Defiant WI

Put something very similar on another forum, interested to see what feedback I get here.

I had previously thought that the problems with the Defiant didn't become apparent until during the BoB, but one contributor stated that there was a Cabinet meeting on the 14th May, as a result of combat casualties with the aircraft on the 13th May.
Apparently they had a successful day on the 12th, but the following day, out of a flight of six which engaged enemy aircraft only one returned to base. One was known to have been forced to land in Belgium, and probably a second. The other three were missing.

Seems historically little action was taken, despite Dowding's reservations and combat experience. That is - the 'disaster' may have been regarded as a one-off and let's carry on and see what happens - the Defiant turret concept did have its advocates - including Churchill.

But given Dowding's opinion - seems strange that it wasn't sent up north earlier than OTL, i.e. defiants would've been successful against the attack from Norway/Denmark. And maybe later stationed at Duxford - tasked with not intercepting attack, but sweeping up the disorganised damaged retreating aircraft!

Or they hedged their bets and asked Boulton-Paul for a single-seat version, which is therefore tested before the OTL P.94, and hence two production lines - one single-seat (with forward firing MGs) and the other two-seat.
 
Well get rid of the second seat and you obviously get rid of the turret. This would alter the plane's handling, add extra machineguns to the front and you barely have the same aircraft. You would obviously need to give the new fighter a new name to avoid confusion if nothing else.

What will this new aircraft be called and what will its role be?
In its original configuration it was slower than the Hurricane and its effective combat range was on a par with the Spitfire's.

Assume we add the typical armament of 8 browning 303s; what other gains would be made in terms of speed or range?
Would there be an opportunity to add more or bigger fuel tanks?

If so the new plane might be a useful FAA stopgap fighter to replace the Fulmar (no sea hurricane or seafire) or a cheap overseas fighter (think Greece or North Africa) Delete the turret, add guns and keep the oberver and you might have a half decent nighfighter until something better comes along or maybe a ground attack aircraft. If not then this project is a complete waste of resources, which would explain why this idea was never taken up IOTL. In any of these cases, expect it to have a very short working life as there are already better aircraft for most roles, and it will spark an interest in a new, purpose built design for these roles.

However, the big questions are:
What growth potential would this radically altered design have if it is adopted in any of these roles?
What impact would it have on future British wartime aircraft designs and procurement (not least in terms of Bolton-Paul as a company)?
 
Last edited:
Hawker's turret fighter was judged superior to the Defiant, but they were required to concentrate on Hurricane production. Termination of Defiant production would have made production facilities and Merlin engines available for more worthy projects.
 
I think, that at the time that these Cabinet discussions were taking place, what may happen in a years time wasn't on their minds.
Personally I don't think it plausible to think they would terminate production (in OTL it went on till 1943) - there was too much vested interest in it to admit it as 'failure'. But a dual production line seems possible - both machines would use the same jigs & tools, so no loss of production, indeed there would likely to be more s/s than t/s aircraft made.
With two Squadrons of Defiants at the time, my thoughts are that one goes North to guard the north-east, and the other goes west to test the practicalities of it as a 'night-fighter'.
My suggestion for an alternative 'name' for the single-seater would be Defoe, in OTL one was built and flown in Aug '40 - from the flights a max speed of 360 mph at 21,700' was arrived at with a Merlin XX, and with 12 0.303" MGs, whether this engine would be available for an earlier 'Defoe' is the question.

Boulton-Paul could have been a major manufacturer, if decisions had gone differently - P.88 cannon fighter ordered, P.90 medium bomber ordered (instead of Stirling)! But then that's another thread!
 
The Defoe's performance is impressive at first glance but what exactly could this fighter do that other late 1940 fighters couldn't?

Ok, so it's very heavily armed (6 cannon anyone?!) and almost as fast as Mark V spitfire, but what about differences to range or ground attack capabilities? With the former we have a very capable escort fighter, with the latter we have a single engine, single seat heavy fighter.

With neither we have a huge white elephant, or perhaps the incentive to have the spitfire design evolve differently into a dedicated high altitude interceptor.

With the ground attack heavy fighter ready by say 1941 where does that leave the Hawker fighters (Tornado, Typhoon and Tempest)?
This fighter could fill the ground attack niche filled by OTL's Typhoon, and the failure of the Vulture engine killed the Tornado, so Hawker could have 2
failed projects unless some very hard lobbying is given for proposal of a navalised Typhoon.

The original Defiant's range was roughly on a par with OTL's Spit Vb, so how will deleting the turret and adding all this firepower affect range and will there be room for a redesign allowing for extended range. If so then this type is likely to be relegated to a heavy interceptor role, the original defiant didn't have the range desirable for ground attack or escort duties.
 
Last edited:
Top