The Incredibly Heavily Armed Boulton Paul Defiant

[MIflyer]

I used to have a circa 1940 Encyclopedia that had a picture of a Boulton Paul Defiant with a caption saying it was "Armed with 14 machine guns as well as three small cannon." Now that may sound absurd but recall that the much smaller Hurricane was armed with up to 12 machine guns, so this is plausible.

Of course, in reality the Defiant had only the 4 machine guns in the rear turret. So where did that 17 gun nonsense business come from? Did the RAF buy the Economy version, one ravaged by the evils of Value Engineering?

The RAF concept for the Defiant was for the turret fighters to park themselves in the front of unescorted enemy bomber formations, in front of and just below the lead bombers. The turret gunners would fire upwards and aft to hit the bombers in their vulnerable unarmored and all but unarmed noses. This would savage the crews, since in the words of Stanford-Tuck, "The Germans like to sit close together and hold hands." Take a look at the design of the He-111, Do-17, and Ju-88 and you can see what he was talking about. With dead and wounded crews on board the bombers would drop out of formation and then the Defiants would go to work on the next ones in line, until the formation was totally disrupted and the Spitfires, Hurricanes, and fighter Blenheims could deal with them without having to face that deadly interlocking field of fire from a whole formation.

Of course, an important detail was that the enemy not know that the Defiants had no guns but the turret. Hence the "14 guns and 3 small cannon" claim. You wanted to make them think that the LAST thing anyone should do was get in front of a Defiant, and face those 10 machine guns and three 20MM or 37MM cannon.

In fact the Defiants had one good day, when some BF-109's tried to sneak up behind them, with the turret fighter crews no doubt saying, "Looks like they've got us right where we want them." But it was only one good day, and the Defiant was soon withdrawn from daylight service.

 

[buffnut453]

In fact the Defiants had one good day, when some BF-109's tried to sneak up behind them, with the turret fighter crews no doubt saying, "Looks like they've got us right where we want them." But it was only one good day, and the Defiant was soon withdrawn from daylight service.

Sorry but that's just a myth. In reality, the Defiant story is more complicated.

The first unit to form with the Defiant was 264 Sqn led by Sqn Ldr Philip Hunter. Hunter took the time to develop specific tactics to optimize the effectiveness of their new aircraft. One such tactic, not unlike the Me110, was to form a defensive circle so that the Defiants could mutually protect each other. While this wasn't a good tactic compared to the more aggressive options employed by single-engined, single-seat fighters, it was a good option for the Defiant given some of the armament limitations (i.e. no guns that fired straight ahead).

No. 264 Sqn undertook daylight operations from 10 May thru the end of August 1940. Early operations were over Dunkirk. During the month of May, the Sqn flew 174 sorties and claimed a total of 65 German aircraft for the loss of 14 Defiants. During the Battle of Britain, 264 Sqn claimed 19 German aircraft for 11 losses, which compares favourably with other Fighter Command fighter types. Unfortunately for 264 Sqn, its inspirational CO was killed on 24 August.

Some of the problem with the Defiant's operational record stems from the fact that the other Defiant unit, 141 Sqn which only became operational at the end of June 1940, had a less effective operational record. The CO of 141 Sqn refused to adopt Hunter's tactics; it seems clear he was not enthused by the Defiant, openly criticizing it as a deathtrap. The sole engagement by 141 Sqn in the Battle of Britain resulted in the loss of 7 Defiants for a claim of just 4 Me109s. I suspect this single operation by 141 Sqn is the source of the mythical "only one good day" story.

Taking both squadrons' claims/losses during daylight operations, Defiants claimed 88 kills for 32 Defiants shot down. Now we all know that claims are not the same thing as actual enemy losses, however, even accounting for double-claiming, the Defiant still looks like a reasonably competent daylight fighter.

 

[Hornchurch]

Did the RAF buy the Economy version, one ravaged by the evils of Value Engineering?

The RAF concept for the Defiant was for the turret fighters to park themselves in the front of unescorted enemy bomber formations, in front of and just below the lead bombers. The turret gunners would fire upwards and aft to hit the bombers in their vulnerable unarmored and all but unarmed noses. This would savage the crews, since in the words of Stanford-Tuck, "The Germans like to sit close together and hold hands." Take a look at the design of the He-111, Do-17, and Ju-88 and you can see what he was talking about. With dead and wounded crews on board the bombers would drop out of formation and then the Defiants would go to work on the next ones in line, until the formation was totally disrupted and the Spitfires, Hurricanes, and fighter Blenheims could deal with them without having to face that deadly interlocking field of fire from a whole formation.

In fact the Defiants had one good day, when some BF-109's tried to sneak up behind them, with the turret fighter crews no doubt saying, "Looks like they've got us right where we want them." But it was only one good day, and the Defiant was soon withdrawn from daylight service.

'



I can't comment on your original-point ("17 guns"), sadly - & I'll read what happens here, with interest....

But I "can" assure you that the B.P. Defiant DID have (far) more than just (quote you), "Only One Good Day"

Remember these TWO main/major RAF Boulton-Paul-Defiant Squadrons felw from 'my namesake', so naturally, I DO have slightly more than a passing interest

Regarding the 'Two Daylight' Squadron....... one was actually well-led (the far more efficient & more well-known of the two, No.264)

The 'other' (No.141), was NOT well-led & had a rather stubborn (pig-headed?), leader, who just wouldn't listen to the (vastly) more experienced Phillip Hunter


Basically, in a nutshell (going dangerously from my beer-addled-memory here...), No.141 got basically 'wiped-out' in a day (over Southampton area.

Meanwhile, 264.Sqdn (who had vastly more experience), even had previously fought over 'the low-countries', prior to the Battle of Britain, in May 1940**

** Elsewhere, I have at least a dozen shots of these particular 264-Sqdn Defiants, shot-down, being put onto Luftwaffe 'low-loaders' & taken-away/salvaged.

The RAF markings/roundels are particularly noteworthy, as they ALL differ slightly, making it "of interest" to both modeller & historian.



Lastly, (given your inaccurate/generic/without knowing enough about the Defiant = "only one good day" remark/quote)............ This.


Barker & Thorn (264 Sqdn), whilst being "shot-down" inside L.7005 , with Thorn looking for an ideal field, to put down into (for a gentle crash-landing).....


......... managed to be shooting-down THEIR TWELFTH VICTIM, = Yet another Messerschmitt. Me.109-E (again)


I can assure you truthfully, that both they (& the rest of 264), NEVER managed to KILL/shoot-down/destroy TWELVE German planes, in (quote) "ONLY ONE GOOD DAY" (unquote)

This, above, just releates to the deadly-duo combination of Thorn/Barker - (Ted Barker WAS still-alive/well & living in Hornchurch, post 21st Century/2000+)

This relates to just ONE single Boulton-Paul-Defiant crew, BTW.

Here they are, enjoying rather more than just (quote)_ "one good day only"

.

 

[SaparotRob]

'



I can't comment on your original-point ("17 guns"), sadly - & I'll read what happens here, with interest....

But I "can" assure you that the B.P. Defiant DID have (far) more than just (quote you), "Only One Good Day"

Remember these TWO main/major RAF Boulton-Paul-Defiant Squadrons felw from 'my namesake', so naturally, I DO have slightly more than a passing interest

Regarding the 'Two Daylight' Squadron....... one was actually well-led (the far more efficient & more well-known of the two, No.264)

The 'other' (No.141), was NOT well-led & had a rather stubborn (pig-headed?), leader, who just wouldn't listen to the (vastly) more experienced Phillip Hunter


Basically, in a nutshell (going dangerously from my beer-addled-memory here...), No.141 got basically 'wiped-out' in a day (over Southampton area.

Meanwhile, 264.Sqdn (who had vastly more experience), even had previously fought over 'the low-countries', prior to the Battle of Britain, in May 1940**

** Elsewhere, I have at least a dozen shots of these particular 264-Sqdn Defiants, shot-down, being put onto Luftwaffe 'low-loaders' & taken-away/salvaged.

The RAF markings/roundels are particularly noteworthy, as they ALL differ slightly, making it "of interest" to both modeller & historian.



Lastly, (given your inaccurate/generic/without knowing enough about the Defiant = "only one good day" remark/quote)............ This.


Barker & Thorn (264 Sqdn), whilst being "shot-down" inside L.7005 , with Thorn looking for an ideal field, to put down into (for a gentle crash-landing).....


......... managed to be shooting-down THEIR TWELFTH VICTIM, = Yet another Messerschmitt. Me.109-E (again)


I can assure you truthfully, that both they (& the rest of 264), NEVER managed to KILL/shoot-down/destroy TWELVE German planes, in (quote) "ONLY ONE GOOD DAY" (unquote)

This, above, just releates to the deadly-duo combination of Thorn/Barker - (Ted Barker WAS still-alive/well & living in Hornchurch, post 21st Century/2000+)

This relates to just ONE single Boulton-Paul-Defiant crew, BTW.

Here they are, enjoying rather more than just (quote)_ "one good day only"


View attachment 589641





.

Wow. This reminds me of reading, for the first time, that the Brewster Buffalo wasn't just a target. Amazing how informative this site is.

 

[stona]

No. 264 Squadron were moved from Duxford to Kirton Lindsey in July, as the Battle of Britain hotted up, undertaking convoy patrols etc.

No. I41 were at Hawkinge when they undertook the ill advised patrol on 19 Julywhich led to the loss of seven aircraft (one did make it back to Hawkinge damaged and without the gunner, luckily P/O E Farnes who had baled out uninjured was rescued from sea. ). They were promptly moved to Prestwick in Scotland.

The Defiants seem to have been rather naïve in the face of some very experienced Luftwaffe pilots. We have plenty of British accounts, but here is what Trautloft wrote of the events.

"I flew with my Stabsschwarm at 3000m. My three Staffeln were in loose formation some 1000m higher. Visibility was so good that one could see any aircraft taking off from airfields near the coast. Suddenly Lt. Wehnelt reported several aircraft crossing the English coastline. I counted the aircraft, nine in total, they seemed to have just taken off. They climbed rapidly and made a large turn towards the middle of the Channel, heading straight for us. They hadn't spotted us yet as we approached them out of the sun. When I was only 800m or so above them, I noticed the turrets and realised that they were the heavily armed two seater Defiants. The enemy formation was still flying tightly together, as if on exercise, when it suddenly turned back toward England. I didn't understand at all what this manoeuvre was for. After checking once more for signs of Hurricanes or Spitfires, I gave the order to attack."

The Luftwaffe had 3 Bf 109s damaged, they all made it back to France. Fw Karl Heilmann would die of his wounds, Uffz Karl Miesala was wounded and his aircraft a 100% write off, Oblt. Otto Kath made a forced landing, his Bf 109 was 40% damaged but he was unhurt.

The Defiant was not a competent day fighter in the BoB.

 

[MIflyer]

I am simply stunned to discover that the Defiant fully validated the turret fighter concept and, with improved versions, fought throughout the war with great success. It must have been those 14 machine guns and three cannon that did the trick. And that explains the jet powered turret fighters that every major air force uses today.

 

[Hornchurch]

I am simply stunned to discover that the Defiant fully validated the turret fighter concept and, with improved versions, fought throughout the war with great success. It must have been those 14 machine guns and three cannon that did the trick. And that explains the jet powered turret fighters that every major air force uses today.

'


"Hilarious" - (says Hawny, in droll-tone-voice !)

No harm in pointing-out what it DID acheive though, to those who were 'formerly unaware'.

But we still ain't solved your 17-gun version. - Any chance of steering us in the right direction ?

I've seen the 'twin-tailed' mono/duo "midget" Lysander.....

I've seen the "official" photo's of a Royal-Navy Grumman F.7-F Tigercat (at Boscombe-Down)

But short of smokin' crack, I'll await some proof/evidence of the B.P.D."17"

(Jaded cynic here, as always, but I'll always like to think that I can remain 'open-minded', esp' after seeing the Bachem-Natter !)

 

[buffnut453]

I am simply stunned to discover that the Defiant fully validated the turret fighter concept and, with improved versions, fought throughout the war with great success. It must have been those 14 machine guns and three cannon that did the trick. And that explains the jet powered turret fighters that every major air force uses today.

I never said it was a fully validated concept. It was clearly based on flawed assumptions about the perceived inability of fighter pilots to employ deflection shooting techniques at high speed. However, the Defiant's operational performance was not as bad as many make out. Sorry if calling out the "one good day" myth offended sensibilities.

 

[Hornchurch]

However, the Defiant's operational performance was not as bad as many make out.

Sorry if calling out the "one good day" myth offended sensibilities.

You 100% did the right thing, buff' - That was my intent too,

Difference is, I wouldn't be (kind enough), apologising, just for trying to 'set the record straight'.

Glad to see you 'destroy the myth'

.

 

[pbehn]

The Defiant was what it was, designed to attack unescorted bombers. It should never have been used anywhere near the Channel. You cannot take advantage of height speed and surprise in a Defiant..

 

[Shortround6]

One story has the Defiant as a replacement for the Hawker Demon.

But what was forgotten was the Demon was only ordered as a quick, cheap way to get a fighter than could intercept the Hawker Hart.

Truth of this is subject to question but in many bureaucracies once an item/type is purchased/established then finding a replacement for it follows as a matter of course, regardless of why the initial purchase was made.

BTW Boulton Paul built the last of 106 Demons in Dec of 1937.

 

[stona]

I never said it was a fully validated concept. It was clearly based on flawed assumptions about the perceived inability of fighter pilots to employ deflection shooting techniques at high speed. However, the Defiant's operational performance was not as bad as many make out. Sorry if calling out the "one good day" myth offended sensibilities.

It had nothing to do with flawed assumptions about the perceived inability of pilots to employ deflection shooting techniques at high speed. As early as 1932 Dowding was raising questions about the two seat fighters then being considered (several with some arrangement of turrets). he thought that their potential adoption was based on a false premise.

"The failure of single-seat fighters during the war to develop decisive fire power from the rear against bomber formations has in my opinion led umpires in peacetime manoeuvres to impose unduly drastic casualties on fighters attacking in these circumstances. The result is that we have been driven to explore other lines of attack and the two-seater fighter has been developed."

There was always a significant and influential school of thought within the Air Ministry that a combination of speed and firepower in a single engine fixed gun fighter would maje an effective defensive fighter. It was acknowledged that more guns than one or two would be required. The minutes from the discussion on the Fury replacement make it clear that some sacrifices would be made for firepower. The meeting was

"unanimous that the slight sacrifice [from 6 guns] of one mile per hour was more than counterbalanced by the great advantage of additional guns".

The solution to the difficulty of achieving hits on a target aircraft, presenting itself briefly, was to add more guns to the fighter. The meeting also agreed that eight guns 'should be aimed at'.

That is not to say that there was not also considerable concern about the perceived limitations of single-engine fighters, men like Ellington and Brooke-Popham were always hedging their bets and supporting the two seat fighter with gunner concept. Oddly, the single seat interceptors were expected to defend the heavier fighters engaging the enemy bombers, as Salmond demonstrated.

" Defence, however, should not be allowed to play too important a role in the design of home defence fighters, since enemy fighters are not likely to operate frequently or in force over our defended zones. In addition defence against enemy fighters is provided by the 'interceptor' class of fighter."

My bold.

The flaw in the turret fighter concept was that it never allowed for the presence of faster and more manoeuvrable fighters in its area of operations. It was designed as a bomber destroyer at a time when nobody in Britain believed that bombers arriving from the 'new' likely enemy, Germany, would come with escorts.

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing.