Talk:Boulton Paul Defiant

US use

The Wikipedia page lists the US as a users of the Defiant. Bad as most US designs were in 1940, it's hard to believe that this was used operationally. Anyone have the source for the claim it was used by the US? Or maybe it was used for something like target-towing for the USAAF in England? Pupluv 22:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This info was taken from the excellent book of Mark Ansell - Boulton Paul Defiant. Redbourn, Herts, UK: Mushroom Model Publications, 2005. ISBN 83-89450-19-4. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture of US Defiant Drutt (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, they used them as target tugs, not as fighters. Emoscopes ^Talk 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No US design of 1940 was as bad as the Defiant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.37.132 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Defiant was not a bad design - if it was used in its designed role. It was designed explicitly for the destruction of unescorted bombers...which, had the Luftwaffe been flying from German bases, would have been precisely what it was targeting. Since, following May 1940, the Luftwaffe had access to occupied Dutch, Belgian and French bases, and could, thus, escort its bombers, the Defiant gets the reputation it unfortunatly has. Had it been used under the tactical situation it was designed for, the turret fighter concept would have a very different reputation. (Also, with regards to "no design being as bad as the Defiant", I refer you to the Brewster Buffalo...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess this was the point I was trying to implicitly make by adding the picture and brief mention of Thorn and Barker - nobody scores 13 kills in an aircraft that's as bad as the Defiant is reputed to be. BTW, I think the Finns might have disagreed with your opinion of the Buffalo :) .Catsmeat (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

At the same time saying a weapon was not bad if it was used in a certain context is acknowledging its limitations--it's saying like a battleship was well-made despite the fact that it had very thin armor at the waterline (so it was tough as long as it didn't encounter any submarines). Historian932 (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If a warship was designed and built before submarines became an issue, they wouldn't have added the extra weight unless it there is evidence it was needed. That same warship could be an excellent design, but would become obsolete once submarines became a threat. Conditions change. A warship whose armour left it open to attacks it was expected to face (such as with non-contiguous armour, a common problem on US warships) represents bad design. A warship unable to manoeuvre would represent a bad design. Changing threats is not a design issue but a tactical issue.

The Defiant didn't have lethal handling qualities, it was just rendered obsolete by changing requirements. USN and RAF Buffalo crews were poorly trained, and weighed down by additional equipment that the Finns dispensed with - and their much better trained pilots were operating in extreme cold which greatly improves flight characteristics, against relatively inexperienced opponents. If you want a bad design, look at the LAGG-1 - nicknamed the guaranteed varnished coffin (лакированный гроб гарантированно) by its own crews. The MiG-1 also had severely dodgy handling. Those are bad designs. - NiD.29 (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Supported by Churchill?

I'm taking a course right now with a very respected historian of World War Two (Benjamin Carter Hett), a couple weeks ago he said that Churchill had been a major proponent of this fighter and that Neville Chamberlain was the one who had not only supported the development of the Spitfire and Hurricane but also the coastal radar system which enabled the British to win the Battle of Britain (which is arguably what saved them from losing the war and Germany from winning overall); the discussion was in the context of how Churchill had successfully fashioned the postwar narrative to make it seem as if everything he had done was brilliant and everything Chamberlain (who died during the war and thus unable to defend himself; they were rivals within the Conservative Party) had done was idiotic; I don't have any references but I think it would be great if someone else who has the time/interest could track this down so something about it could be added to the article. Historian932 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Chamberlain was also responsible for the reorganization and modernization of the British aviation industry, forcing a lot of amalgamations between small cottage producers into a smaller number of much larger companies, so that it was in a position to subsidize them so they could build stressed skin airplanes in large numbers. Most of that would seem to be somewhat peripheral to this page, but would be appropriate to the Chamberlain and Churchill pages. The question then is has Hett (or anyone else) mentioned that specific claim in a published source yet? - NiD.29 (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a good question, I have no idea but I think his ethics as a historian are beyond reproach.Historian932 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)