Against All Odds: The Brewster Buffalo in the Malayan Campaign

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Watched all three videos he's completed so far.

Makes me wonder (again) how the Buffalo would have faired if there were more of them and tactics had been developed.

Yes, I know there were quality issues with Brewster and yes I know there were quality issues with the early M2's. But the biggest issue seemed to be not enough airplanes and using them incorrectly.
 
Given that Malaya was larger than the UK where in Dec 1941 there were over forty operational single-engine fighter squadrons, it seems unfair to defend the former with four.
Well, they were only supposed to fight the Japanese. A few squadrons of obsolescent fighters, bombers, and recon planes, flown by inexperienced aircrew should have been sufficient.
 
The green colonial pilots really liked the Buffalo as compared to the Wirraway. The English found them a bit wanting, having flown Hurricanes and Spitfires.

I remember reading somewhere that some of the pilots based in Malaya pulled a couple of guns off the aircraft to improve performance. Perhaps buffnut453 or another expert may correct me?
 
The SSSS, or Shadow's Super Sport Special, was an aircraft in 453/21 Sqn that had been subjected to a radical weight saving experiment. Removal of the wing guns, reduction of ammo for the remaining guns, and removal of all equipment judged non-essential. The airframe was 1000 lbs lighter and 30 mph faster.
 

From what I understand, the Buffs, when lightened, were pretty handy. Not sure they could turn with a Ki-43 or -27, but anything's better than lead-sled.
 
... radical weight saving experiment. Removal of the wing guns, reduction of ammo for the remaining guns, and removal of all equipment judged non-essential. The airframe was 1000 lbs lighter and 30 mph faster.
Jiro Horikoshi would have approved.

I wonder if the Vultee Vanguard would have done any better? It was rejected, so presumably unsuitable for service, But their Vengeance was well regarded by the RAF and Commonwealth in the IPO, IIRC.

 
Last edited:
IIRC the weight reduction in 21/453 Sqn's Buffalos involved replacing the 50cal wing guns with 303s. One advantage was that the shorter 303 weapon fit entirely within the wing, obviating the need for the faired protrusion seen on Buffalos with the 50cal weapon.

Other changes included reducing the ammo load, removing the flare launcher (this was a large piece of kit in the rear fuselage), and removing the aerial mast. The flare chute is visible in the hatch opening just in front of the tailplane. It seems like a big hunk of metal to be so far aft.




TBH, I don't know if all the modifications were actually implemented. There's a photo of captured ex-Dutch Brewsters (see below) which includes a couple of ex-21/453 Sqn machines that apparently lack aerial masts so it does seem that some of the changes were implemented within the squadron. The second aircraft in line is W8163, GA-P, originally of 21 Sqn which survived the early combats at Sungei Patani and continued in operational use until it was captured by the Japanese in March 1942...very long-lived for a Buffalo. The aircraft beyond it also appears to carry a British code letter just visible above the windscreen of GA-P and, like GA-P, that airframe appears to lack an aerial mast:

 

In a word, no. The Vanguard wouldn't have done any better. I highly doubt that Spitfires would have done any better. There were just too few RAF fighters and no proper combat support systems (radars, operations rooms, airfield defences etc).
 
In a word, no. The Vanguard wouldn't have done any better. I highly doubt that Spitfires would have done any better. There were just too few RAF fighters and no proper combat support systems (radars, operations rooms, airfield defences etc).
But give RAF Malayan Command UK-level radars, telephone-linked spotting teams, ops rooms, airfield defence, along with fewer and focused all-weather airfields and three times the number of operational single seat, single engine, monoplane fighters (plus spares) of any sort (Hawks, Buffalos, Vanguards, Hurricanes, Spitfires, etc.), and I'd give the Brits a good chance. Perhaps the RAF rather than the RN is where Britain should have directed the Malayan defence budget. That'd take some guts in the 1920s and 30s though.
 
Plus there still needs to be sufficient ground forces to prevent the forward airfields from being overrun.

Unfortunately, Malaya, being a peninsula, is really hard to defend. Any lateral defensive positions can be flanked using boats or by infiltrating through the jungle away from the roads, which is precisely what the Japanese did. Creating more mobile ground forces requires a higher level of training than many units in Malaya Command were capable of achieving (e.g. newly-formed Indian Army battalions that had few experienced NCOs).

More aircraft with adequate air warning and C3 (command, control and communication) certainly would have made things harder for the Japanese but I'm not sure it would have changed things significantly unless the UK was willing to move into Thailand to establish a more forward defensive position...and that was politically untenable.
 
That's an awful lot of infrastructure when you've got Germany glaring at you across the North Sea.
Given the small size of the IJAF in FIC and Formosa relative to the Luftwaffe in France and Norway, the infrastructure needn't be BoB scale. A limited radar setup, observer corp, ops room and more fighter aircraft would go a long way.
 
Unfortunately, Malaya, being a peninsula, is really hard to defend. Any lateral defensive positions can be flanked using boats
That's why Force Z would have been more useful in an equal weight of submarines and MTBs. On the latter, Britain would need to recognize and act on the need for MTBs earlier. Perhaps local, Indian or Australian boatyards could make some.

 
The Brits had a plan to occupy Thailand, but like Norway, they let the enemy get there first.
 
Given the small size of the IJAF in FIC and Formosa relative to the Luftwaffe in France and Norway, the infrastructure needn't be BoB scale. A limited radar setup, observer corp, ops room and more fighter aircraft would go a long way.

I posted links to a lot of information about the radar & observer corps systems set up in Singapore and the southern end of the Malayan peninsula during 1941, away back in 2019.

This article in particular delves into the difficulties, not just the low priorities of the theatre, it setting up a system in Malaya.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/40004695.pdf

A major difference between setting up in Britain and in Malaya was the lack of an extensive, developed telephone system in the latter, onto which communications links necessary for the fighter direction system to work could be piggybacked. Even laying more phone lines in Malaya was a major logistical challenge given, topography and weather.
 

Users who are viewing this thread