WI-The Boulton Paul defiant had forward facing guns?

Spitfire_16

The Boulton Paul defiant was a turret fighter built for the RAF in WW2.

It proved rather efficient at shooting down bombers but the luftwaffe quickly learned its weakness. It had no forward facing firepower.

What if it was built with forward facing guns like the Spitfire and the Hurricane?

Could it have been more effective? maybe even more famous than it is today?

defiantgp_16.jpg
 

zoomar

Some thought was given to this, but a conventionally-armed (eight .303 MGs in the wings) Defiant would have been no better than the two already proven fighters the RAF had. It would have been a waste of time and effort to do this.
 

yulzari

This one has been done to death but: you would get a fighter with abilities between the Hurricane and Spitfire. The RAF was short of experienced fighter pilots in the BoB. Not fighters.

The Defiant was designed as a response to fears that, at 300 mph, forward facing guns could not be brought to bear long enough to cause fatal damage. It was also expected to meet unescorted bombers from Germany, not from France. The idea was for the turret guns to be deployed in beam fire thus have time enough to cause sufficient damage.

The original concept was for the pilot also to be able to use the turret guns, pointed forwards above propellor arc, with a no deflection gunsight whereby the pilot dialled in the expected range of fire and the sight predicted the bullet drop at that range so all he had to do was plant the sight onto the target. That is why he had a button to fire the turret guns. The concept was lost in changes of personnel etc. between design and operations so the crews were unaware of the concept and did not have these sights. So it did have forward firing guns had they but known it. Albeit x4 .303" not x8.

It remained in production for quite some time after the BoB because it was needed for night fighter (pilot radar) and fast target towing. Not glamorous tasks but necessary and the Merlin did not overheat dragging targets around at speed unlike in a Hawker Henley.

Traditionally someone will now try out the idea of it instead of the Sea Hurricane or Seafire. When the Admiralty was looking for a fast fleet fighter to superceded the interim Sea Gladiator (1938) they were firmly told that all Defiant production was for the RAF as a bomber destroyer. By 1941 they had Fulmars, were ordering Griffon Flycatchers and the Sea Hurricane and Seafire were quicker conversions. If the FAA had been allowed single seat Defiants it would need to be a decision by 1939 to get them into service by 1941. About the same(ish) time as the Fulmar whose production was not in conflict with the RAF.

Had the RAF decided not to produce the Defiant turret fighter they would probably have had Boulton Paul build Spitfires for which they had the skilled staff and machinery.
 

BlueTrousers

The turret fighter only makes sense in the specific circumstances for which the Defiant was designed. Add forward-firing armament, and the implications mean you reinvent the Spitfire.

With a decent forward-firing battery, chances are that similar tactics are evolved to those used for the Bristol Fighter, oh, twenty-five years earlier. Pilot uses the forward-facing battery offensively, air gunner uses the turret to keep Jerry away. That doesn't make sense doctrinally: the Defiant was designed to intercept unescorted bombers, flying in formation with them and blazing away with the turret.

If you're intercepting undefended bombers, you don't need both the turret and forward-facing armament. If you're intercepting defended bombers, or going off on a fighter sweep, you're better off getting Spitfires.
 

zoomar

king_of_the_penguins said:
What if it had the turret and the wing guns? It would get through ammo like hell but it's sure to bring something down
Click to expand...

It would be an even greater mistake. The issue is weight vs the power provided by a single Merlin engine. A four-gun power turret plus gunner is heavy. Very heavy. If you want something like that with the engines available in 1939-40 you almost need a twin engine fighter. And then you still lose maneuverability.

Although fairly fanciful, I've always thought that the best design for a turret fighter would place the gunner/turret in front of the pilot, in an arrangement similar to what is used in modern attack helicopters. In turning engagements the turret could track an enemy longer than fixed guns This would probably require a canard or some sort of twin-boom design with a pusher propeller, and that introduces a whole other set of weight-engine-cooling-performance penalties. Twin-boom designs like this were employed in WW1, but there's probably several very good reasons it was dropped once effective tractor designs with fixed synchronized MGs became standard.
 

MattII

zoomar said:
It would be an even greater mistake. The issue is weight vs the power provided by a single Merlin engine. A four-gun power turret plus gunner is heavy. Very heavy. If you want something like that with the engines available in 1939-40 you almost need a twin engine fighter. And then you still lose maneuverability.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but it would fix the Defiant's most glaring issue, leaving you with an aircraft that was at best mediocre, except for chopping bombers when it could actually be in a position to meet them (not a certainty, due to the weight).
 

Scotty

even 2 guns in the wings would (might) be enough to stop 109's/110's chewing through them in a head-on attack.

It would also help if they got on the tail of a 109/110. If they try and break away you can either try to turn with them and keep them in front or counter intuitively turn away to open up the angles for the turret.

would still rather have spits and hurris tho

:)
 

Scotty

MattII said:
Defiants would be too slow to chase any fighters.
Click to expand...

air combat does'nt always occur at top speed tho.

you cant just assume that because plane x is faster than plane y that plane y will never be in a chase position with a speed advantage
 

Scotty

An interesting looking plane to be sure, but one question...

how many forward facing guns does it have?

;-)
 

NOMISYRRUC

Boulton Paul did propose an improved Defiant night fighter with a Griffon engine and IIRC six 20mm cannon. It was to be used as a night fighter and the turret could be replaced by an observer.

However, the RAF didn't want it. The Beaufighter was coming into service and would have the Mosquito night fighter by the time the improved Defiant was ready.
 

MattII

Scotty said:
air combat does'nt always occur at top speed tho.

you cant just assume that because plane x is faster than plane y that plane y will never be in a chase position with a speed advantage
Click to expand...
Except that all the relevant powers were using in-line engines, so that would in fact be the case. Plus Defiants, by way of being heavier would also lose out in manoeuvrability.
 

Scotty

MattII said:
Except that all the relevant powers were using in-line engines, so that would in fact be the case. Plus Defiants, by way of being heavier would also lose out in manoeuvrability.
Click to expand...

ok, i'll give you a theoretical situation where defiants despite barely being a 300mph aircraft could enjoy some success if they had forward firing guns.

Its BoB and the 109 escorts are being closely tied to the bombers (as per Goering's instructions) rather than the 'free hunt' escort that Galland wanted.

They are desperately weaving in big S's to not overspeed so as to stay with the bombers.

they are bounced by a squadron of imp-Defiants.

Here the slower on paper plane has a massive speed advantage and find themselves on the tail of the 109's who are breaking and trying to get upto max speed as quickly as possible.

Sure, in 2 turns they'll find themselves in trouble as the 109's speed up and manouver round them but with forward facing guns they'll get at least one pass, and then they can either attempt to turn with them to try and keep forward guns facing or they can break, open up the angles and attempt to bring the turret to bear.

hell, they could even have the turret blasting away at the bombers whilst the pilot attempts to dogfight the fighters.

----

no planes fly constantly at their max speed all of the time, tactical considerations need to be taken into account
 

MattII

Maybe, although if it's Ju 88s they're escorting, the bombers might be able to outrun the Defiants. Top speed of the Ju 88A4 was 317 mph at 17,389 ft, compared with 304 mph for the Defiant Mk 1 at 17,000 feet, though the 88's speed dropped when it had bombs aboard. And that's an OTL Defiant, not one with extra mgs fitted.
 
Last edited:

Just Leo

Some boffins in the Air Ministry thought highly of turrets. Turret-equipped bombers were supposed to defend themselves against fighter attack, because the guns could shoot it many directions, while fighters with fixed forward-firing guns were limited to straight ahead. They blamed dead bomber crews for losses. Heavy losses. The turret fighter concept originated before these losses, and carried through until the turret fighters suffered heavy losses. They were withdrawn from day combat shortly after beginning of Defiant II production began, and continued. The Defiant served as the most effective RAF night fighter at a time when night fighters were deemed ineffective, so they were the best of the useless. The pilot operated the radar scope, when radar Defiants entered service, so I presume a Hurricane could have been so equipped as well. The Hurricane wasn't an aeronautical tour de force, but its performance edged out the Defiant, although the Hurricane's time as a front line fighter was limited. Its perceived replacement, the Tornado, and Typhoon, awaited the Tempest before being considered satisfactory. A replacement for the Defiant, a twin-engined fighter with 4 cannons in a streamlined turret was tested in scale, and in a wind tunnel, and found ridiculously inadequate. The Defiant wing wasn't designed for guns, and I know of no evidence that a physical attempt was made to insert one. The clumsy undercarriage, the wing joint, the landing lamp and the pitot tube are in the way, and the fuel tanks were where the guns would want to be. They could build a new wing, sure. I never saw an attempt, and the fuel tank still needs a home. A Griffon Defiant is hogwash. Real fighters needed those engines. The marks on the stupid twin Defiant wing are landing lights, not gun ports. What would the BoB look like if the RAF flew an all Defiant Fighter Command? Should the Spits have been converted? If the concept were valid, it would be valid for Spits. It wasn't, and if not for the failure of the Henley as a target tug, Defiants would have been delegated to scrap sooner. Why were the Henleys never fixed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top