Defiant aces

[frcoplan]

Recently i came across this list:

http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/ww ... unner.html

I never knew some crews of Defiants were so succesfull and it is also interesting that those are all from 264 group. I read somewhere that 264 group used a special tactic when engaged by fighters, that is forming a descending circle, covering each other and preventing an attack from below. Apparently, 141 did not listen to their advices and got decimated becouse of that.

I remember that success of Defiants is often attributed to a surprise of german pilots who did not expect a turret, mistaking Defiants for Hurricanes. However, normaly it does not take long for the other side to realise such things so i guess we can not attribute this success in whole to just this effect. Apparently, when they had a chance of going at bombers, they were actually pretty good at destroying them. I do not want to start a debate if Defiant was up to Me 109 or 110, as it was not. But still it has some success.

What i would like to know is any biography detail from life of those crews, tactis used, battle descriptions, tactics, how many of those victories were achieved in France, how many at day/night.

Thank you.

frcoplan.

[phylo_roadking]

frcoplan - you have to remember that the Defiant also had a career through the last five months of 1940 and into 1941 as a nightfighter As for France - it's highest-kill reporting day was 29th May 1940, when No. 264 Sqn claimed 65 kills - again note the word "claimed", see * below.

But it hadn't taken long for the LW to adapt their tactics - on the 13th of May, a flight of six Defiants was attacked by Bf 109Es; five of the Defiants were shot down from a frontal attack. Similarly, when as you say they ignored 264 Sqn's advice on the "Lufberry Circle" on 19th July, six out of nine Defiants of 141 Sqn. were shot down and the remaining three only survived due to the intervention of Hurricanes of 111 Sqn.

264 Sqn. claimed an astonishing 48 kills in eight days over Dunkirk - but recent research suggests no more than 12 to 15 enemy aircraft were actually destroyed; * the turret's wide angle of fire meant that several Defiants could engage the same target at one time, leading to multiple claims. But although the confirmed kills show up in the record ok...the cost was high at 14 Defiants lost That's one-for-one - an attrition rate in aircrew and aircraft that Fighter Command couldn't aford.

But when it was turned instead to nighfighting in August of 1940 after more serious losses through that month after the start of the Battle of Britain, the Defiant achieved a more..."cost effective"...success. Defiant nightfighters typically attacked enemy bombers from below, in a similar manoeuvre to the later successful German Schräge Musik. Defiants attacked more often from slightly ahead or to one side, rather than from directly under the tail. During the winter Blitz on London, the Defiant equipped four squadrons, shooting down more enemy aircraft than any other type...biasing their overall performance figures A total of 207 Mk II Defiants were built, fitted with the AI Mk IV airborne interception radar and the Merlin XX engine.

For more detail there are or have been - as often with odd designs - a couple of good specialist publications -

Mark Ansell "Boulton Paul Defiant", Redbourn, Herts, UK: Mushroom Model Publications, 2005. ISBN 83-89450-19-4.
Michael Bowyer "The Boulton Paul Defiant", Aircraft in Profile, Vol. 5. London, Profile Publications Ltd., 1966.
Alex Brew "The Turret Fighters - Defiant and Roc", Ramsbury, Marlborough, Wiltshire, UK: Crowood Press, 2002. ISBN 1-86126-497-6.
Alex Brew "The Defiant File", Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK: Air-Britain (Historians) Ltd., 1996. ISBN 0-85130-226-2

...along with a host of magazine articles.

Also....I would suggest for more direct anecdotal accounts about "life of those crews, tactis used, battle descriptions, tactics, how many of those victories were achieved in France, how many at day/night"...approach it from the other direction, and look instead NOT at the history of the aircraft - but at 264 Sqn. itself, and the nightfighter-equiped squadrons

[Dunserving]

Nice bit of cut and paste there..........................

The Defiant was without doubt a bit of a failure. The original design concept was based on the premise that it would be used for attacking unescorted bombers. Big mistake. An interesting aircraft that was a solution to the wrong problem. To be fair to it though, the design work was being done at a time when the RAF still had biplane fighters.......

It was underpowered, heavy, and had a pronounced lack of manouvrability in combat. There was a marked performance penalty caused by the turret. Enough to cope with bombers, but utterly inadequate when faced with single seat fighters. It is hardly surprising that in daylight operations flying the thing was pretty suicidal once the Luftwaffe had worked out that it had no forward firing armament. It was also a large aircraft - I have not seen the sole remaining complete example for about 30 years, but I was struck by the size of the beast compared to Spitfires and Hurricanes. It is currently undergoing restoration so don't rush to Hendon to see it.

The RAF ground crews of the era did not have a high opinion of it, my father included.

[phylo_roadking]

To be fair to it though, the design work was being done at a time when the RAF still had biplane fighters.......

So did their potential enemies The Defiant was designed to F.9/35...while the He151 was still the Luftwaffe's main frontline fighter, and wasn't finally pulled from the last frontline squadrons and relegated to the Jagdfleigerschulen until 1938.

It is hardly surprising that in daylight operations flying the thing was pretty suicidal once the Luftwaffe had worked out that it had no forward firing armament

Actually - it did. Just....not very practical. The turret could be rotated to straight-ahead and there was a lock-out lever down by the pilot's seat that locked out the gunner's traverse controls and slaved the gun control to an auxiliary firing botton on the column. This one came up about a year ago in Aeroplane and the staff produced a schematic from their 1940's archives...though there was a caveat it only may have applied to the MkI as there was nothing confirming the facility was retained on the 210 MkIIs.

[Dunserving]

It is hardly surprising that in daylight operations flying the thing was pretty suicidal once the Luftwaffe had worked out that it had no forward firing armament

Actually - it did. Just....not very practical. The turret could be rotated to straight-ahead and there was a lock-out lever down by the pilot's seat that locked out the gunner's traverse controls and slaved the gun control to an auxiliary firing botton on the column. This one came up about a year ago in Aeroplane and the staff produced a schematic from their 1940's archives...though there was a caveat it only may have applied to the MkI as there was nothing confirming the facility was retained on the 210 MkIIs.

For the turret guns to fire fully forward, there was a problem or two...
The guns were firing either side of the pilots canopy.
There was no interruptor gear.
The guns had a minimum angle of 18 degrees (IIRC) above horizontal making pointing the aircraft at a target difficult to say the least, and now the big crunch....
The pilot did not have a gunsight........
Now, I was a pretty good shot with both an SLR and an SA80, but I don't think I'd have been any good without sights on it!
Pilots in Defiants firing guns in a different direction to the way they were going, and without sights...

End result: the Defiant did not have any foward firing armament that fired directly forward that could make it possible for the pilot to fly the beast as a fighter. Those who actually flew the things did not consider themselves to be flying an aircraft where the pilot had any prospect of fighting. That's without considering its chances as a slower aircraft with poorer turning circle and only 4 x 0.303 Brownings.

True that the Germans had biplane fighters, but do remember that the Hurricane, Spitfire, and Me109 all flew a couple of years or so before the Defiant - there was a huge build up of forces starting three years before the war. Biplanes were well and truly on the way out. Which is why my father came out of the RAF in 1936 at the end of his 7 year engagement, and went through the revolving door and straight back in again for another ten years.

[phylo_roadking]

End result: the Defiant did not have any foward firing armament that fired directly forward that could make it possible for the pilot to fly the beast as a fighter.

So why did they have the slaved firing button on their control column...? Actually -

The gunner could rotate the turret directly forward and transfer firing control of the guns to the pilot, with the guns firing along each side of the cockpit canopy. However in practice this was rarely done as the turret's minimum forward elevation was 19° and the pilot did not have a gunsight.

Only Wiki....but I note the word "rarely", which is not the same as "never". And minimum elevation of 19° from horizontal flight when firing forward is still...."forward", as in 0° traverse.

But I like the change in emphasis, from -

It is hardly surprising that in daylight operations flying the thing was pretty suicidal once the Luftwaffe had worked out that it had no forward firing armament

to

the Defiant did not have any foward firing armament that fired directly forward that could make it possible for the pilot to fly the beast as a fighter

The REAL problem of the Defiant - and the reason for so many losses once the Luftwaffe became aware of its weaknessed due to excess weight etc....was that it was vulnerable to attacks from BELOW due to lack of visibility on the part of the pilot...



....and its designed-in preoccupation with targets ABOVE. If you look at three-line drawings of the Spitfire or Hurricane, for instance, you'll see the cockpit is placed to the rear of the centre of the main wing spar A Defiant pilot was just too far forward, right in the centre of the wing spar. They had a BIG blind spot, and that - combined with the time needed to get into circle formation once they spotted attackers and the lack of manouverabilty - was their downfall.

[Dunserving]

No point at all in being stuck in pedantic mode if you are going to quote Wiki as a source - something that is utterly unacceptable in academic circles as it is so unreliable in so many cases.

If you find that hard to believe try looking at this complete throbber:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mcilwraith

Just so there is no confusion over the odd word or punctuation mark - the Defiant had no forward firing armament. That should simple enough to understand. I'm not counting four Brownings firing upwards at quite a marked angle that would have made their use in a combat situation utterly impractical - especially with no sight to assist aiming. True the pilot had a slaved firing button, but that does not turn it into a forward firing fighter.

I've been checking with friends in the RAF - the consensus is that you should get hold of a copy of Flypast for November which has an article on the Defiant and the slaughter of 141 Squadron in 1940. They also say that for a pilot to try to fly the machine and aim/fire the turret guns would have been very difficult. They add that the turret would have to be put in that forward position by the turret gunner, so why does he not do the firing? If he is disabled, then how does the turret get into the right position anyway.

One, a retired Vulcan crewman with many thousands of hours to his name, adds another problem - the Defiant was unforgiving as an airframe once speed dropped - he wrote to me:

"My brother's godfather was a wartime FAA pilot. He once described to me how he nearly flicked out of control in a Defiant whilst trying to land behind a Swordfish at some shore station - it seems the Defiant had quite a high wing loading and wasn't very forgiving at the stall....."

They also add that it was in serious trouble if at anything other than low level - lack of speed and manouvreability being as much a handicap as visibility. True that the pilot's visibility was hampered by the wing - but the gunner was pretty much behind the wing and two sets of eyes can see in two directions at once. Now, I've got very little experience of flying in RAF aircraft - back seat in a couple of two seaters a few times - not always entirely officially so don't ask for details, you ain't getting them. I can tell you that once strapped in your visibility downwards is none too good, even when there isn't a wing in the way. That comes from my experience in the front seat of an F4 Phantom -( on the ground only I hasten to add) No problem for a pilot though, they push the control column to the side and roll the thing. Flying straight and level - poor visibility, combat situation - aircraft rolling around all over the place turning non-stop with two sets of eyes looking all around all the time, visibility and situational awareness much improved. Still not as good as a Spitfire though, it must be agreed.

If you want to know what poor visibility from an RAF plane is really, take yourself to Coventry (you might have heard of the place) and visit the Midland Aircraft Museum. Talk to them nicely and they'll let you sit in their Avro Vulcan. Once you have climbed up and sat in the pilots yellow and black taxi you'll start to get the hang of it. No wing in the way either... And that is a plane that was operated at low-level....

They go on to note that the Defiant was no real use as a night fighter, even with the turret in the Schrage Musik position. The firepower of four Brownings was quite inadequate, and to make matters so much worse the Browning had an awful amount of muzzle flash, so destroying the crews night vision the moment they opened fire. Those of us who have fired a machine gun at night will understand... Not that the gunner would have had much night vision anyway if he was using a radar scope prior to the intercept.

Perhaps the most telling comment I received was "Brave men giving all in extraordinary days."

The real problem with the Defiant was not that it was vulnerable to attacks from below due to lack of visibility for the pilot - the real problem was that it was designed to meet a fatally flawed specification. One that pushed designers into a design that would be perfect for the assumptions made by those who drafted the specification, but one which was so terribly wrong. The designers did a good job of meeting said specification, shame it was wrong.

I appreciate that some readers might disagree - keep it to yourself if you do. Given the choice of believing an RAF pilot, or some on here, guess who my money is on.

ENDEX!

[phylo_roadking]

Just so there is no confusion over the odd word or punctuation mark - the Defiant had no forward firing armament. That should simple enough to understand.

This should also be simple enough to understand - could the turret be locked at zero degrees of traverse from the centreline of the fuselage, yes or no?

They add that the turret would have to be put in that forward position by the turret gunner, so why does he not do the firing?

Even when facing forward -how is he supposed to see THROUGH both the pilot's cockpit lobstertail and the pilot's head??? P.S. you seen to have forgotten something else...something I forgot to pick up on earlier...

There was no interruptor gear.

Incorrect. The Brownings were electrically fired, and insulated cut-off points in the turret ring prevented the guns from being activated when they were pointing at the propeller disc OR the tailplane In other words - when the gunner traversed to put his firing arc near the tail or prop, the electrical firing of the Brownings was interrupted.

Thus - with the turret locked forward on the pilot's lever, the gunner wouldn't be able to fire anyway. The PILOT could...if the guns were angled at 19 degrees to clear the propellor disc.

If he is disabled, then how does the turret get into the right position anyway.

If the gunner is disabled - the pilot is heading for the nearest Fighter Command field anyway, for the Defiant's primary function as a turret-equiped fighter for attacking bombers is impaired.

True that the pilot's visibility was hampered by the wing - but the gunner was pretty much behind the wing and two sets of eyes can see in two directions at once.

...except as above the gunner's eyes are supposedly doing something entirely different in combat. Plus there's the issue of the gunner's restricted field of view due to the turret bracing AND we don't actually know the gunner's field of vision buried between four Brownings...!

P.S. - one OTHER issue with the gunner's visibility; during flight testing and in service, the gunner's visibility was only regarded as "acceptable"; one major issue was the heavy bracing of the turret interfering with his view.

Flying straight and level - poor visibility, combat situation - aircraft rolling around all over the place turning non-stop...

...except this is what is specifically contra-indicated by the Defiant's unmanouverability and heavy weight, that it wasn't manouverable in combat.

...with two sets of eyes looking all around all the time, visibility and situational awareness much improved.

...aprat from the issue mentioned above of what exactly was the gunner's field of vision

*

I appreciate that some readers might disagree - keep it to yourself if you do.

That's not how it works here. That's not how it works on ANY forum.

[Dunserving]

Just so there is no confusion over the odd word or punctuation mark - the Defiant had no forward firing armament. That should simple enough to understand.

This should also be simple enough to understand - could the turret be locked at zero degrees of traverse from the centreline of the fuselage, yes or no?

IT COULD NOT FIRE ALONG THE CENTRELINE OF THE FUSELAGE, ONLY AT AN ANGLE ABOVE IT THAT MADE AIMING VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PILOT. That's the view of an RAF pilot. They regard forward as being in the line of flight, not at an angle to it.

They add that the turret would have to be put in that forward position by the turret gunner, so why does he not do the firing?

Even when facing forward -how is he supposed to see THROUGH both the pilot's cockpit lobstertail and the pilot's head??? P.S. you seen to have forgotten something else...something I forgot to pick up on earlier...

Err..... Angled up at 19 degrees the turret gunner is starting to look over the pilot........

There was no interruptor gear.

Incorrect. The Brownings were electrically fired, and insulated cut-off points in the turret ring prevented the guns from being activated when they were pointing at the propeller disc OR the tailplane In other words - when the gunner traversed to put his firing arc near the tail or prop, the electrical firing of the Brownings was interrupted.

GOD HELP US. Interuptor gear is a First World War invention that allows guns to fire through the propellor disc without removing the blades. It is NOT in this case referring to an electrical cutout to prevent firing at certain positions. It is sychronisation of firing. I am utterly amazed that you did not know that. Had the Defiant been provided with interuptor gear and the pilot with a gunsight then the pilots firing button would have actually had a use. Because then the aircraft could have fired straight ahead. Ahead as in the sense that is understood by those who fly the non-civilian hardware for a living, or who have done so in the past.

Thus - with the turret locked forward on the pilot's lever, the gunner wouldn't be able to fire anyway. The PILOT could...if the guns were angled at 19 degrees to clear the propellor disc.

NO! Real RAF pilots have made it clear that trying to aim guns angled up at 19 degrees without any sighting aid in a combat situation is very hard and unlikely to be any use.

If he is disabled, then how does the turret get into the right position anyway.

If the gunner is disabled - the pilot is heading for the nearest Fighter Command field anyway, for the Defiant's primary function as a turret-equiped fighter for attacking bombers is impaired.

True that the pilot's visibility was hampered by the wing - but the gunner was pretty much behind the wing and two sets of eyes can see in two directions at once.

...except as above the gunner's eyes are supposedly doing something entirely different in combat. Plus there's the issue of the gunner's restricted field of view due to the turret bracing AND we don't actually know the gunner's field of vision buried between four Brownings...!

Actually, plenty of people do know. There's still a few who flew the thing for real still above ground. Why don't you take yourself to Rochester Airport where the one and only complete Defiant is currently undergoing restoration and see for yourself.

P.S. - one OTHER issue with the gunner's visibility; during flight testing and in service, the gunner's visibility was only regarded as "acceptable"; one major issue was the heavy bracing of the turret interfering with his view.

Flying straight and level - poor visibility, combat situation - aircraft rolling around all over the place turning non-stop...

...except this is what is specifically contra-indicated by the Defiant's unmanouverability and heavy weight, that it wasn't manouverable in combat.

Correction, it turned out to be not sufficiently manouvreable in combat flight. It could turn, plenty good enough when the opposition was a bomber, but not if it was a Me109...The heavy bars in the turret construction would at least have been moving across the sky, even if the turret was not moving relative to the airframe, so objects in the sky would be popping in and out of view. It would have been much better though if it had had a framless bubble type canopy.

...with two sets of eyes looking all around all the time, visibility and situational awareness much improved.

...aprat from the issue mentioned above of what exactly was the gunner's field of vision

*

I appreciate that some readers might disagree - keep it to yourself if you do.

That's not how it works here. That's not how it works on ANY forum.

If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with the blue suited sky gods of the RAF who know about combat flying, and they actually do know what they are talking about. It's their job. I've chosen to take notice of them, I trust their opinion and judgement. Or is there a reason why I should trust your word more than theirs?

[phylo_roadking]

GOD HELP US. Interuptor gear is a First World War invention that allows guns to fire through the propellor disc without removing the blades. It is NOT in this case referring to an electrical cutout to prevent firing at certain positions. It is sychronisation of firing. I am utterly amazed that you did not know that. Had the Defiant been provided with interuptor gear and the pilot with a gunsight then the pilots firing button would have actually had a use. Because then the aircraft could have fired straight ahead. Ahead as in the sense that is understood by those who fly the non-civilian hardware for a living, or who have done so in the past.

The Defiant's electrical interrupter gear stopped the brownings firing through the propeller arc. It does the same job - preserves the propellor...by interrupting the guns' firing mechanism.

You made a categorical statement - and it was wrong.

IT COULD NOT FIRE ALONG THE CENTRELINE OF THE FUSELAGE,

Thank you. You send at first they could NOT fire forward; whereas they patently CAN. Forward to me is not right or left of centre.

NO! Real RAF pilots have made it clear that trying to aim guns angled up at 19 degrees without any sighting aid in a combat situation is very hard and unlikely to be any use.

Dunserving - IT DOESN'T MATTER how hard or how useless. YOU said it COULDN'T be done....not how efficacious it would/wouldn't be

Why don't you take yourself to Rochester Airport where the one and only complete Defiant is currently undergoing restoration and see for yourself.

Would this be the Defiant that I provided the close-up picture of?

The heavy bars in the turret construction would at least have been moving across the sky, even if the turret was not moving relative to the airframe, so objects in the sky would be popping in and out of view

....and the gunner would have been turning WITH it! So that the turret frame occupied the same position in his field of view no matter where the turret was.

If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with the blue suited sky gods of the RAF who know about combat flying, and they actually do know what they are talking about. It's their job. I've chosen to take notice of them, I trust their opinion and judgement. Or is there a reason why I should trust your word more than theirs?

Err..... Angled up at 19 degrees the turret gunner is starting to look over the pilot........

Funny they forgot to tell you about the electrical interrupter, or the fact that the pilot's firing button slaved out the gunner's when the pilot used his lock-out lever

[phylo_roadking]

I've been checking with friends in the RAF - the consensus is that you should get hold of a copy of Flypast for November which has an article on the Defiant and the slaughter of 141 Squadron in 1940.

The article does ONLY deal with the combat losses, albeit in some detail, of No. 141 Sqn on the 18th of July 1940; it contains an absolute minimum of technical detail on the Defiant, and ditto on the acknowledged successes of No. 264 Sqn.

[Dunserving]

OK feller, we have an impasse.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert, so I have to choose between two differing points of view relating to an RAF aircraft.

One comes from several serving or former RAF aircrew, a couple of whom I know, the other comes from someone I don't know who describes himself as a motorcycle courier.

I have to decide who is more likely to be right. I asked you if there was a reason why I should take your word over theirs and you have not responded to that.

My decision is therefore made, others can make their own minds up.

[phylo_roadking]

I asked you if there was a reason why I should take your word over theirs and you have not responded to that.

Why should I? It's not an issue over the poster - just what they've got right or wrong. I take it playing the man not the ball is typical of behaviour at ARRSE?

So far the score is...

1/ a pilot's lock-out lever that locked the rear turret in position AND slaved the guns to his control column so that the rear gunner couldn't fire when "locked"; which you weren't aware of.

2/ an electrical interrupter that you didn't know existed; but in the absence of knowledge decided to be adamant didn't exist.

3/ a recognised and officially-recorded issue with the gunner's field of vision;

4/ a turret that could be locked to fire forward....no matter whether anyone ever did so or not the capability was there; again you said categorically that it couldn't, and have tried since to claw back on that categorical statement. It's not a matter of "the odd word or punctuation mark" - it's a matter of saying it couldn't be done vs. it could be done....but out of choice wasn't I.E. an incorrect position vs. a correct one.

5/ a reference to a magazine article that has almost zero to do with the discussion in hand; IF you had read it, you'd have found out that the fatal attack on 141 Sqn made on the 18th of July wasn't initially made to profit from ANY of the Defiant's weaknesses...III Gruppe of JG51 attacked them out of the sun before realising they were Defiants!

[Dunserving]

Morning all. Sorry for the delay in replying, but I’ve been away, down south, on the coast, in and around Lydd and Dungeness. Still hoping for a source for the assertion about there being “similarly sized raids on Lydd and Dungeness”, a reliable source that I can investigate further... Can you provide it please?

I asked you if there was a reason why I should take your word over theirs and you have not responded to that.

You wrote: “Why should I? It's not an issue over the poster - just what they've got right or wrong. I take it playing the man not the ball is typical of behaviour at ARRSE?”
If that lot were after you, you’d know all about it. This is me, not them...
The reason you were asked to respond is because of the impeccable nature of those who provided me with information – information that differs in parts with your statements. I’d need good sound reasons, backed up by reliable primary sources of evidence before I discount anything they say to me.
One was a Squadron Leader who flew the Avro Vulcan, whilst carrying Yellow Sun Mk2 and later Blue Steel.
Another, who asserts that the Defiant did not have forward firing armament, and was merely capable of firing its guns upwards above the line of flight, was a Tornado pilot. He’s been there, done it (in Gulf Wars), got the T-shirt (and the rest of the uniform), and the medals to prove it.
Others were serving or former RAF pilots.
The coup-de-grace comes in the form of one of them: an elderly gentleman, who is one of the surviving Defiant pilots, who is known to help out at Hendon. If you wish to say he’s wrong, why not go and tell him to his face instead of typing on here.....


You wrote “1/ a pilot's lock-out lever that locked the rear turret in position AND slaved the guns to his control column so that the rear gunner couldn't fire when "locked"; which you weren't aware of.”
ERROR. I was aware, since about 1957. That would have been the time when I was able to really understand what my father was telling me from his recollections of his wartime service days in the RAF. What pilots have said is that they could not have fired the guns with any hope of hitting anything other than the sky. What was said was that it would have been better when the turret was in the Shrage Musik position would have been for the gunner to operate the guns. He at least had a gunsight. Pilots state that the degraded performance of the Defiant was such that a target needed to be large slow and lumbering along pretty much in a straight line. In other words, a bomber.

You wrote “2/ an electrical interrupter that you didn't know existed; but in the absence of knowledge decided to be adamant didn't exist.”
ERROR. There is confusion between an electrical interrupter of the type that prevents guns firing when pointed at some part of the aircraft structure, eg wings and tail, and an interrupter that synchronises the firing of guns with position of the propeller, to allow firing through the propeller disc. I have always known and accepted the existence of the former, but I bemoan the lack of the latter. Had the turret been able to fire forward, that is forward in the sense that is accepted by RAF combat pilots as opposed to upwards in a generally forward direction, then with the addition of a gunsight for the pilot then the pilots lock out and firing button would suddenly have been meaningful.
However, it would still have been fairly pointless because you were still in an aircraft that had quite pronounced handling issues due to high wing loading, the weight of the turret, and the aerodynamic penalties it caused. Even without all that, you only had half the firepower of a Mark 1 Spitfire or Hurricane. When it all went wrong you needed to be low, too low to escape by parachute really, if over water you had another problem. An attempt to ditch, thanks to the turret, was a bit of a forlorn hope. All in all, the RAF would have been better off with more Spitfire and Hurricanes instead of the Defiants.

You wrote “3/ a recognised and officially-recorded issue with the gunner's field of vision;”
Absolutely right, vision was a problem, but nowhere near as bad as that in a Sperry ball turret! The ideal clear vision turret would have been a bubble type canopy, but that would have had its own problems in terms of access. A jetisonable one would have given the gunner a far better chance of escape though. I have contended that gunners were able to minimise the impact of the turret construction on visibility thereby making it tolerable. The aircraft, by not flying in a straight line, and the turret by rotating, means the obstructed parts of the sky would be continually changing. Enemy aircraft would be popping in and out of view. Not good, but not the same as no visibility in some directions. It has been stated that the gunners head moves with the turret thus negating the effects of aircraft manoeuvring and turret rotating – true – but for one thing. The gunner could, and did, move within the turret. Try this little experiment: stand looking out of the window at the world outside, about 50cm from the window, with one of the bars separating panes of glass right in front of view. Like a gunner you’ll find that part of the world out there cannot be seen. Now simply tilt you head to the left and right. Just that small movement drastically changes what is visible and what is obstructed amongst things a couple of hundred metres away. There was a lot wrong with visibility, but the way the Defiant was operated made it less of a problem than many care to think. Still a real problem though.

You wrote: “4/ a turret that could be locked to fire forward....no matter whether anyone ever did so or not the capability was there; again you said categorically that it couldn't, and have tried since to claw back on that categorical statement. It's not a matter of "the odd word or punctuation mark" - it's a matter of saying it couldn't be done vs. it could be done....but out of choice wasn't I.E. an incorrect position vs. a correct one.”
ERROR. See above. Forward is accepted by those who fire guns forward from RAF aircraft as being directly in line of flight. The Defiant could not fire forwards. Ahead and upwards in the Schrage Musik type of firing, but not forwards. Perhaps, on reflection, no bad thing. Just consider exactly where the muzzles of those Brownings would have been.... Think about the impact of the muzzle blast, and all those exceedingly hot gases and bits of burning propellant on the sides of the pilots canopy. To say nothing of his chances of escaping with the turret in such a position.

You wrote “5/ a reference to a magazine article that has almost zero to do with the discussion in hand; IF you had read it, you'd have found out that the fatal attack on 141 Sqn made on the 18th of July wasn't initially made to profit from ANY of the Defiant's weaknesses...III Gruppe of JG51 attacked them out of the sun before realising they were Defiants!”
CONGRATULATIONS! Passed the test. We wanted to know how widely you read – you correctly picked out the limits of the article. Well done for that!

To sum up Without doubt the Defiant was an elegant and well thought out solution to the problem set in the original design specification. Sadly, the specification was woefully wrong.
The RAF ended up with an aircraft that was a solution to a problem that didn’t exist, and served only to cause problems for those that flew in it. As one pilot has indicated to me, its usefulness was limited at the start of the war, and quickly became useless for anything other than as a means of sending young men up to get killed. Another has stated to me that its effectiveness as a night fighter was hyped up. It was of no real use, but had to do until better aircraft came along – fortunately fairly quickly. Defiant aces? Not really.
My thanks to the aircrew, most especially Defiant Pilot, for the info they gave me.
To end with a challenge for you all:
Defiant Pilot stated that he had only a limited amount of combat experience against Luftwaffe fighters, for which I think he was quite thankful. He said that the circling technique was a good way of getting down to ground level where you had more of a chance of surviving. When he did it he stated that his gunner made no attempt to defend his own aircraft. He was firing though.
Your challenge: Explain what the gunner was doing and why. In particular why did he not try to defend himself?
Hint: You won’t find the answer on Google! You’ll need to know what you are talking about or know someone who has the right kind of experience.

I’ll check back in a day or two with the right answer. If anyone has got it, there’ll be a prize for the winner.

[Dunserving]

These pictures of the last intact Defiant as it arrived here in Kent for restoration earlier this year will be of interest.

http://www.slomanpettitt.co.uk/tonystig ... /index.htm

Readers will be able to see how poor a condition this aircraft is in now. Certainly deteriorated since I was last up close and personal with it something like 35 years ago.

The visibility problems with the turret can easily be deduced, and are more obvious than in any other pictures available. You'd find it easier to spot an enemy behind you, less than a good idea. Really obvious though is the difficulty a gunner would have in getting out in a hurry, just look at the access, and limited space....

I'll try to get over there sometime soon, will see if I can get better pics - we could do with some from inside - gunners point of view.....