Defiant - WI results of Cabinet meeting

[Shortround6]

It wasn't money; it was capacity. Peregrines could only be built at the expense of Merlins, so the Air Ministry would lose two Spitfire or Hurricane engines for every Whirlwind built. The Mosquito won, also, on two counts; being made of wood, it could be built in furniture factories (in my home town,) using presently redundant woodworkers, and Westland were needed to build Spitfires/Seafires. Performance of the Whirlwind fell off with height, which became crucial once the RAF was flying into Europe, and, another consideration was that the fuel was not transferable between wings, so one engine out caused all sorts of problems.
Edgar

Performance fell of not much worse than a plane with a Merlin III. The Air Ministry had become disenchanted with the Whirlwind because of Westland's slow going with the program, the program was months late if not over a year with no good solution really in sight. With the Whirlwind the only viable aircraft using the Peregrine and resources needed for the Vulture ( ) the Peregrine was on the chopping block. Most of the excuses for chopping the Whirlwind ring a little hollow considering how long it stayed in service (and not as a target tug like so many other questionable British aircraft) with absolutely no upgrades or improvements (unless you count bomb racks fitted to 1-2 year old planes). No improved engines, or props or even a cross feed pipe for the fuel.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

The Merlin III was already being superceded by the XII in 1940; the first 61 was delivered at Christmas 1941, and in between came the 45 for the Spitfire V and the XX for the Hurricane II.
When R-R started producing the Merlin, they had a workforce of only 7,000, and were also working on the Peregrine, Vulture, Griffon, EXE and Pennine, plus a marine Merlin. Note that date for the 61, as well; until December 1941, everything was made in this country or the Commonwealth, with no Lend-Lease around to help us out.
Something had to give, and the Peregrine was one of them; the Whirlwind was a fabulous ground-attack aircraft, but had no chance to be developed as an out-and-out fighter. Bringing us back on track (or trying to) the same fate befell the Defiant; lugging all that extra weight (and drag when the turret turned to beam) meant that it had no chance, especially when the Fw190 appeared.

 

[yulzari]

To see the Defiant in period context we need to be aware of the Air Ministry thinking pre-war. The Defiant was in tended to attack bombers from below using the no aim off concept. There is very little evidence that gunners were trained to use this and it is certain that pilots were not. The intention was for the pilot to also have a gunsight that used the turret guns, in the forwards locked mode, in the no aim off concept. This is why the turret had the facility to be locked into that mode. This meant that the Defiant could have been fought as a pilot controlled fighter firing ahead as well as a mobile turret. However, by the time the Defiant entered service there seems to have been an almost willful failure to let the crews in on the secret.

At the same time as the Defiant's intended concept was being promoted it is worth remembering that Supermarine was getting as much stick from the Air Ministry for slow production but they had the Vicke

 

[yulzari]

ers empire behind them and could buy their way out with shadow factories unlike Westland. Some at the Air Ministry saw the Whirlwind as the Spitfire replacement. Poor Boulton Paul had to build Blackburn Rocs so that Blackburn could build more Swordfish.

 

[The Basket]

I always get the feeling that good aircraft are total accidents that somehow slipped through the nets of political incompetence.

 

[BombTaxi]

The Defiant could have been used as a forward firing fighter - but why on earth would anyone want to do that? Half the firepower of a Spit or Hurri, with more weight, less speed, and less agility. The Defiant (and the Roc) were flawed concepts from Day One. It was one thing to develop a novel new attacking tactic and build a fighter around it, but it was sheer hubris to assume the enemy wouldn't rapidly devise a countermeasure against it, which is exactly what the LW did in 1940. No matter how innovative the Defiant's pilots were, their sheer lack of speed and maneuverability doomed them against 'conventional' fighters, and once the enemy figured out the blind spots, the Defiant became just as easy a target as a heavy bomber, with less means to defend itself.

 

[parsifal]

To me the Defiant was an anomaly as a day fighter, enjoyed a few moments of success, particulalry with the tactics developed by 264 sqn, then the Luftwaffe developed effective counters to the type,and its employment as a day fighter were pretty much over.

However it gained a new lease of life as a night fighter. It eventually equipped 13 squadrons, and during the blitz about 4 squadrons. Up to the 2nd quater of 1941, it shot down more enemy aircraft at night than any other type. The type may have shot 100+ LW bombers up to the beginning of April 41, and a considerably greater number after that. It possessed sufficient speed to overtake and intercept all the main LW types and had quite a few Ju88s credited to the type. Someone posted in another thread that it was only ever credited with 10 night kills, but this number was exceeded by the three top scorers of 264 sqn after its conversion to the NF role.

However, speed was it weak point, and by 1942 the RAF had other aircraft that were faster and better armed that could operate in the NF role, principally the Mosquito and the Beau. It began withdrawal from service from about the middle of '42

I dont think there can be any doubt that better choices could have been made rather than produce the Defiant. However, despite its flaws, it served the RAF quyite well actually and gave a good account of itself in a role never envisaged for it. For me the type doesnt get a "High Distinction", but it does get a "Pass" or even a "Credit"

 

[merlin]

snipped - Bringing us back on track (or trying to) the same fate befell the Defiant; lugging all that extra weight (and drag when the turret turned to beam) meant that it had no chance, especially when the Fw190 appeared.

I think it should be 'especially when it was within range of the '109'.

in OTL as a result of high losses on the 19th July, 264 was withdrawn to Licolnshire, and the remnants of 141 were moved to Prestwick to rebuild. Bizarrely enough when the raid from Luftwaffe 5 cane 264's Defiants were on convoy escort nearby - but were ordered to stay there!
Yet, on 22nd August 264 was recalled back to 11 Group, a few days later decimated it returned back up north.
I know times were hard then, but - 10 12 Group airfields would be better for them, rather than '11' - why not transfer 242 Squadron!!

 

[merlin]

Poor Boulton Paul had to build Blackburn Rocs so that Blackburn could build more Swordfish.

Yes, the building programme for B-P could have been so much different, the P.90 design was favoured for the B.12/36 spec. - the Stirling was built instead, the P.88 'A 'B' were selected for lprototypes for the F.37/35 spec - only the Whirlwind was built.
I think when they had to build the 'Roc' they must have had a moment of paranoia.

 

[buffnut453]

We need to remember that spec for the Defiant was issued prior to the Spanish Civil War when concepts of modern aerial warfare were little more than theory. In many respects, the Defiant was an attempt to fight the last war, only better and with modern technology (ie the power-operated turret). In that respect, things haven't changed much in the intervening 75 or so years - procurement is still unable to keep pace with changes in technology or user requirements.

In large part, I agree with The Basket - successful designs come despite the best endeavours of government bureaucracy. One only has to look at the Mustang and Mosquito as examples.

 

[Shortround6]

I have nothing against the men who started the Defiant design or built the first ones, it is the continued production of the type into the beginning of 1943 that has to be wondered at. Granted the 1942 production was as a target tug, but was the MK II really needed?

 

[parsifal]

clearly it was kept in production too long. However it had found a niche market that it could fulfil adequately (but not brilliantly) and the production lines were set up and running. I uess its a case of applying the law of diminishing returns....get what you can from your investment, for as long as you can. A little too long methinks

 

[merlin]

clearly it was kept in production too long. However it had found a niche market that it could fulfil adequately (but not brilliantly) and the production lines were set up and running. I uess its a case of applying the law of diminishing returns....get what you can from your investment, for as long as you can. A little too long methinks

Agreed, in OTl (according to BSP) the P.94 single-seat version flew in August 1940, hence my question in the original post - is it plausible given reservations at Cabinet level, from operations in the Battle of France, that the impetus for it comes from 'official circles' rather than the company - trying to save a failed design.
The Air Ministry were originally impressed with ease of production of the design, the P.94 would use the same jigs tools and each aircraft would be produced quicker. Therefore, seems possible to have it flying maybe four or six weeks earlier, with production flowing soon after!

 

[yulzari]

I have always wondered how they coped with the change on CoG in the P94, removing the turret and putting in 8x.303 further forward. For the P94 prototype it could have been ballast but maybe there was an opportunity for more fuel etc. and one is tempted towards the perennial forum favourite of a naval Defiant.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

They'd probably have done the same as was done with later Spitfires; move oxygen bottles and radios down into the tail, and shove lead weights into the fin. The guns could not have gone too far forward, since the ammunition needs to be on, or very near to, the CoG, so that it doesn't have too much effect as it gets used, so it's possible that the 8 Brownings had more weight aft of the CoG than forward of it.
Edgar

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Following another trip to our National Archives, I've found that there were tentative plans to put two .303" Brownings in each of the outer wing panels, but this was dropped, when it was decided to use it as a nightfighter.
Interestingly, in the files were "numbered attacks," rather like the outmoded and derided "Fighter Attacks," dreamed up pre-war. Also, there were a couple of defending letters, published in "Flight," during the war, and one correspondent pointed out that the attacks, envisaged and practiced by the Squadron C.O., had worked like a dream, but, when he was killed, his successor did not continue with his system, and the Squadron was decimated. One correspondent maintains that it was this, and not that the Germans had figured the Defiant out, which led to the losses.
Another writer, an A.V.M., said that he was involved in the plans for the Defiant, and the initial reason for the lack of forward guns was the fear that the pilot would look on them as offensive armament, and treat the turret as solely a means of defence, and that was not how they wanted the aircraft to be used.
Edgar

 

[razor1uk]

The Defiants guns could fire forward. The turrets guns could be brought down on each side of the pilot and then they were automatically slaved into a interruptor gear. That had to be disconcerting for the pilot though, and was just 4 .303's.

Almost right AFAIK, the weapons could only fire fully forwatd at an off angle above his cockpit canopy at a lowest forward elevation of 20deg IIRC - no interuption gear for prop sync, but to lower between turret cockpit areodynamic fairing; so guns could rotate easier/quicker, and to restrict the firing of guns to above the 20 deg limit so prevent shooting into the propeller disc/arc. I was led to believe that they never got the prop sync properly sorted for the turret, a number of aircraft shot there own props off early on, before them being restricted.