Hallo all my aces. If you enjoyed this video, consider sharing it with friends, social media and ze internet, ja!

Thumbs up for CONTEXT!

It was a damned good night fighter in the right hands.

Something not Italian deemed "the worst of WW2" ? This truly is a progressive society.

Man, I like the idea of a turreted bomber hunter. Makes me imagine just Air to Air gunships

"It was a solution in search of a problem" -Cobey Wobey.

I heard that the F2A Buffalo was also known as the worst plane, although it succeded amazingly in finnish air forces

"She may have flaws, but she's got teeth." Benjamin Sisko.

The main assumption in the Defiant's design was that German bombers would be operating over the UK without escort. This was assumed partly because of "the bomber will always get through" doctrine and also it was assumed the German bombers would be operating out of German bases - well beyond the range of escort fighters. In reality, the German bombers were mainly operating from French airfields, which allowed them to be escorted. The problem was that they couldn't survive when the enemy had high performance escort fighters in the same piece of sky.

Firstly, and not wishing to be pedantic the name is "Boulton Paul". I have been a devoted fan of the P.82 Defiant for many years, not just because it has always had a raw deal from military aviation historians but mainly due to this aircraft being much much better than most casual observers would usually think. The Engineers at Boulton Paul used some very advanced techniques aimed at providing the design with the cleanest air smoothing ever used on any aircraft to date where flush riveting was used throughout that resulted in an aircraft that flew very sweetly. Defiants were also built in sections which streamlined assembly, another feature that was in its infancy and one also used by Handley Page when building the HP 52 Hampden. There is no question that with the weight penalty of the turret, all associated equipment and of course the second crewman the Defiant's performance would be anywhere near that of contemporary single seat interceptors. However, when placed in the front line during the Battle of Britain the shortcomings of the design were soon exposed and I believe the crews that bravely took this aircraft into battle were largely betrayed by RAF Fighter Command as front line combat against single seat fighters was never in the minds of the Designers. 264 Squadron did however devise tactics to deal with enemy fighter attacks which I won't bother repeating here, suffice it to say 264 did prove that they could at least give as good as they got in battle. The one salient truth about the Defiant is that it was the best night fighter available during the winter of 1940/41; faster than the Blenheim and much more effective than single seaters, it's tally of successful interceptions was never exceeded by either the Beaufighter or the Mosquito,14 squadrons eventually operated the type. The turret system used was actually a licensed built adaptation of the French SAMM 7B that Boulton Paul acquired licensing rights to during 1933 This turret was model Type A MkIID, the 'D' denoting Defiant. These turrets were also used on RAF bombers and even on British Liberators (B24s). The last few Mk1 and all Mk2 Defiants were equipped with radar to make them more effective in the night fighter role. It's worth pointing out that it was most likely the RAF and its Defiant crews that first devised the tactic of firing up into enemy bombers from bellow, a tactic used by the Luftwaffe to great effect with "jazz music" later on in the conflict. The highest scoring air gunner of any of the combatants was Sergeant Frederick J Barker, Defiant air gunner with 264 Squadron who finished the war with 13 confirmed victories. I was amused to hear your comments regarding flight/tactical trials. You failed to mention the tactical trial where Sqn Leader Phillip Hunter flew a Defiant whilst Robert Stanford Tuck, from 65 Sqn flew a Mk1 Spitfire in mock combat: Tuck attacked how and when he liked whilst Hunter began flying in a series of tight turns to give his gunner the best field of fire. Tuck found that no matter how he tried he could not bring his guns to bear on the Defiant without being hit- Tuck expended none of his ciné gun ammunition but the Defiant gunner expended all of his ammunition. At one point, Hunter even got on Tuck's tail. Hunter found that a well flown Defiant, turning tightly and keeping airspeed at or above 160mph always gave his gunner good firing opportunities. Tuck's Spitfire was hit multiple times as he turned, trying to avoid the Defiant's guns being hit across the arc as he turned.

Great video! Again... One tragic aspect of the Defiant worth mentioning is the almost impossible task of baling out for the poor gunner. During the BoB, despite the huge losses and realisation that the aircraft was unsuitable for day interception in the face of fighters, the crews 'carried on'. Brave young men on a level with the crews of Battles and Swordfish to my mind.

I love always seeing the subtle references between my favorite historical and military channels such as this one, MHV, lindybeige, TGW, Binkov's battlegrounds, sometimes extra history.

I want this Thing in War Thunder :)

i remember this plane from that ps3 game blazing angels. it was unstoppable in that game because of its gunner whose mg seemed to be a 37mm cannon and he shot bees flying 200km/h 4miles away. and thats why i hate this plane

The boulton paul defiant has long been one of those aircraft that Iwas fond of even though I knew it was no Spitfire. I just remember the first time I saw a picture of one and thinking, “A quad turret? On a FIGHTER?! COOL!!” Even after I knew the reasons for its bad reputation, I still felt sorry for the plane. I’m sure space and weight would have been a problem, but I feel that if the RAF had found some way to add a forward-facing gun (maybe a 20mm Hispano-Suiza motorcannon, or a pair of them in gun pods) the Defiant might have left a better impression.

Marvellous! Clear, well-researched, intelligent and well-delivered commentary. First rate!

A well reasoned look at a often derided aircraft. Thank you for the insight, it is easy when looking back with history behind you to be critical, but I had no idea the Defiant had any significant operational success. I wonder if the same can be said for RN Roc.

As a day fighter it was misguided; as a stop-gap night fighter it was very useful while its final role as a target tug on gunnery ranges was doubly valuable.

Another excellent piece I'm glad I stumbled upon this by accident. Keep up the good work 😉

What a great and informative video, thank you. Look forward to seeing more pop up in my feed!

Would be fascinating to see it's later history if it got an uprated Merlin and a set of Hispano's in the wings.

The dingy launcher at the end is a complete surprise. I suddenly want a whole video on land and sea ASR operations!

Your videos are well-researched, informative, balanced, mature, and interesting. Well done!

MrD53 Dear Sir Most interesting and informative. I modelled the Airfix kit some time ago but did not appreciate the history behind the model. Your knowledge has rectified that for which I thank you and thank you for your generosity in sharing it which I must say has moved me to consider another build. Thanks for keeping the hobby alive and kicking. MrD53

I admit that I felt a wave of joy when I saw this one! Fantastic video. Thanks Bismark. The Defiant's night tactics were correct, but if you see a Beaufighter in real life (RAF Museum Hendon, for example), you will see what a difference those cannons make. It's an absolute beast. Half a second being fired at by that would do for a JU-88 or HE-111. .303 Brownings, not so much.

Hey there Bismarck. At 1:55 you refer to the turret being designated as the “M K 2 D”. The MK actually stands for ‘Mark’ and is similar to ‘version’. The Mark 2 is an improvement to the Mark 1 etc. Marks can be further refined by Mods (modification). In the Navy we joked that we saw it with the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball. 😊

Thank you, I am impressed by the quality of your research and the facts you present. I did a rare thing, for me, I subscribed. Thanks again.

Your vids are wonderful. I love that you include your sources. Thanks!

Even if its considered the worst i love it, i'm a sucker for any plane with turrets.

What a coincidence. I actually know this aircraft from that book “The World’s Worst Aircraft”. I’ve had it ever since I was a very little kid.

Thank you for this video. Excellent work as always!

As unsuccesfull as the Defiant was, I don't think it can out-terrible the Italian Breda Ba.88. Some production models couldn't even take off, nevermind actually carry out their missions succesfully.

As a night fighter the Paul Defiant introduced what became a practice by both German and Japanese night fighters. Namely, oblique firing guns shooting upwards into the belly of the bomber. For the Luftwaffe, it was called "Schräge Musik" which some say was a name applied to Jazz. What doomed the Defiants was its weak armament and limited ability to locate enemy bombers. The crew had to guided by ground radar rather than rely on its own radar, to bulky and heavy for the Defiant airframe. This is why most successful nigh fighter designs, such as its successor, the Beaufighter, were two engine planes which could mount both radar and heavier armaments. Thanks for the video!

Thank you!..a nice mini - documentary Bismarck!!

My old squadron was initially stood up as a Defiant sqn, and enjoyed limited success with them to little loss themselves. Good to see a video that doesn't just insta shit on the type. Keep up the good work!

There's worse fighters than that, the Blackburn Skua and Roc come to mind...

Would love to see a vid on the Westland Whirlwind

Thanks for posting! I'm working on a script about the 125 Squadron who flew these as night fighter starting in June 1941.

A very balanced and enjoyable video. Thank you for your research, I have heard the Defiant described as the best example of a terrible idea. Thank you.

I have always known it was not a very good plane, but when i was a child i thought it was beautiful. Still has a place in my heart today thx for the vid and all your great content.

Excellent video, but what about the Fairey Battle? Merlin engine, but crew of 3, a greenhouse for a canopy, and a small bomb load. And yet the Fairey Swordfish crippled the Bismarck, and knackered the Italian Navy at Taranto.

I was aware of the Defiant, but I never looked into them in any detail. Good job giving them their due justice in this video.

Excellent video, very cogently argued and very well laid out. I'd just mention also the Blackburn Roc - the British navy's take on the turret fighter concept, the link to the (very succesful ) WW1 Brigotl fighter and - finally - wonder why the defiant didn't even get a single forward firing weapon. Even the Fairey Battle got one!

It looks like a British IL2 but it's completely different and not isn't used like one

Tough little -ship- plane.

Great video! Didn't really know about this plane prior to the video. It was kinda cool looking at least!

A well researched and written piece. Good job.

What were they thinking? The Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter (2 seated version) And Bristol Fighter of WW1 showed that an Aircraft with a rear facing MG with good traverse could be effective. The thing was that these aircraft handled like fighters and had a forward facing machinegun as well. Apparently forward facing machineguns were too heavy for the defiant (dropping 2 MGs in the turret for 2 forward MGs somehow either did not occur to the designers or they were forced to use a stock turret for parts supply reasons).

Huh, for some reason I kept calling it the "Paul Boulton Defiant" for years. Also, I have a question: Did fighter aircraft like the P-51, FW 190, etc., have weapon safety switches (or something similar) for their guns? I remember History Channel mentioning something about it for the P-51, but I don't think they are too reliable of a source anymore.

*Thanks for letting us know, good work!!!*

My Dad served on HMS Rosebay, a corvette, from 1943-45, as the senior rating for gunnery. He chose the BPD turret that was installed where the aft 4" gun had once been to be his station. Elevated on a platform, through which you gained access to the guns, it provided excellent aft and about 200´ pan from port to starboard.

Always liked the Defiant, puzzled as to why they never fitted it with proper forward facing armament though

The main problem was that the Defiant had the same engine as the Spitfire and Hurricane, but was bigger and heavier. Its performance was bound to be inferior. The Fleet Air Arm had the same problem with the Fairey Fulmar. Also, the Defiant was not the only British turret fighter. The Fleet Air Arm's Blackburn Roc was far worse in terms of performance.

An intuitive video, I recall a fascinating conversations with the RAF aerospace engineers who reassembled the Defiant at Cosford. They explained that it was an advanced engineering and manufacturing example of an all metal design of the time. The Hawker Hotspur they other contender was effectively a hurricane with a turret. Undoubtedly the logic of the design followed the previous success of the Bristol Fighter, during WW1. An exceptionally engineered and manufactured aircraft designed to fulfil an obsolete tactical objective. Whilst undoubtedly successful has the first night fighter, it ultimately wouldn’t compete with the Beaufighter, due to capabilities but the operational need for the pilot to work the radar whilst flying, against the more efficient method of a radar operator providing direction to the pilot

Nicely done once again!

Seems like any plane the Brits and Yanks loved the Soviets hated (Spitfire)... and any plane they hated the Soviets loved and were actually successful with (P-39).... they should have given these planes to the Soviets and this video would be talking about the Soviet Defiant Aces.

The concept might have worked better if France hadn't fallen and the German bombers had had to try and get through without Bf109 escort, which I think was the general picture imagined before the war began. I am imagining here the Bf109 simply not having the range, the Bf110 largely being distracted by French single-seat fighters, and the RAF being in the perfect position to assault the bomber formations at leisure. Hordes of Luftwaffe bombers with those big glass noses and all the essential personnel packed close together should have been the Defiant crews' wet dream. Then of course France fell and everything went to blazes, and all of a sudden the air defence of Great Britain got complicated and dogfighty. That being the case, the RAF did (as you describe) manage to make quite a bit of lemonade out of its unexpectedly lemony turret fighter.

Thanks Bismarck, good analysis and commentary, the Defiant always looked wrong with that turret!

This was a very decent and fair vid on this aircraft that often gets a bad press. Like mentioned, anything that ceased to be of use during the day was often found a role in the night time and the BP Defiant was no exception. Even the Blenheim did a few night fights. The Beaufighter was the best pre mosquito. Often wondered if there could have been a limited ground attack role for the Defiant. Perhaps if 'gifted' to the fleet air arm as a coastal patrol aircraft watching for u-boats and surface craft? It could get on the horn if jerry showed up and fighters could come and save it.

How could this be called the "worst aircraft of WW2" when the Breda 88 exists?

I've got a question: why wasn't it used as a dive bomber? I know it wouldn't be able to hold a massive load, but something with fighter speed and that extreme of a defensive armament would at least have better survivability than the freaking Skua or Barracuda. Just slap some dive slats on her, and you've got something pretty solid as a light bomber.

Interesting, fair perspectives. Dankeschön, sir!

Nice research. Good Job!

The Fairey Battle was probably the worst I can't think of any redeeming features about them

There is a Defiant at the RAF Museum in Hendon, in matt black night fighter scheme. When I saw it a few years back, I had the vaguest of memories of reading about it as a kid. It was like a trip to the Land that Time Forgot, a sort of Pterodactyl amongst birds, it just looked as if a Dalek had humped a Hurricane.

Excellent video. By some accounts the Defiant's night attacks were an inspiration for the German Schrage Musik on their night fighters. They did test the Defiant without the turret and it was better than the Hurricane in performance. However, Britain needed night fighters. Also it could also be fitted with 8 small bombs as well. I would love it in War Thunder to, Could be really fun tier I/II plane. Of the three forgotten fighters of the Battle of Britain it is my favourite. Oh the other two. Blenheim IF and Gloster Gladiator.

I would love to see a piece on the BV-141, perhaps compared/contrasted to the FW-189. Good episode on the Defiant.

Never understood why they didn't have guns installed in the wings or at the very least allow guns to be installed on wing mounts to give the fighter more firepower. I'm just an armchair general but I think that a modification like that would have at least salvaged this fighters reputation as a bomber destroyer that can dogfight.

The only D-17z found semi-intact in the world had been shot down by a Defiant.

Well done and interesting video.

Thank you so much for this video. I remember my dad giving me about 6 red plastic models of this airplane. I thought at the time it was a strange looking craft. In fact thinking back on it a rather strange gift as the war was still on and plastic was a rarity in its infancy. They may have been produced by the government and somehow had fallen into his hands. It wasn’t until years later that I learned what the models were of and occasionally come across the Defiant but only in passing and knew nothing of the plane except that it was a failure. I thought the turret was for defence. I now have a better understanding of the aircraft. Thanks.

An early form of Schrage Musik in its' night fighter role then?

Blackburn Roc was worse. All the design issues of the Defiant, plus a much lower performance airframe that could not keep up with most German bombers (Heinkel 111 and Junkers 88 were both too fast for it to keep up with). When you have an anti-bomber fighter that literally cannot keep up with large twin engined bombers you have kind of fundamentally failed at everything you set out to do. Oh, and the Roc was in production at the same time as the defiant, so it wasn't even bad because it had become outdated, it was out classed when it was BUILT.

Nice to see such an intelligently scripted and presented piece of research. Thank you.

Hi, Bismarck; many thanks for uploading this excellent (and refreshingly sympathetic) account of the troubled history of the Defiant - nicely embellished with crystal clear graphics. Just one minor correction to your captions: at 09:34, you refer to the 'Pylon for underslung dingy on Defiant'. That should be ding*h*y ('dingy' is an adjective, meaning somewhat dirty).

Lot of “military history visualized” vibes going on right now

Defiant is magnificent !!!

I built my first plastic model airplane in 1960 when I was 3 years old (Dad helped a bit but I did most of it. Dad taught me about the evils of styrene cement and Mom's table!) The VAST majority of planes I built, and still build, are WWII aircraft. The Boulton Paul Defiant is one of them that I just never got around to... kits were rare, you took what you got at the local hobby store, and the few times this one came around, it just looked, well... WRONG. GREAT video of a little known aircraft!

I loved the BP Defiant, particularly once my Airfix model was painted up and hung from my ceiling. Good old British Quirk, love it !

In the right time and place the Defiant deserves justice. The idea of an interceptor as flying flak is good, It is in some respect an scaled up Hurricane right ?? If it have had the speed and agility of the Spit with the turret and some forward firing armament it could kiss the bombers hello and a quick spray as goodbye. In this role it would not be a fighter, but a group could give the German fighters more than a handful by mutual protection when able to fire from the wing mounted guns and the protective fire from the turret. But when it had come to this stage in the war the type of intercepting planes time was up an the role would no longer be needed. It would for long have been passed from the inside by new more capable planes. Yes my grammar is rotten sorry, All people on the earth can not live in England.

Sorry for the noobish question, but why were turrets so bad at dealing with fighters? It seems it ought to be faster and easier to turn a turret towards a fighter than to turn said fighter towards the enemy plane. Was it because the turret gunner didn't know exactly how his own pilot would move the plane? Did the added weight make the plane so sluggish that the regular fighters just flew around it until they could come in at an angle the turret couldn't reach?

I was always fascinated by the Boulton Paul Defiant. When I got the Airfix kit one Christmas as a kid, I pretty much bailed on all my other presents (would have all been Airfix back then).

I live in Wolverhampton and specifically by where the pendeford airodrome once was during ww2, there is a local memorial dedicated to the defiant as many flew out of the airbase here

"..., this would shred the propeller... Not good." 🤔 🤪

What was the utility of a turret for use against bombers? Wouldn't just a more heavily armed fighter like Germany's FW190 bomber-hunters be a lot more practical to produce in war?

I made one of those from an Airfix kit and found it much more than interesting than the other single engine planes, especially armed with the surplus underwing 20mm guns from a 109.

I would like you to do a video about an important IJN seaplane reconnaissance aircraft, the Aichi E13A 'Jake'. Used throughout the war with the US. Attractive plane, nice lines, 3 -seater modified, superseded by the E16 'Paul' but stayed in production, like the Bf110, longer than must have been expected. Finished up some kamikaze squadrons. No one talks about these planes, but they were popular and important.

Wasn't the Breda Ba.88 worse?

The Boulton Paul Defiant wasn't THAT bad... The Blackburn Roc however was atrocious.

Good job Bismarck. :)

Very well rounded assessment :). I really wanted it to be flyable in Cliffs of Dover, but that wasn't to be. My Great Uncle Geoff Pledger was the last crew to be lost on a Defiant, came down close to a Georgian Manor "Little Hermitage" in April 1941, unfortunately the records are harder to get as the site oldrafrecords is no longer online which used to show their records from each flight. A lot of it rather sobering.My dad mentioned a few times knowing a Hurricane pilot who had a turret painted on the back of his plane to have it resemble a Defiant, unfortunately my dad and grandfather have now passed, so it's very unlikely I can find any evidence for this.

funny how the british actually kinda did schräge musik before the germans but they still took so long to figure out what was shooting down british night bombers later on in the war.

Ah, the turret was French? I wondered why it was facing backwards.

Well done report on the subject

I remember reading a book in the 1980s in the UK called the deadly defiant, the start of the story was everyone was getting shot up, but over time as the crews learned it had some amazing tricks when flown low to the ground, if a ME came in behind them the pilots dropped to the deck, so a plan trying to get behind it had to drop lower and lower and lower to get out of the range of the read facing guns, forcing the ME into the ground

My money would be on the LaGG-3 as the worst aircraft of WWII.

wait ... i thaught the worst plane was the f104 starfighter?

Another good video from Bismark. I feel that the lack of forward firing armament is a huge oversight. Forward firing armament has been standard on combat planes since early WW1, even most bombers had it. Leaving it off of a bomber destroyer just doesn't make a lot of sense.

Thank you. I have always been a secret fan of the Defiant.

Thanks for this video Bismark. The Defiant was an answer to a mistaken RAF requirement dating from before the more advanced single engined fighter designs of the mid to late 1930's came on the scene, when the future of air warfare was as yet unclear. There were several different aircraft from different manufacturers of this turreted type designed and flown of which at least two enered service. The BP Defiant was by far the better of the two. In my opinion changing the wing design to accept guns and deleting the turret could have provided the Royal Navy with a far better carrier-bourn fighter than they had available until late in the conflict. I must admit a slight bias - my family are distantly related to the manufacturers!