely not polite. I will not insult you, because I am much more smarter than you. Have a beautiful day.

 

[pbehn]

Your problem is that you are not historian and definitely not polite. I will not insult you, because I am much more smarter than you. Have a beautiful day.

I am sure you will know that all records contain errors. The more stress an organisation is under the more errors there are. How do RAF records in 1940 compare to LW records in 1945?

 

[fubar57]

Your problem is that you are not historian and definitely not polite. I will not insult you, because I am much more smarter than you. Have a beautiful day.

 

[pbehn]

Again, sorry state. More to say, many books are full of propaganda, like the danger of German invasion and many more. There was no danger of German naval invasion from the start. Churchill and his saff knew it. Hitler did not have any means to maintan any invasion attempt. It would be suicidal.

The danger of RAF defeat in the air war was nearly zero from the start, because Luftwaffe was weak. There was serious situation at the begging of September 1940 for Fighter Command, but nothing to worry about considering Luftwaffe intelligence knowledge and ULTRA, Y Service on the British side. British staff members knew that they can not be defeated in short term air war. What stunned them was bad RAF FC kill/loss ratio.

Churchill and his staff did not know there was no danger of invasion, how could they? Certainly not by ULTRA. Barges were being assembled and attacked in France and Belgium. We can now say that any invasion with or without air superiority would have failed but we can also say that Hitler would lose in Russia, Mussolini would lose in Africa and Japan would lose in the far east. Our wisdom in hindsight does not prevent those events.

You know now the strength of the Luftwaffe, the British certainly didnt know that in 1940, they had no idea of their losses upto 1940 just an estimate, also they had no idea of German production and training. Similarly Hitler and his staff had no idea of RAF losses and production/training. Throughout the battle the British tended to over estimate the capability of the LW and the Germans tended to underestimate the RAF which in the end meant their high command were sure only 50 fighters remained when in fact it was over 500.

You are saying that now we know that Dowding and Park could not be defeated because Dowding and Park did what they did. That was not clear in 1940, if the defence of the UK had been entrusted to Leigh Mallory the RAF could have been swept from the skies in two weeks. Leigh Mallory proved this himself when he wargamed the Battle of Britain using his tactics and lost. If air superiority had been lost over Kent and south east England then an "invasion" may well have been a symbolic gesture to get the government to sue for peace.

Edit: Ultra came into being in 1941

 

[wuzak]

I am war historian and I am doing long term research based on primary and secondary sources.

Aren't secondary sources books/articles/etc that refer to primary sources? That is, the secondary source has no direct knowledge of the subject, but has used one or more primary sources to build a picture?

 

[stona]

I am war historian and I am doing long term research based on primary and secondary sources. .

Well when you consult your sources as a historian you will be aware that after the mauling of No.141 Squadron on 19th July, when the Battle of Britain is considered by most to have barely started, the only other Defiant Squadron was withdrawn. The Battle of Britain is a British construct, and we decide the dates. German historians in particular (yes, I know some of them too) take a different view, which is fine, but here we are talking the British definition. I don't have the Form 540/541s (Operations Record Books) for Nos. 141 or 264 Squadrons to hand. Maybe you can look them up in your next visit to our National Archives, I'm sure you are a frequent visitor in your research and will be aware of the prohibitive cost of having items copied and forwarded by the staff when you can't go in person. Neither squadron subsequently took any more part in the BoB than the Blenheim and Whirlwind squadrons, also operational, so stupid of those RAF officers. Dowding withdrew the Defiant in July and they were officially relegated to a secondary role in August.

I have decided to challenge you to a numbers game, you have three weeks to figure out an answer, while I am away from my library. I have chosen Battle of Britain day as an example, mainly because the numbers are substantial and it is, coincidentally, a Sunday today too. I will post all the losses from both sides for that day. I would like you to show me which ones the RAF has omitted, or failed to admit, and which ones for the Luftwaffe are over claims or otherwise incorrect. If by some stroke of luck the incompetent British historians have somehow got this day correct, then feel free to post the detailed numbers for any other day for me to challenge.

This may take a while while I consolidate my sources, see my next post.

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

Here are the British losses, I've bolded those aircraft destroyed or subsequently written off to make it easier to add up.


15th September 1940, RAF losses and damaged aircraft. Not all are due to enemy action (nea)!!!

1 Squadron (Northolt) Hurricane P3080, Hurricane P3876, Hurricane L1973

19 Squadron (Duxford) Spitfire R6991 (repairable), Spitfire X4070, Spitfire P9431

25 Squadron (North Weald) Beaufighter R2067 (nea)

41 Squadron (Hornchurch) Spitfire 9324

46 Squadron (North Weald) Hurricane N2599 (repairable)

56 Squadron (Boscombe Down) Hurricane P3660 (nea)

73 Squadron (Debden) Hurricane P3865

92 Squadron (Biggin Hill) Spitfire R6767 (repairable), Spitfire P9513 (repairable), Spitfire R6606

213 Squadron (Tangmere) Hurricane P3113

229 Squadron (Northolt) Hurricane N2537

238 Squadron (Middle Wallop) Hurricane L2089 (repairable), Hurricane P2836, Hurricane P3920 (repairable), Hurricane P3462 (repairable), Hurricane P3833 (repairable)

242 Squadron (Coltishall) Hurricane V6576 (repairable), Hurricane P2884, Hurricane P3515 (repairable)

249 Squadron (North Weald) Hurricane ?????

253 Squadron (Kenley) Hurricane V 6698 (repairable)

257 Squadron (Debden) Hurricane P3642 (repairable), Hurricane ????? (repairable)

302 Squadron (Duxford) Hurricane P2954, Hurricane P3935 (repairable)

303 Squadron (Northolt) Hurricane P2903 (repairable), Hurricane P3939, Hurricane V7465 (repairable), Hurricane L2099 (repairable), Hurricane V6673 (repairable), Hurricane R2685 (repairable), Hurricane V6684 (repairable), Hurricane P3577

310 Squadron (Duxford) Hurricane R4085, Hurricane R4087

501 Squadron (Kenley) Hurricane V7433 (repairable), Hurricane P2760

504 Squadron (Hendon) Hurricane P2725, Hurricane L1913 (repairable), Hurricane N2481, Hurricane N2705

602 Squadron (Westhampnett) Spitfire X4412 (repairable)

603 Squadron (Hornchurch) Spitfire X4324, Spitfire R7019

605 Squadron (Croydon) Hurricane L2122, Hurricane L2012

607 Squadron (Tangmere) Hurricane V6688

609 Squadron (Warmwell) Spitfire K9997 (nea/repairable), Spitfire R6690, Spitfire R6922 (repairable)

611 Squadron (Digby) Spitfire P7303 (repairable).

The total destroyed or written off is 28. The usual figure for this day is 29, but this includes the Boscombe Down Hurricane which was not on operations at the time of its loss.

What other losses do you think the RAF incurred on this day which have been missed or willfully ignored by incompetent British historians who buy into the propaganda of the Battle of Britain?

Cheers

Steve

 

[pbehn]

I think historians today attach much more importance to precise figures than people at the time did. All Dowding and Park were concerned with was how many aircraft they could get in the air the next day. An error of one or two in a day or twenty even fifty overall may interest historians in a quest to present the truth, I doubt it was of the same interest to those at the time. There are few battles in history where all the combatants and their machine numbers are known it is a lot of information, some of which may be wrong or uncertain simply because we use terms like damaged and wounded. The issue for Dowding was always pilots, experienced front line pilots always had a plane to get in to.

 

[stona]

At Park and Dowding's level this may be so, but at a group or squadron level every aircraft had to be accounted for and that's why we have a very accurate picture of the RAF losses on this day, and any other.

The Luftwaffe operated a reporting system whereby losses were reported to the office of the Luftwaffe's Quartermaster General. These returns, which were essentially a means of acquiring replacements, are probably less accurate than an RAF squadron's ORB. I'm not about to enter a debate about these returns here, Francis Mason did a lot of work on this in the 'early years'.

As far as the Battle of Britain figures are concerned, the variations are usually a small number and due to factors like the one I mentioned above, where a Hurricane, performing mock combat at Boscombe Down crashed. It was an RAF loss, but nothing to do with the Luftwaffe!

In my next post of German losses I have again excluded losses like this, for instance a Do 18 flying boat which crashed on take off all by itself, with no help from the RAF

My numbers still fall within one or two of the generally accepted figures.

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

German aircraft lost and damaged on operations and due to enemy action, 15th September 1940, with werknummer when known.
Wetterkundungs Staffel 51, He 111 (6938)
Stab JG 3. Bf 109 E-4 (5205)
I./JG 3. Bf 109 E-4 (0945) possibly not due to enemy action, Bf 109 E-4 (1563)
1./JG 3. Bf 109 E-1 (2685)
3./JG 3. Bf 109 E-4 (1606)
1./JG 27. Bf 109 E-4 (6249) 30% damage, Bf 109 E-4 (6232)
2./JG 27. Bf 109 E-1 (6147), Bf 109 E-1 (3875)
7./JG 51. Bf 109 E-4 (3266)
9./JG 51. Bf 109 E-4 (2803)
Stab I./JG 52. Bf 109 E-4 (3182)
I./JG 53. Bf 109 E-4 (6160)
1./JG 53. Bf 109 E-4 (5197), Bf 109 E-4 (5111) 15% damage
2./JG 53. Bf 109 E (????)
3./JG 53. Bf 109 E-4 (1590), Bf 109 E-1 (3619), Bf 109 E-4 (1345)
III./JG 53. Bf 109 E-4 (5251), Bf 109 E-4 (1174)
Stab I./JG 77. Bf 109 E-4 (3759)
1./JG 77. Bf 109 E-1 (4847) 25% damage
3./JG 77. Bf 109 E-4 (4802)
5./KG 2. Do 17 (2678), Do 17 (2304) Do 17 (1135) repairable
7./KG 2. Do 17 (2539), Do 17 (1153) both repairable
8./ KG 2. Do 17 (2539), Do 17 (2549), Do 17 (4245), Do 17 (3432) repairable, Do 17 (3440)
9./KG 2. Do 17 (3405), Do 17 (3230)
4./KG 3. Do 17 (3294), Do 17 (3457), Do 17 (2881), Do 17 (2879) 40% damage
5./KG 3. Do 17 (1176), Do 17 (3458), Do 17 (2649) repairable, Do 17 (4200)
6./KG 3. Do 17 (3470) 50% damage, Do 17 (4237) 15% damage
II./KG 4. He 111 (3086) 30% damage
1./KG 26. He 111 (6985), He 111 (5609) 20% damage, He 111 (5612) 20% damage
6./KG 26. He 111 (5612) 20% damage
6./KG 30. Ju 88 (4020) 40% damage
II./KG 51. Ju 88 (????)
Stab KG 53 He 111 (3140)
3./KG 53. He 111 (3140), He 111 (5481), He 111 (5494) 35% damage
II./KG 53. He 111 (6843), He 111 (5718), He 111 (2771)
III./KG 53. He 111 (3340) 40% damage
8./KG 55. He 111 (2815) 25% damage
9./KG 55. He 111 (1586)
1./KG 76. Do 17 (2364) 60% damage, Do 17 (2361)
2./KG 76. Do 17 (2524) 60% damage
3./KG 76. Do 17 (2651)
8./KG 76. Do 17 (2578), Do 17 (2555)
9./KG 76. Do 17 (2814), Do 17 (3322)
13./LG 1. Bf 110 C-3 (????), Bf 110 C-3 (????)
14./LG 1. Bf 110 C-3 (????)
1./LG 2. Bf 109 E-7 (2061)
3./LG 2. Bf 109 E-7 (2058)

As per my post of RAF losses, I await some concrete evidence that these losses, close to the generally accepted number are incorrect. This time the blame might not be entirely due to incompetent British historians promoting the myth of the Battle, but rather to incompetent German book keepers, noting as damaged or destroyed aircraft which were in fact completely serviceable.

Anyone is entitled to express an opinion, but they then have to back it up with some facts. Someone's opinion is not as valid as someone's facts. Your opinion might be that the earth is something over 6,000 years old, but my facts would discount this. My opinion would be that you're a f**king idiot

I don't want a reply expressing again an opinion, I want some alternative facts which can then be tested in the normal way. A certain poster is acting like an opposition politician, full of negatives but with no positives. It is not okay to attack the reputation of a respected historian without any evidence at all to support a contrary view.

Cheers

Steve

 

[pbehn]

At Park and Dowding's level this may be so, but at a group or squadron level every aircraft had to be accounted for and that's why we have a very accurate picture of the RAF losses on this day, and any other.

Steve, when you impose that requirement you will get a record that accounts for what happened. In life people make mistakes, transpose numbers, dont notice a change that they should. I saw this happen throughout my career in industry where even computer systems which theoretically couldnt "lose it" did. In all cases a solution was found which was a best guess at the true situation and documents adjusted to fit. This is a separate discussion from my part because it doesnt matter at all in the overall picture. In terms of the progress of the Battle of Britain you could ignore machines completely and purely record trained and experienced air crew. The picture would be slightly different but overall basically the same.

 

[stona]

The recording of serial numbers/werknummern by both sides left much to be desired. Many of the surviving records, particularly German, can be very difficult or impossible to read. Nonetheless, a squadron ORB, which is basically no more than a 'summary of events' (Form 540) and 'work carried out' (Form 541) is a pretty accurate record of a squadrons operations and losses. The forms are usually far less bureaucratic than the Luftwaffe quartermaster general returns. The Form 541 tend to be quite dry. This is a detail from 141 Squadron

We can identify precisely who flew which aircraft and when, same applies to any lost


Cheers

Steve

 

[pbehn]

I have no difficulty accepting mistakes being made, in the summer ground crews were working around the clock in temporary facilities while the enemy were trying to kill them.

 

[stona]

When I was looking for that example from a Defiant squadron's operations book, I rediscovered the Form 540 (summary of events) for 141 and 264 Squadrons for July 1940. I didn't know I had digital copies on this computer. It will save my new friend AnkitaMishra a trip to TNA

The first action that 141 Squadron saw after leaving Turnhouse on 12th July was the combat of 19th July. Only 9 of the Defiants made the patrol line, 20 miles south of Folkestone at 5,000ft. They were set upon by a superior number of Bf 109s and we all know that 6 were shot own, only 3 returned to Hawkinge. 4 pilots and 6 air gunners were recorded that day as killed or missing. 4 Bf 109s were claimed, they actually got 1, that of Fw. Heilmann of 9./JG 51, who died the next day having written off his damaged aircraft in a crash landing on his return to base. The same day the squadron was released from operations and the CO, Squadron Leader Richardson flew to Northolt for a conference at Fighter Command. The following day, 20th July, the squadron was still released from operations, and on the 21st orders for a move far from the Battle, up to Prestwick in Scotland were received.
The other Defiant squadron carried out convoy patrols on 20th and 21st July, had a visit from the AOC 12 Group on the 22nd, he handed out a few gongs. 264 squadron was based at Duxford at this time, not in 11 Group. On the 23rd the squadron was also moved out of harm's way, to Kirton in Lindsey, up in Lincolnshire, not far from Scunthorpe.

Far from stupidity, I would suggest that Sqn.Ldr. Richardson and his seniors at Fighter Command immediately understood that the Defiant was not suitable for the sort of combat taking place in the BoB, which anyway ran contrary to the design concept behind the type, and acted accordingly, and quickly.

Why let the facts, as recorded in the squadron ORBs, get in the way of a good prejudice?

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

For forum members who might be unfamiliar with RAF record keeping (not of course my friend the 'real' historian AnkitaMishra, who has gone strangely quiet, having failed to post a single fact or number from any sort of source, however he likes to qualify them) I am posting the portion of the 141 Squadron 'Summary of Events' for the days around the 19th July disaster. Despite the sober and matter of fact style of the document, which one would expect, it gives a real impression of just how quickly the 'stupid' RAF officers reacted to remove the squadron and the Defiant from the front line in SE England and over the Channel.

Prestwick is near Glasgow in Scotland, where there was no chance of the Defiants meeting Bf 109s, or any other hostile single engine fighter.

Cheers

Steve

 

[fubar57]

Nice Steve. Noticed no codes or serial numbers mentioned, the norm it seems. Odd that a higher up didn't request this info for book-keeping purposes.

 

[buffnut453]

Serial numbers or codes (seldom both) were usually included in the annex that documented specific missions. Unfortunately, the quality of record keeping varies greatly across the RAF when it comes to F540s because it was normally a secondary duty. Even within the same unit, it is often clear when one officer takes over responsibility of the F540 because the quality can change quite markedly. Similarly, if the CO isn't really interested in admin details, he'll likely take less interest in the F540...which usually results in the F540 officer taking less interest in his secondary duty.