Defiant aces

[Ironmachine]

I would like to clarify a point:

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 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.

It is not that the machine-guns had a minimum angle of 18-19 degrees. They could actually fire forward, only that it was not advisable as there was no synchronization equipment to protect the propeller. From The Turret Fighters - Roc and Defiant:

A further strange feature of the Defiant was that the pilot was provided with with a normal gun button and could fire the guns, provided they were locked in the forwar position, although there was no synchronization gear to protect the propeller. On at least one recorded example during the war, a Defiant pilot on a non-operational flight over the Irish Sea slid back his canopy and rested his elbows on the canopy rail while the guns were pointed forward in this way, and by mistake touched the firing button and the guns fired. the shot ripped through the elbows of his flying jacket, but luckily did not touch his arms, which could easily have been shot off.

So the 18-19 degrees seems to be the minimum elevation to clear the propeller, not the real minimum elevation of the guns. Not that this changes anything, as it would have been stupid to fire in this way and the pilot did not have a gunsight, but makes one wonder why was he given this capacity.

[Dunserving]

Ironmachine...

You have written that the turret guns could fire forward.
That is wrong.
True they could fire when the turret was pointing ahead, and up at about 19 degrees as you say, but that is not forward.
By your meaning half the hemisphere around the turret is forwards. If the turret was turned till it was exactly at right angles to the fuselage, then turned just a tiny bit towards the cockpit and then guns fired - then the bullets would be moving forwards very slowly relative to the aircraft. Still forwards though.

The accepted definition of forward firing refers to weapons firing along the direction the aircraft is moving.
Accepted by the manufacturers, the RAF, the MoD, the pilots.........................
Not just in line from left to right, but up and down as well. It does include wing mounted guns that are aimed inwards slightly to converge at a point directly in front of the fighter, it does not include weapons discharging their lead wasps at a markedly diverging angle to the direction of flight.

To be absolutely clear, the Defiant could fire ahead, but not forwards.

What is right, as shown in the extract you have posted, is that the Defiant did not have synchronisation gear, so that the guns could not have fired through the propellor arc. If only that had been provided then perhaps, just perhaps, the Defiant might have had more of a chance when the Me109s put in an appearance - as long as a gunsight was fitted as well of course.

Thank you for adding a source - too often that is not done, even when asked for.

[Ironmachine]

Ironmachine...
You have written that the turret guns could fire forward.
That is wrong.
True they could fire when the turret was pointing ahead, and up at about 19 degrees as you say, but that is not forward.
By your meaning half the hemisphere around the turret is forwards. If the turret was turned till it was exactly at right angles to the fuselage, then turned just a tiny bit towards the cockpit and then guns fired - then the bullets would be moving forwards very slowly relative to the aircraft. Still forwards though.

I have made something more than stating that the turret guns could fire forward: I have provided a sourced example of the gus firing while pointing ahead and at 0 degrees of elevation. That is forward. Or do you think that the pilot was standing in the cockpit so that the "shot ripped through the elbows of his flying jacket" while the guns were pointing 19 degrees up?
You should clarify your ideas:
1) Was the minimum elevation of the guns, at least when pointing forward, 19 degrees? I can post pictures that show otherwise.
2) Couldn't the guns fire while aiming forward if at less than 19 degrees up? I have provided an example on the contrary. On the other hand, this being the case, there would have been no need for synchronization equipment.
So unless you can probe one of this two points, your case is lost. Can you explain why it was impossible to fire forward? With all the information presented till now, the idea I get is that it would be more harmful for the Defiant than for the enemy aircraft, but it could be done. Can you show a identificable source that shows that it could not?

The accepted definition of forward firing refers to weapons firing along the direction the aircraft is moving.
Accepted by the manufacturers, the RAF, the MoD, the pilots.........................
Not just in line from left to right, but up and down as well. It does include wing mounted guns that are aimed inwards slightly to converge at a point directly in front of the fighter, it does not include weapons discharging their lead wasps at a markedly diverging angle to the direction of flight.
To be absolutely clear, the Defiant could fire ahead, but not forwards.

I know pretty well the accepted definition of forward firing. I was meaning this definition when I said that the Defiant could fire forward.
To be absolutely clear, you should provide something better than your word to demonstrate that the Defiant could not fire forward in the "accepted definition of forward" sense.

[quotequote="Dunserving"]What is right, as shown in the extract you have posted, is that the Defiant did not have synchronisation gear, so that the guns could not have fired through the propellor arc. If only that had been provided then perhaps, just perhaps, the Defiant might have had more of a chance when the Me109s put in an appearance - as long as a gunsight was fitted as well of course.[/quote]
It seems that you don't understand what synchronisation gear means. The lack of synchronisation gear does not mean that the Defiant could not fire through the propellor arc, but that this firing would have caused damage to the propellor. Yes, it would have been stupid to fire in that way while risking damage for the Defiant, but as far as I can see it, it could be done, and that was my point. On the other hand, if any other system present in the Defiant prevented firing in that way, then why is there so much trouble with remarking the lack of synchronisation gear?

Thank you for adding a source - too often that is not done, even when asked for.

With all due respect, you own sourcing is not of the highest quality...
Why should a squadron leader who flew the Avro Vulcan and a Tornado pilot be considered as experts in the Defiant? Just because they flew an aircraft are they going to know everything about any other aircraft in history? I would take their worlds about the Vulcan and the Tornado (respectively ), but not about the Defiant without further knowledge about their expertise in the matter (believe me, I served in a cavalry unit and I know nothing about horses ). The ex-Defiant pilot seems somewhat better as a source, but memory can play bad tricks... I will prefer something more "solid".

[phylo_roadking]

In the meantime...there has been quite a lot said in this thread about the lack of a pilot gunsight being an oversight...

The lack of one was actually INTENTIONAL

What does a gunsight actually DO...?

[phylo_roadking]

By the way...with regards to I-M's comment...

Why should a squadron leader who flew the Avro Vulcan and a Tornado pilot be considered as experts in the Defiant? Just because they flew an aircraft are they going to know everything about any other aircraft in history? I would take their worlds about the Vulcan and the Tornado (respectively ), but not about the Defiant without further knowledge about their expertise in the matter (believe me, I served in a cavalry unit and I know nothing about horses ). The ex-Defiant pilot seems somewhat better as a source, but memory can play bad tricks... I will prefer something more "solid"....

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.

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....."

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.

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?

So....these blue suited sky gods of the RAF "wrote" to YOU, did they?

Or are you sure, Mr. Beaumont, that you didn't merely post a query on ANOTHER forum, and accept anything members there put on their profiles as gospel???

Oh...and that "general concensus" seems to be the suggestion of just ONE poster

...a copy of Flypast for November, there is an interesting article about the Defiant and 141 Squadron's slaughter in 1940

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history- ... fiant.html

And ...oh look....from "BEagle"

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.....

[Dunserving]

I see what you are getting at.

I've not intended to give the impression that the guns could not be lowered to zero degrees elevation whilst the turret was in the ahead position - just that the guns should not be able to fire when depressed below 19 degrees in order to protect the propellor. The interruptor system designed to prevent the guns from firing when part of the aircraft should have prevented the accident happening to the pilot. Sounds like a fault on that particular aircraft! The minimum depression for firing of about 19 degrees upwards is well known and referred to on umpteen sites and references and has never been in question on this thread - I do not need to establish that it is a fact, it is already accepted as true by others posting on here.

If however, you really want to see one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant
...but that is Wiki, hardly the most reliable of sources...

Or for a reading list:

'The Turret Fighters - Defiant and Roc (Crowood Aviation Series)'
by Alec Brew
Published by Crowood Press, 2002

'The Defiant File'
by Alec Brew
Published by Air-Britain (Historians) Ltd, 1996 ISBN: 0 85130 226 2

'Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915'
by Alec Brew
Published by Putnam Aeronautical Books, 1993 ISBN: 1 85177 860 7

'Aircraft For The Few: The RAF's Fighters And Bombers in 1940'
by Micheal J.F. Bowyer
Published by Patrick Stephens Ltd, Aug 1991 ISBN: 1 85260 040 3

'Defiant II Pilots Notes'
Published by Air Data Publications, 1972 & reprints

'Boulton Paul Defiant: Profile No.117'
by Micheal J.F. Bowyer
Published by Profile Publications Ltd, 1966


I've no doubt that there are photos of a Defiant with the turret forward and with guns fully depressed until in a true forward firing position - but I bet there aren't any with the guns firing and the engine running! Given the muzzle blast from those particular weapons I would not want to be in the cockpit, even with the canopy closed.

A separate synchronisation system would have been needed to allow firing through the propellor arc, and this was never fitted so far as I have been able to determine. My thoughts are that it would have been a good idea, so that the pilot could take over the control of the guns and fight effectively, as opposed to being able to take control of the guns and not be able to fight as he then had guns he had no way of aiming accurately, and as real fighter pilots have confirmed to me, would have been exceedingly difficult to aim anyway. Of course, the decision not to fit a gunsight was quite deliberate, the gunner was to do the fighting, while the pilot was essentially a taxi driver, putting the gunner where he neded to be. But, I cannot help but wonder what might have been the result of the pilot being able to aim, and thus fly aggressively - a bit like the lesson learnt with the Bristol Fighter a generation earlier.

But then what does a gunsight do, as Phylo asks. Obvious - it is a sophisticated system designed to allow a pilot to waste slightly less ammunition than usual. But only slightly less. Alternatively, a system designed to slightly reduce the incidence of pilots making holes in the sky. Also used for knocking teeth out in a crash landing. And creating work for a plastic surgeon.
A source for the last bit
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/mult ... 51596a.jpg
A man whose face wasn't the same after a crash landing in a Hurricane...

I take your point about referencing. I only post what I know to be true - if not I keep quiet. Unfortunately, there are cases, too many cases, where the evidence is not something on the internet. Contents of a cathedral archive for example - things that can be seen in person, but are not accessible on the web. In that case I did tell people where the papers were so they could peruse them for themselves. Where I can reference fully I have done so - even quoting edition and page number at times. Not much else I can do. As for the RAF officers - the ones I know personally are indeed very knowledgeable, but I accept that I cannot prove it to you or anyone else on here. But of course, that does not make them ignorant! They could prove themselves easily should they want to, but I suspect their preference for privacy would mean they would choose not to. Some idiot would undoubtedly start asking them questions about their orders relating to Blue Steel and WE177! There's a lot they won't talk about, even to another officer.

My grave concern regarding referencing is the common use of that most untrustworthy of sources - Wiki, as being gospel truth. I saw on one thread a reference given for a statement, which on examination turned out to be a worksheet written by a teacher in a primary school, produced for young children. It was not itself referenced in any way, and had errors in it. Too many seem to think that only things found on the web can be sources of information, and that if it is on the web then it is true.

I was pleased to see your statement referenced. I was praising you, not criticising you.

Took you long enough Phylo!!!!! That, and the alias I use there, was ONE of the routes for info - the best though came from personal contacts as indicated!!!!!!! Vulcan Pilot was the best, he lives near me. Good bloke, serious guy.

Still waiting for that reference for the bombing of Lydd and Dungeness......................

[phylo_roadking]

The minimum depression for firing of about 19 degrees upwards is well known and referred to on umpteen sites and references and has never been in question on this thread

Of course, the decision not to fit a gunsight was quite deliberate, the gunner was to do the fighting, while the pilot was essentially a taxi driver, putting the gunner where he neded to be

No. There was a VERY good reason for there being no interrupter gear as YOU describe it being fitted to the Defiant, why the guns were at NINETEEN degres and not twenty or twenty-one, why there was no gunsight...and why the pilot WAS expected to be able to fire the guns, not JUST taxi the gunner about...

Now, let's see how well-read YOU are...

Let's just say....you might be closer to the mark than you think...

But, I cannot help but wonder what might have been the result of the pilot being able to aim, and thus fly aggressively - a bit like the lesson learnt with the Bristol Fighter a generation earlier.

But then what does a gunsight do, as Phylo asks. Obvious - it is a sophisticated system designed to allow a pilot to waste slightly less ammunition than usual. But only slightly less. Alternatively, a system designed to slightly reduce the incidence of pilots making holes in the sky. Also used for knocking teeth out in a crash landing. And creating work for a plastic surgeon

Nope, you've missed out THE most important part...

A gunsight tells the pilot of a fighter with a gunbutton on his control column where HIS bullets are going to be at x-distance from his aircraft, and where that point is in relation to where his enemy is

And there is a set of circumstances where for several decades it was thought that a gunsight would simply NOT be necessary, for years of research had "shown" that in those circumstances several VARIABLES had been removed from the targeting equation...

So why...when they were being designed...would a Spitfire or Hurricane have been expected to need one, but not a Defiant pilot???

[phylo_roadking]

Before I move on from this - there's something here that doesn't quite reconcile...

That, and the alias I use there, was ONE of the routes for info - the best though came from personal contacts as indicated!!!!!!! Vulcan Pilot was the best, he lives near me. Good bloke, serious guy.

Are you saying that you got his material from him directly? Instead of online??? This is what you posted earlier on this thread

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....."

But...as I noted above - THIS is what that person, who lives near you, and was a personal contact, wrote on the thread -

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.....

Identical RIGHT down to the number of periods at the end So he just happened to post EXACTLY and with absolutely NO differences on the PPRuNe thread what he emailed/wrote to you directly as a personal contact?

[phylo_roadking]

Well, I'm not going to be here for the next two days, so I'd better answer my own puzzle...

There was a VERY good reason for there being no interrupter gear as YOU describe it being fitted to the Defiant, why the guns were at NINETEEN degres and not twenty or twenty-one, why there was no gunsight...and why the pilot WAS expected to be able to fire the guns, not JUST taxi the gunner about...

A gunsight tells the pilot of a fighter with a gunbutton on his control column where HIS bullets are going to be at x-distance from his aircraft, and where that point is in relation to where his enemy is

And there is a set of circumstances where for several decades it was thought that a gunsight would simply NOT be necessary, for years of research had "shown" that in those circumstances several VARIABLES had been removed from the targeting equation...

So why...when they were being designed...would a Spitfire or Hurricane have been expected to need one, but not a Defiant pilot???

...and here's the answer...

[phylo_roadking]

..which I've already given you!

...the principle of "no-allowance shooting"

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Nodeflect.htm

The advantages of no-allowance shooting are many. If you can formate under the tail of an enemy aircraft and fly at the same speed, with no "aiming-off" you can virtually guarantee to score hits, and you can open fire at greater range. The position under the tail of the enemy is ideal for approaching without being seen if the target does not have a ventral gun position. The method is perfect for bringing down unescorted bombers flying in formation, with each bomber "locked" into its position within the formation it can do little to avoid an attack by no-deflection sighting, particularly if the attacker can use a longer range cannon to make the attack without getting into range of the bomber's defensive armament.

The Defiant when it's guns were locked at 19 degrees to horizontal and firing straight ahead was - according to the results of combat during WWI and a LOT of testing BETWEEN the wars was...BOUND to hit its target!

And WHY 19 degrees??? The minimum angle to clear the propellor - versus

The angle at which no-allowance shooting works depends on two factors; the speed of the aircraft through the air and the velocity of the bullet. For an aircraft in World War One , the angle is in the order of 45 degrees. The increased speed of aircraft in World War Two meant the angle was reduced to about 20 degrees or less.

The construction and design of the Defiant meant 19 degrees....or NOTHING!

One of the things that confuses the issue of no-allowance shooting is a perception that somehow it made projectiles (ie bullets and cannon-shells) actually travel further. This is explained by saying that the bullet itself generates lift to combat the force of gravity.

!!!

And it WAS religiously tested...

Between the wars there was a series of specifications for new fighters released by the RAF that sought to maximise the potential for no-allowance shooting. For example specification 27/24 which resulted in the twin engined Boulton Paul Bittern fighter prototype with machine guns in revolving barbettes in the nose. Then specification 29/27 gave rise to two prototypes, one from Vickers, the other from Westlands, mounting big 37 mm Coventry Ordnance Works guns (known as "COW Guns" ) fitted to fire upwards at an angle

Specification 5/33 called for a two-seater fighter with the main armament in a turret in the nose, this did not lead to any prototypes but it did push forward turret development. This led eventually to Spec 9/35 which led to the Boulton-Paul Defiant turret fighter, and its slower naval counterpart the Blackburn Roc. There can be no doubt that no-allowance shooting was inherent in the design of the Defiant ; for example the gun turret of the Defiant could be locked into position and then fired by the Defiant pilot. The ultimate British no-allowance shooting project was derived from specification F9/37 which led to the Gloster G39 prototype twin engined fighter, this was designed to have cannon in the fuselage behind the pilot firing upward at a no-allowance angle

You've discovered no-allowance shooting! The angle at which you do not need to aim off to allow for deflection.

A Defiant pilot DIDN'T NEED a deflection-reconciling reflector gunsight...because there was no deflection TO reconcile when it came to where his bullets were going and where the target would be when they got there!

Amazingly, Colin Sinnott in his masterly book "The RAF and Aircraft Design 1923-1939" shows that prior to WWII the RAF was actually calling for ways for the wing-mounted armament of Hurricanes and Spitfires to be somehow elevated to fire at no-allowance angles! Indeed this requirement was taken forward to the specification that led to the Hawker Typhoon

[phylo_roadking]

Another phrasing of the "no-allowance shooting" principle...

http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/ ... wance.html

Talking of Schrage Musik...

Still, the failure to recognize the nature of this threat has puzzled many observers, who knew that between the two World Wars, the RAF itself experimented with fixed, upward-firing guns in a number of aircraft. This disconnect in thinking probably occurred because the RAF saw the upward-firing guns in a different context: That of no-allowance shooting.

Here's where Sinnot discusses it

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MepC ... 22&f=false

Pages 116/7, 128/9...

Yes, as Sinnot says, the Defiant WAS outclassed by German monoplane fighters...BUT when it was being designed it wasn't - as discussed previously - and at THAT point in its history, with biplane fighters with twin rifle calibre guns as standard armament being frontline fighter's in the world's airforces the Defiant WOULD have made it through to break up "self-defending" bomber formations.

And for THAT job - with the Defiant's guns locked forward at 19 degrees to the horizontal...flying behind and below a bomber and at the same approximate speed...the pilot didn't need a gunsight for he couldn't miss anyway And THAT was simply mathematics/physics ensuring his bullets hit the enemy

Ditto for the lack of through-the-propellor interrupter gear - THAT wasn't needed because the theory and all the testing on no-allowance shooting indicated that the Defiant's guns firing forward and UP at an angle would be BETTER than firing forward horizontally! That would need a gunsight with "lead", training in deflection shooting etc., to stand any chance of hitting an enemy bomber...but mounted at 19 degrees, thus needing no prop interrupter - as the articles show, mathematics and physics meant you couldn't miss ....supposedly...

The Defiant's lack of a gunsight wasn't a "weakness", it's lack of a through-the-propellor interrupter wasn't a "weakness" - it was just that by 1940 the whole aircraft was simply overtaken by progress, in BOTH aircraft and tactics - and THAT happened to everything in the sky eventually, even the Spitfire...

IF circumstances had permitted - the MUCH higher-performance and much more agile Gloster F.9/37 would have replaced it as a dedicated bomber-killer...working on the same principle...but as with so many other projects it stumbled in mid-1940 with the post-Dunkirk moratorium on building anything that wasn't already in service, and looked likely to be delayed by Gloster's other work. If it hadn't - the F.9/37 and no-allowance shooting would have been the basis for a superlative nightfighter...

[Ironmachine]

Then, what was the minimum angle of elevation for firing clear of the propellor in the Defiant? Or by chance it was the same as the optimum angle for no-allowance shooting?

[Dunserving]

Will explain all in a day or two.....

I really need to search through this house of mine - somewhere tucked away I've got a shell case with wooden dummy projectile for a C.O.W. gun. My late father "liberated" a couple of shell cases from the trials aircraft when they were being tested at RAF Martlesham Heath! He was stationed there for a time in the early part of his service life. I gave one away about thirty years ago, but the other is here stored in a box somewhere.

The gun was a powerful weapon, as long as you could actually hit your target. It was angled up very steeply, hardly no-allowance shooting, and required a gunsight - this can be seen in the links already provided by others. It was felt, by those involved in the testing, that the design specification might have been linked to the existence of a large amount of C.O.W. gun ammunition held in store. It needed using up or destroying! Certainly the shell case I have has the date 1918 stamped on its base. My father told me that the aircraft struggled to get to the expected combat height and was none too good when it came to trying to position the plane for an accurate interception. Test pilots did not consider it to be of use. No doubt the Luftwaffe would have hoped that it had gone into service use - they would have had to be mad not to!

Hardly surprising that in view of the trials the RAF lost interest in the project - that is well documented. C.O.W. guns are themselves quite rare, the example in the RAF Museum at Hendon is the only one I know of. They didn't have a shell case for the thing last time I was there.


If I can spare an hour in the next day or so I'll look for the shell, and post a picture or two on here.


Sources: Quite a few on the web, for both gun and trials aircraft, some already referred to on this forum. For the full reasons for rejection of the aircraft see RAF Archives - I can't be bothered to look it up, anecdotal information was from father, who retained his faculties almost to the end of his life.

[phylo_roadking]

Then, what was the minimum angle of elevation for firing clear of the propellor in the Defiant? Or by chance it was the same as the optimum angle for no-allowance shooting?

19 degrees! It WAS the only option between 20 degrees and...CRUNCHCRUNCHCRUNCH!

IF they could have got it down below that towards 15 degrees it would have been better...the faster the aircraft in a straight line (when behind and below an enemy) and the narrower the angle could be and STILL provide a straight bullet path. Hence the idea that wing guns could be angled suitably in the Spitfire and Typhoon!

But the design of the Defiant meant that wasn't going to happen.

[Dunserving]

Phylo

Congratulations on finding ONE of my other on-screen personas - you now know of two, but still have two more to locate - and you haven't found the best ones. Tracked me down on Feldgrau yet? You have quite correctly found PPRUNE, but, the best source of Vulcan Pilot info came from a real history buff who does not frequent the net. The general consensus came from several former aircrew, not just the one you found. The internet is not the only source of information you know! Sadly all too often it is the source of unreliable information. All that I posted came from people who know (or in the case of the dead one who knew) what they were talking about.

I was told that this site, while frequently a valuable resource, does at times rely on poor quality information - cutting and pasting from Wiki for example. I was also told that veterans have their real knowledge disparaged or dismissed as failing memory. I was also told that some even seem to deny the existence of any fact if it can't be found on the internet, that if all else fails they try to disredit the poster. I thought I'd try to provoke a discussion or two to see it what they say is true. I've got my answer!

By the way, where are you really? You say Belfast, but, you refer to the dots on the end of a sentence as "periods" - no Englishman or Irishman would ever do that - we call them "full stops". Periods is an North American expression, not European. Hmm...........