Defiants and Spitfires over Western Brabant, 13th may 1940

Don't know what sources the book uses. The combat reports don't mention by which a/c the defiants were shot down. They crew proably didn't even know in the confusion. I guess they took an educated guess and are probably right.

Sounds like a good bomber killer, this turretless Defiant. Speedier and greater firepower than a Hurricane.

Marcel said:

Sounds like a good bomber killer, this turretless Defiant. Speedier and greater firepower than a Hurricane.

Click to expand...

Hurricane Mk IIA Series 2 was equipped with new and slightly longer propeller spinner and new wing mounting 12 x .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns. The first aircraft were built in October 1940 and were renamed Mark IIB in April 1941.

Don't know what sources the book uses. The combat reports don't mention by which a/c the defiants were shot down.

Click to expand...

No, you are right, not conbat reports. Most likely aircraft accident cards (Air Ministry Form 1180) or Air Staff Intelligence Summaries, both of which are available through the RAF Air Historic Branch and the RAF Museum. Bearling in mind that the information on these forms would have been collected from eyewitnesses to the events - the surviving Daffy airmen and the Spitfire pilots.

Regarding the Hurri IIB (and Hurri Mk.XII), the BP P.94 would have had several advantages over the Hawker fighter, not least its superior speed, 20 mph faster in fact, as well as six guns in each wing being mounted centrally, rather than four in one location and two further out in the wing of the Hurri. The Hurricane would have been more manoeuvrable, but the P-94 - bearing in mind this is purely a what if - would have been more adaptable to differing requirements and perhaps the navy would have had a worthy carrier fighter a lot sooner than it did.

Hey Marcel, great info - thanks for sharing. Can you post a link to the website for the pics? Are better quality versions available on-line?

Many thanks,
Mark

buffnut453 said:

Hey Marcel, great info - thanks for sharing. Can you post a link to the website for the pics? Are better quality versions available on-line?

Many thanks,
Mark

Click to expand...

Hi Mark, these photo's I got by using google. But there hardly are any highres pictures. However I could scan them (and others) from hardcopies if you'd like. Drop me a pm if you want.

nuuumannn said:

That's a good point; there was some delay in fitting a turret to the prototype K8310, so it flew without one for awhile, also, in August 1940 the turret was removed and it was considered as a stop-gap single-seat fighter, the P.94, but in the end it was not needed. Spit and Hurri production was as such that losses were able to be met on the production lines. Performance wise the P.94 was impressive, with a top speed of 364 mph at 23,500 ft and armed with no less than 12 .303s in the wings, it was faster and more heavily armed than the Spitfire Mk.I, although less manoeuvrable.

Click to expand...

Theoretically, since there's little evidence that the aircraft ever flew with any armament, and a survey found that the Defiant could only have had 4 forward-firing .303" Brownings fitted, so a completely new wing looked likely.
It's also a moot point if 12 "pop-guns" constitute "more heavily armed" than 8, since, before the war, the Air Ministry had set its sights on cannon armament, with the first cannon-armed Spitfire flying in 1939, and plans for cannon-armed Hurricanes at the same time. 1940 showed that the .303" was becoming less and less effective against German bombers, with their increased armour, and was equally useless against the new breed of fighter.
It was only useful as a back-up to the cannon, in the event of a deflection shot, when the weight of fire gave an even chance of hitting the pilot.
The Defiant was viewed as a bomber-destroyer, and its "set piece" attacks were all set out against bombers, with fire being delivered from the side, or the front, where armour was less effective. It was never anticipated that it would have to cope with faster fighters.

Edgar Brooks said:

Theoretically, since there's little evidence that the aircraft ever flew with any armament, and a survey found that the Defiant could only have had 4 forward-firing .303" Brownings fitted, so a completely new wing looked likely.
It's also a moot point if 12 "pop-guns" constitute "more heavily armed" than 8, since, before the war, the Air Ministry had set its sights on cannon armament, with the first cannon-armed Spitfire flying in 1939, and plans for cannon-armed Hurricanes at the same time. 1940 showed that the .303" was becoming less and less effective against German bombers, with their increased armour, and was equally useless against the new breed of fighter.
It was only useful as a back-up to the cannon, in the event of a deflection shot, when the weight of fire gave an even chance of hitting the pilot.

The Defiant was viewed as a bomber-destroyer, and its "set piece" attacks were all set out against bombers, with fire being delivered from the side, or the front, where armour was less effective. It was never anticipated that it would have to cope with faster fighters.

Click to expand...

The P.94 was offered with either 12 0.303" mgs, or 4 x 20 mm cannons, seems pointless offering that if B-P can't fit them. In the event - IMHO in relation to the BoB it was too late - the system seemed to be coping via the factories and the damage repair organisation. However, you second comment is the important one as far as the Defiant is concerned. It could only be effective when faced with just bombers, but as soon as the Lw had access to the airfields of the Low Countries, and France it gave bases for the Me-109s. Moreover, that eventuality was at least likely to be anticipated, hence Dowding's disdain for the aircfat. The debacle referred to above, gave a window of opportunity whereby a single-seat 'Defiant' could be easily and quickly produced, to fight alongside the Spits Hurris. The Defiant was a very aerodymamic aircraft - it had to be - so likely to be faster than the Hurricane with the same engine, but with the extra length unlikely to turn so well.
When the Defiant was conceived - I think too many in the Air Ministry were a) apprehensive that pilots could cope with the workload and speed of a 'modern' aircraft (treble what they were used to), and b) infatuated by the technology of the turret!

I suspect that the deciding factor was really the engine, since the Defiant II used the Merlin XX, exactly the same as used by the Hurricane II, which had already demonstrated that it could carry cannon (two were fitted in 1939, albeit under the wings.) The Spitfire III was cancelled, partially due to it, too, using the Merlin XX, and partially due to the impending arrival of the Merlin 45, which, although (like the XX) physically longer than the Merlin III, could be shoehorned into the available space by tweaking the engine controls.

Most likely the P.94 would have been configured to be fitted with the Merlin 45 too - bearing in mind this is purely a what if scenario as I mentioned earlier. With regards to the Defiant, there was really no reason to continue with its development post Merlin XX - the airframe was reaching obsolescence in a combat role by late 41 early 42, although Daffys in secondary roles continued in service until the very end of the war (as target tugs). The turret infatuation is an interesting one; in another post I mentioned that both the Beaufighter and Mosquito were considered for the fitting of a BP type turret; a Beau was actually fitted with a turret, whereas the Mossie was only ever modified in mock up form.

Peter, je account is ingesteld dat je geen pm kan ontvangen. Wil je dat veranderen zodat ik op je pm kan antwoorden?

edit: was een misverstandje met een moderator