Matrix Games Forums

Since the Japanese planes were too easy...

Don't remember the name, but there was a fighter concept (French of course) where the guns were all mounted in a rear facing turret. I have a book at home with it in there. Lots of em were shot down in 1940 as I recall. Maybe that is it.

Blackburn ROC

Defiant

Between that one, and the Defiant... Those two go in the

"What the f_ck were you thinking?!" catagory.

Hm. Lemme think about this for a second.

"Let's design a "fighter" where the whole point is to maneuver yourself in such a way so the the enemy is on your tail!."

Am I the only one that thinks that's a fundamentally stupid idea?

Altho the Defiant did have a quick moment of success (litterally, for about a week), when the Luft engaged a few formations, thinking they were Hurricanes (they look very similar), and the quad 30s were a rude surprise. However, Luft learned quickly to posatively id their target, and the Battles were subsequently slaughtered again.

Let's put the entire armement of the aircraft in a turret, so it -can't- shoot directly forward, and is worthless firing at something oblique (deflection shooting is VERY tough, esp if your -not- the guy behind the stick!).

Bah.

I didn't even realize the made TWO species of collossally stupid aircraft. You'd think one was enough.

-F-


(* editted for correct aircraft name *)

Maybe Bolton-Paul Defiant? It had its all guns backward...

Blackburn Skua?

Quick google -

The aircraft pictured is a Blackburn ROC - you can tell from the radial engine.

The Defiant had an inline engine.

-F-

I dunno

as a fighter the Skua was a half decent dive bomber

Did the Rock have any bomb capacity at all? those look like (small) bomb fittings beneath the wings to me .

If so then 4 X 303 seems like a good thing for a dive bomber !

granted the defiant was a nitwit idea !

"Let's design a "fighter" where the whole point is to maneuver yourself in such a way so the the enemy is on your tail!."

Am I the only one that thinks that's a fundamentally stupid idea?

It is, of course, the Blackburn Roc. It was intended to be a carrierborne aircraft, like Blackburn's other plane, the Skua, but none were ever based on British carriers, being relegated to second-line squadron.

An interesting point about this aircraft is that all production examples were equipped with attachment points for pontoons so they could be turned into float planes! Go figure...

In few of my books there is a statement that X Squadron had a Y of ROC/SKUA.

My conclusion was that it's the same aircraft but with different mision. Am I right? What was the difference?

The Roc's design was derived from the Skua, but they were not the same aircraft. The Skua was a dive bomber/scout and the Roc was (as noted above) an attempt at a fighter.

In one of the books by charles lamb " War in a stringbag" he discribed the primary use of the skua as a DIVE bomber, and it had a secondary role as a fighter [;)][:-][8|]

A little harder, but I would say that they are two airplanes flying in formation.