American Hellcats vs the LW

[jpatrick62]

Overall, I think the FW190 and the F4U-1 were very similar in performance with the F4U having better manuverability and the FW190 (depending on model) a better arsenal of weapons. What would have been a real treat would have been a showdown between a F4U-4 and some Dora models of FW190 or even a Ta-152. As for the Hellcat, I believe a showdown with a FW190 would have been interesting as well. The Hellcat would have a role-reversal from it's use in the Pacific: it would have been the turn and burn fighter while the 190 would have tries slashing attacks from above. The initiative would obviously have been with the German aircraft.

 

[GregP]

The Buffalo did NOT have a good kill-to-loss ratio at all. It had a good one in Finish service alone. The British and the Dutch lost 150 in the first months of the ar for almost no victories in return. So the type had an abysmal kill-to-loss ratio, and performed abysmally ... except in Finland. We should have shipped ALL of them to Finland.

 

[GregP]

The Hellcat, in later versions, outclimbed the Fw 190, so maybe the Hellcat would have been slashing from above.

 

[nuuumannn]

and performed abysmally...

Not strictly true. The Buffalo was not the reason why the RAF and Commonwealth units did so poorly in Singapore. This was largely down to lack of early warning, small number of airframes, i.e overwhelming superiority in numbers by the enemy, inexperienced pilots, lack of supplies etc. Kiwi ace Geoff Fisken rated the Buffalo as a fighter and did manage to shoot down an A6M in one. His and the other pilots' criticisms of the Buffalo were its armament (for which a fix was found before capitulation) and poor climb performance, but it could withstand a heck of a beating and still get home, also it could outdive the Zero. In a dive it was faster than all its Japanese opponents.

Read the book Buffaloes over Singapore - good account, also Air-to-air, about RNZAF kills of WW2.

The reality in Singapore was that even if the Brits had Spitfires or any better aircraft, the outcome would have been the same. You are right about the Buffalo's kill to loss ratio though - terrible.

 

[GregP]

Doesn't matter what the reasons were, the record speaks for itself. It did what it did and all the what-ifs in the world won't change the numbers.

It was a lousy aircraft which the Fins employed quite well. I wonder what they'd have accomplished with better planes.

Almost ANY plane would have been better ...

 

[nuuumannn]

Let's agree to disagree; the fact that the Finns made something of it proves it was better than the current perception of it. Sure, the Buffalo was no Mustang, nor was it even an F4F, clearly the better of the two, but even if the RAF was equipped with these, the result would have been the same. The RAF also had Hurricanes in Singapore; didn't make a difference.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Finns definately used the Buffalo to bleed the Soviets...they even used the P-36 (Hawk 75) above and beyond what others thought possible.

With that in mind, how would those same Finn pilots in the F2A and P-36 have fared against the Japanese instead of the Soviets?

In other words, the conditions and enemy that the Finns fought in were totally different than the situation in the far east where the commonwealth were pitted against experianced IJN/IJA pilots, so the outcome may have been much different.

Something to think about...

Now that almost looks like a discussion worthy of it's own thread!!

 

[rank amateur]

Doesn't matter what the reasons were, the record speaks for itself. It did what it did and all the what-ifs in the world won't change the numbers.

It was a lousy aircraft which the Fins employed quite well. I wonder what they'd have accomplished with better planes.

Almost ANY plane would have been better ...

I bet you'd consider the Hurricane a better option? But how did the Hurri fare against the Japs in the same timespan?
The Fins flew both. I should look up how the rated them.

Chrzzzz

 

[gjs238]

How much of the poor early-war performance (from many types) was attributable to the aircraft and how much was attributable to poor tactics.
It seems there was a learning curve, and perhaps older aircraft get more blame than they deserve.

 

[Shortround6]

Perhaps they do but better aircraft do give beginning pilots a better chance. I forget the numbers but Spitfires lasted longer on average in the BoB than Hurricanes. This gives the new pilots a better chance of living to become old (or at least experienced) pilots.

Same with the Hellcat. Somebody has asked if the US could have won the war in the Pacific using just F4Fs and the answer is probably yes. But we would have lost a lot more planes, pilots and even ships doing it. The Hellcat was enough better than the opposition that even novice pilots (novice in the sense of combat experience, US pilots having more flight training that Japanese pilots) had a good chance of surviving their first combat encounters. No plane can give a guarantee of immunity no matter how good. In warfare it was seldom one on one but 12 on 12 or 50 on 50 or hundreds of engagements per month at times. Better planes will help on the average.

 

[renrich]

The Hellcat was a good design from the standpoint of it had better performance than the Zeke in most areas and was a relatively easy airplane to operate off of carriers. As SR said it gave low time pilots a good chance to live in air to air engagements in the Pacific operating from a carrier. The F6F3's performance advantage over the Zeke was not as great as desired and the F6F5's was better. At altitudes below 25000 feet the Hellcat would have probably been decent against the LW fighters, depending as in most ACM upon how well it was piloted. One big advantage it had over the FWs and 109s is what many of us ignore in our discussions and that is range. The F6F as well as the F4U outranged the majority of the LW single engined fighters.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Discussions about the Buffalo and comparisons made about its performance should take into account the version or mark. The Brewster Buffalo may have possessed among the greatest variablilty in pilot opinion among marks of any aircraft in the war. I had the opportunity to speak with retired USN Buffalo pilot Commander Tom Cheek before he passed away. (As you might imagine, one of my most treasured memories.) He flew the F2A-1 (Finn B-239) and remembered it with immense fondness for the plane. It was handy and peppy, possessed of essentially few vices. He also flew the F2A-2 (w/o armor and SS tanks) and thought it a better platform than the F4F-3, based on the engine upgrade's added 250 hp and light weight. In contrast, he had little good to say about the F2A-3 except that its range was so great he and his squadron mates believed it might be able to reach the US Mainland.

The B-339 was NOT the same airplane as either of its better performing forebearers. The added weight of armor and ss tanks and the increase in fuel tank size to increase range degraded its performance significantly. The exports were moreover evidently equipped with used DC-3 engines. The weight increase were not accomodated by an increase in landing gear strength or design which would likely have aggravated the weight problem. Worse, the quality of the later marks' manufacturing evidently reflected the company's progressively more serious managerial problems combined with serious manufacturing infrastructure issues that hindered and hampered both production and quality control. IIRC, the landing gear would not retract properly and the organizational maintenance fix entailed filing metal from a strut which was weakened with each occurrence making the problem progressively worse, and eventually led to gear failure. The F2A-1, -2 and B239 were not the terrible B-339 (B-439) and F2A-3 that were considered to be flying coffins by many pilots. The wing area of all Buff marks was about 209 square ft, compared to the 236 of the P-36C and 260 for the F4F-3, aircraft with similar weight and engine horsepower.

 

[GregP]

I consider the Skua better than the Buffalo, as well as the Avia B.35 and B.135 are better, as is the Romanian IAR.80 series. None of the alternates were bad aircraft ... and the Buffalo was. Ask anyone except a Finn! Heck, I'd probabluy have taken a Dewoitine D.510 over a Buffalo.

The Brewster Buffalo is sort of like a blender. It might be nice to have one, but nobody knows quite why. Come to think of it, that is kind of like a chronically complaining girlfriend, too.

OK, we agree to disagree ... NO BUFFALO!

 

[GrauGeist]

If the Finns could make the Buffalo do so well inspite of it's shortcomings, just imagine what would have happened to the Russians if the Finns had Hellcats!!

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I consider the Skua better than the Buffalo, as well as the Avia B.35 and B.135 are better, as is the Romanian IAR.80 series. None of the alternates were bad aircraft ... and the Buffalo was. Ask anyone except a Finn! Heck, I'd probabluy have taken a Dewoitine D.510 over a Buffalo.

The Brewster Buffalo is sort of like a blender. It might be nice to have one, but nobody knows quite why. Come to think of it, that is kind of like a chronically complaining girlfriend, too.

OK, we agree to disagree ... NO BUFFALO!

I assume you mean all buffaloes. Your alternative's do appear to be marginally faster except for the later Romanian A/C which is apparently competitive woth the Hurricane. The wing of the Avia B.35 looks a bit like that of the Spitfire but was apparently deleted in tha follow on 135. However, if you wanted to plant one on the deck of an aircraft carrier you might have a problem. Of course, the buff also flew considerably earlier than the your preferred examples and was the first naval fighter to introduce all the combined modern innovations of monoplane, retractable landing gear, heavy MG battery and long range. To me it was a revolutionary aircraft. But OK let's agree to disagree... I think of it as the I-16 of naval aviation.

PS The Skua? As a divebomber of course, but as a fighter? You gotta' be pullin' my chain!

 

[oldcrowcv63]

If the Finns could make the Buffalo do so well inspite of it's shortcomings, just imagine what would have happened to the Russians if the Finns had Hellcats!!

Shortcomings? Let's see: First flight December, 1937. Production F2A-1 (as reported in F2A in action by Maas) With ony 54 units constructed, America's HUndred Thousand doesn't really provide much detail on the F2A-1.

Speed: 311 mph at 18,000'
Initial Climb Rate: 2,750 fpm.
Ceiling 33,000 feet
Range 950 miles
Battery: 3 x .5" and 1 x .3" MGs or 4 x .5" MG (reported armament for Finn B-239)

In March '38, the XF2A-1 beat out some serious competition for its initial USN contract or 54 aircraft including:

Seversky P-35 (Navalized as the XNF-1)
Curtiss P-36 (navalized) Thought I read this aircraft was considered but have found no confirmation.
Grumman XF4F-2 (progenitor of the more successful F4F-3 and subsequent series)

 

[Timppa]

The Buffalo did NOT have a good kill-to-loss ratio at all. It had a good one in Finish service alone. The British and the Dutch lost 150 in the first months of the ar for almost no victories in return. So the type had an abysmal kill-to-loss ratio, and performed abysmally ... except in Finland. We should have shipped ALL of them to Finland.

Finns would have been eternally grateful for the 500+ F2A's.
As it was, Finn's bought 44 F2A-1 airframes with a unit price of $54,000 (not cheap at the time), paid upfront. That did not include engine, guns, instruments, etc.Those had to bought separately, for example, engines were from the DC-3 airliners.

Big difference from the Lend-Lease "Pay back when you want" - terms with the Soviets, for arms against (also) the Finns..

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Finns would have been eternally grateful for the 500+ F2A's.
As it was, Finn's bought 44 F2A-1 airframes with a unit price of $54,000 (not cheap at the time), paid upfront. That did not include engine, guns, instruments, etc.Those had to bought separately, for example, engines were from the DC-3 airliners.

Big difference from the Lend-Lease "Pay back when you want" - terms with the Soviets, for arms against (also) the Finns..

I thought that the use of used DC-3 engines was due to the cut off of "lend lease" (sic) supplies later in the war but was a delivery item for the later exported B-339s. I wonder how the Finn Pilots would have felt about the F2A-2 and 3 or exports B-339s. Despite the pilots of LeLv 24 being among the best in the world, I wonder what they would have thought of 500 B-339 after the first landing gear failure, a defect that actually was foreshadowed even in the relatively light F2A-1 version. Apparently the F2A-1 were relatively servicable until replacement parts became scarce but held up reasonably well under combat conditions. IIRC, the F2A-1 also fared well when relegated to the perhaps somewhat less elite (by reputation at least?) LeLv 26. I don't get that impression from what I've heard about the exported B-339s or domestic F2A-3s.

 

[renrich]

Notwithstanding the Legend of the Finns; 18 F2A3 Buffalos and 6 F4F3 Wildcats from VMF221 met the Japanese raid 30 miles out from Midway with altitude advantage. The Japanese lost one or two fighters and two carrier attack planes. The IJN shot down 13 F2As and 2 F4Fs. Enough said about Buffaloes.

 

[VBF-13]

I can't come close to the technical expertise in this group but I do know a lot said here comports with what I heard from my dad who flew these. Their basic advantage in the Pacific was their supercharger and ceiling enabling them to dive on their opponents then zip right back up, plus their heavier armor. Roosevelt, because of his former ties to the Navy, really pushed these into production. The F4U, as some others of you had noted, was no slouch, either. Clearly these two were the class of the fighters in the Pacific. I'm totally unfamiliar with the LW fighters so needless to say this thread is a fascinating read for me on how these machines rate vs. one other.