Comments on: An alternative Battle of Britain — I http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/ Airpower and British society, 1908-1941 Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:05:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Erik Lund http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/comment-page-1/#comment-124986 Erik Lund Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:36:38 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/#comment-124986 If only the Bowyers believed in footnotes. However, the Putnam book on the AAE&E lists trials of the Defiant in an army co-op role. If only the Bowyers believed in footnotes. However, the Putnam book on the AAE&E lists trials of the Defiant in an army co-op role.

]]> By: Ric Pelvin http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/comment-page-1/#comment-124565 Ric Pelvin Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:16:26 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/#comment-124565 The rationale for the Defiant was explained in an article by Alfred Price in one of the monthly aviation enthusiast magazines (Flypast?) a bit over a year ago. When it was conceived the catastrophic collapse of France wasn't foreseen and any German bombers would have to come from Germany, beyond the range of single seat escort fighters. The bombers would have to remain in formation for mutual protection. The Defiants would fly, in vics, of course, under the bomber formation and fire up into them as some sort of precursor to Schrage Musik. This would disperse the bomber formation, breaking up its interlocking fields of defensive fire, and allowing the conventional fighters to pick off the dispersed aircraft. The place of the Bf110 long range fighter in this scenario is not considered. In respect of the Defiant and the AASF, Bowers notes in _Aircraft of the Few_ that a 'Field Force' role was seen for the turret fighter, but gives no indication of how it would be deployed tactically. The rationale for the Defiant was explained in an article by Alfred Price in one of the monthly aviation enthusiast magazines (Flypast?) a bit over a year ago.

When it was conceived the catastrophic collapse of France wasn’t foreseen and any German bombers would have to come from Germany, beyond the range of single seat escort fighters. The bombers would have to remain in formation for mutual protection. The Defiants would fly, in vics, of course, under the bomber formation and fire up into them as some sort of precursor to Schrage Musik. This would disperse the bomber formation, breaking up its interlocking fields of defensive fire, and allowing the conventional fighters to pick off the dispersed aircraft.

The place of the Bf110 long range fighter in this scenario is not considered.

In respect of the Defiant and the AASF, Bowers notes in _Aircraft of the Few_ that a ‘Field Force’ role was seen for the turret fighter, but gives no indication of how it would be deployed tactically.

]]> By: Erik Lund http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/comment-page-1/#comment-124164 Erik Lund Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:18:15 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/#comment-124164 The Defiant was being tested for the Army Co-op role by this time, though. It was part of the whole conceptual problem of "what's the ideal successor to the Bristol Fighter?" So it would probably have got into to France at some point, though probably not the AASF And not to get all JDK here, but I have a hard time forgiving a design that apparently routinely blew a fuse trying to rotate the turret into position for the air gunner to bail out. The Defiant was being tested for the Army Co-op role by this time, though. It was part of the whole conceptual problem of “what’s the ideal successor to the Bristol Fighter?” So it would probably have got into to France at some point, though probably not the AASF
And not to get all JDK here, but I have a hard time forgiving a design that apparently routinely blew a fuse trying to rotate the turret into position for the air gunner to bail out.

]]> By: Jonathan Waggoner http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/comment-page-1/#comment-124130 Jonathan Waggoner Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:58:20 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/#comment-124130 Historically I believe Fighter command judged the Battle of Britain to have been over on September 16, 1940. But Churchill didn't really consider it over until he was informed that operation Sea Lion had been called off by Hitler and the bomber squadron's were transferred to Poland to prepare for the invasion of Russian in June 1941. So Somewhere around March or May victory was assured. There was much bombing and night fighting after the Blitz all through the winter of 40-41 and the Bristol Beaufighter with the new radar came into its own. Of course some fighter sweeps occurred and the occasional lone night bombers, usually fast Junkers 88 continued to harass fighter command and channel shipping. Probably the greatest failure of Bomber and fighter command that next year was the Scharnhorst and other battle cruisers as they made the Channel Dash. Amazing this could have occurred but it did. That was the last major operation of the Luftwaffe in the area until the 1943 air campaign over occupied Europe that I know of. And no I'm not discounting the RAF bomber command night campaign, only saying it wasn't part of the Battle of Britain per se. Historically I believe Fighter command judged the Battle of Britain to have been over on September 16, 1940. But Churchill didn’t really consider it over until he was informed that operation Sea Lion had been called off by Hitler and the bomber squadron’s were transferred to Poland to prepare for the invasion of Russian in June 1941. So Somewhere around March or May victory was assured. There was much bombing and night fighting after the Blitz all through the winter of 40-41 and the Bristol Beaufighter with the new radar came into its own. Of course some fighter sweeps occurred and the occasional lone night bombers, usually fast Junkers 88 continued to harass fighter command and channel shipping. Probably the greatest failure of Bomber and fighter command that next year was the Scharnhorst and other battle cruisers as they made the Channel Dash. Amazing this could have occurred but it did. That was the last major operation of the Luftwaffe in the area until the 1943 air campaign over occupied Europe that I know of. And no I’m not discounting the RAF bomber command night campaign, only saying it wasn’t part of the Battle of Britain per se.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/comment-page-1/#comment-120728 Brett Holman Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:06:01 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/#comment-120728 Oops then! Oops then!

]]> By: JDK http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/comment-page-1/#comment-120727 JDK Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:49:18 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/#comment-120727 <i>(Which doesn’t explain why it was sent with the AASF to France, though.)</i> That's because they weren't. They were used during the Dunkirk and evacuation period (like several other types - Lysanders and Hawker Hectors undertook supply drops to the surrounded Calais garrison, for instance) but remained based in the UK. More Defiant insights later! (Which doesn’t explain why it was sent with the AASF to France, though.)
That’s because they weren’t. They were used during the Dunkirk and evacuation period (like several other types – Lysanders and Hawker Hectors undertook supply drops to the surrounded Calais garrison, for instance) but remained based in the UK.

More Defiant insights later!

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/comment-page-1/#comment-120711 Brett Holman Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:36:14 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/#comment-120711 It wasn't my intention to trash the Defiant as such, but to point out that, as you say, expectations were very different at the time, which explains the (to me, anyway) surprising use of it on the front cover of a book about British airpower at the start of the Battle of Britain. But you're right to emphasise that it was intended to be used against unescorted bombers. (Which doesn't explain why it was sent with the AASF to France, though.) In fact that reminds us just how unlikely 1940 was from the viewpoint of 1939: Fighter Command only had to deal with Me 109s because France fell. Otherwise Germany could only have sent over bombers and Me 110s, and Defiants would have been fine in that situation. It wasn’t my intention to trash the Defiant as such, but to point out that, as you say, expectations were very different at the time, which explains the (to me, anyway) surprising use of it on the front cover of a book about British airpower at the start of the Battle of Britain. But you’re right to emphasise that it was intended to be used against unescorted bombers. (Which doesn’t explain why it was sent with the AASF to France, though.) In fact that reminds us just how unlikely 1940 was from the viewpoint of 1939: Fighter Command only had to deal with Me 109s because France fell. Otherwise Germany could only have sent over bombers and Me 110s, and Defiants would have been fine in that situation.

]]> By: Martin W http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/comment-page-1/#comment-120406 Martin W Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:08:07 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/#comment-120406 At the time of his writing, Spaight could not have known that the Defiant was such an ineffective concept. In fact, the type was removed from 1st line service only following the disaster of No. 264 Squadron on 28 August 1940, when five aircraft were lost to German Bf 109s with the deaths of nine crew members. By the time his book must already have left the printing press. For fair judgement of the Defiant it must also be remembered that the a/c was designed purely for the purpose of defeating unescorted bombers, which was a general assumption for about the German bomber threat of the time. In the few cases when Defiants were used in this role, they proved very effective, being able to explore the blind spots of a bomber but still fire themselves. One of the standard techniques was for a pair of Defiants to overtake the bomber from two sides, then crossing its path in front of the bomber's nose and destroying its cabin & engines with their guns. IIRC this happened once to a Ju88, with devastating results. When 8th AF started unescorted B-17 missions over Germany, the Luftwaffe put up the slow-and-heavy Bf 110 / Me 410s against them, much to the same tactical concept. /Martin At the time of his writing, Spaight could not have known that the Defiant was such an ineffective concept. In fact, the type was removed from 1st line service only following the disaster of No. 264 Squadron on 28 August 1940, when five aircraft were lost to German Bf 109s with the deaths of nine crew members. By the time his book must already have left the printing press.

For fair judgement of the Defiant it must also be remembered that the a/c was designed purely for the purpose of defeating unescorted bombers, which was a general assumption for about the German bomber threat of the time. In the few cases when Defiants were used in this role, they proved very effective, being able to explore the blind spots of a bomber but still fire themselves. One of the standard techniques was for a pair of Defiants to overtake the bomber from two sides, then crossing its path in front of the bomber’s nose and destroying its cabin & engines with their guns. IIRC this happened once to a Ju88, with devastating results.

When 8th AF started unescorted B-17 missions over Germany, the Luftwaffe put up the slow-and-heavy Bf 110 / Me 410s against them, much to the same tactical concept.

/Martin

]]> By: Don Smith http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/comment-page-1/#comment-73812 Don Smith Tue, 06 May 2008 02:20:31 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/#comment-73812 LOL ... thanks Brett ... I concur. And there's the wonder that is Google ... LOL … thanks Brett … I concur. And there’s the wonder that is Google …

]]> By: Jakob http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/comment-page-1/#comment-73797 Jakob Mon, 05 May 2008 16:52:15 +0000 http://airminded.org/2006/07/31/an-alternative-battle-of-britain-i/#comment-73797 Oh I see - a fair point! I gathered LBW dislikes Bungay's style, as well as making claims of novelty for ideas that have been part of the specialist discourse for a while - but I wouldn't want to put words in Lee's mouth. Oh I see – a fair point! I gathered LBW dislikes Bungay’s style, as well as making claims of novelty for ideas that have been part of the specialist discourse for a while – but I wouldn’t want to put words in Lee’s mouth.

]]>