Best Pacific Fighter II

[Marcel]

The point is the Buffalo was useless in 1942. The P40 and F4F were not.

The Buffalo was removed from service in 1942 because it was a death trap.

The P40 and F4F were good enough to fly well into 1944 and still go on combat missions.

Still have to prove that this was due to the aircraft itself other than tactical situation and experience. I believe the Buffalo only flew in combat for the USN at Midway. It's hard to judge an aircraft on just one mission, especially as the tactical situation was so unfavourable.

Believe it or not, the Finns were quite happy with the Buffalo (I believe Juha can elaborate on that). And as I said, the Dutch considered it a more capable a/c then the Hurricane MKIIB.

This seems to imply that the Buffalo was a death trap....

wikipedia,"The Brewster F2A (company Model 139) was an American fighter aircraft which saw limited service during World War II. In 1939, the F2A became the first monoplane fighter aircraft used by the US Navy. In December 1941, it suffered severe losses with both British Commonwealth and Dutch air forces in South East Asia while facing the Japanese Navy's A6M Zero and the Japanese Army's Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar". It also saw action with United States Marine Corps (USMC) squadrons at the Battle of Midway. Frustrated with the Buffalo's poor maneuverability and speed compared to the Zero, the F2A was derided by USMC pilots as a "flying coffin",[1]"

All allied aircraft suffered severe losses against the Japanese in the first few months of 1942.
About the maneuvrability, Dutch pilot Harry Simons:

Although it may sound strange, I still remember the agile maneuverability of the Brewster B339 and in principle it was a very good aircraft as long as it had 1200 hp

Seems like the Dutch disagree here. Still sounds like a pilot problem.

 

[Vincenzo]

Buffalo was fastest, best climbing and best turning of Wildcat (camparision F2A-2 with F4F-3 or F2A-3 with F4F-4)

 

[Doughboy]

Buffalo was fastest, best climbing and best turning of Wildcat (camparision F2A-2 with F4F-3 or F2A-3 with F4F-4)

The F4F had a top speed of 313 mph and the Buffalo had a top speed of 300 mph...So the F4F was faster than the Buffalo.

 

[Doughboy]

All allied aircraft suffered severe losses against the Japanese in the first few months of 1942.



I guess you're right.

 

[renrich]

Don't know where all the performance numbers are coming from but my "Bible" "America's Hundred Thousand " gives the Vmax of the USN Buffaloes as 320 mph at the critical altitude of 14500 feet. The AC at a weight of 6637 pounds had a SL cimb rate of 2600 fpm up to about 10000 feet where it began to drop off. The early F4F3 had a Vmax of 335 mph at 22000 feet and a climb rate of 3200 fpm at SL. The heavier F4F4 had a climb rate of 2500 fpm at SL and topped out at 320 mph at around 17000 feet. The Buffalo was deficient in performance at higher altitudes and one suspects the Finns did a lot of fighting at lower altitudes just like on the Russian front. One USN squadron operating Buffaloes off a carrier had 12 landing gear failures out of 17 AC. The Navy did not operate Buffaloes at Midway. The Buffaloes, all shot down during the IJN air strike were USMC, however the Marines operating Wildcats in the same battle fared much better. Marion Carl being one of them.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Marcel, while the Buffalo was struggling, the F4F and P40 were holding their own.

The F4F and P40 both flew combat missions well into 1944. The Buffalo was never used again after the Midway debacle.

Most Buffalo kills were against bombers. They simply couldnt hold up against fighters. Maybe the Finns had success with them, but no one else did.

Actaully the Dutch and British did as well.

 

[Vincenzo]

Don't know where all the performance numbers are coming from but my "Bible" "America's Hundred Thousand " gives the Vmax of the USN Buffaloes as 320 mph at the critical altitude of 14500 feet. The AC at a weight of 6637 pounds had a SL cimb rate of 2600 fpm up to about 10000 feet where it began to drop off. The early F4F3 had a Vmax of 335 mph at 22000 feet and a climb rate of 3200 fpm at SL. The heavier F4F4 had a climb rate of 2500 fpm at SL and topped out at 320 mph at around 17000 feet. The Buffalo was deficient in performance at higher altitudes and one suspects the Finns did a lot of fighting at lower altitudes just like on the Russian front. One USN squadron operating Buffaloes off a carrier had 12 landing gear failures out of 17 AC. The Navy did not operate Buffaloes at Midway. The Buffaloes, all shot down during the IJN air strike were USMC, however the Marines operating Wildcats in the same battle fared much better. Marion Carl being one of them.

14500 feet it's under fth for R-1820-40 of buffalo, w/o check the FTH it's over 20000 feet.
the FTH of 1830-76 and -86 (F4F-3 and F-4) it's the same 19000 feet so i think your data need some check.

EDIT after some research this "14500 feet it's under fth for R-1820-40 of buffalo, w/o check the FTH it's over 20000 feet."
maybe wrong

 

[Marcel]

Don't know where all the performance numbers are coming from but my "Bible" "America's Hundred Thousand " gives the Vmax of the USN Buffaloes as 320 mph at the critical altitude of 14500 feet. The AC at a weight of 6637 pounds had a SL cimb rate of 2600 fpm up to about 10000 feet where it began to drop off. The early F4F3 had a Vmax of 335 mph at 22000 feet and a climb rate of 3200 fpm at SL. The heavier F4F4 had a climb rate of 2500 fpm at SL and topped out at 320 mph at around 17000 feet. The Buffalo was deficient in performance at higher altitudes and one suspects the Finns did a lot of fighting at lower altitudes just like on the Russian front. One USN squadron operating Buffaloes off a carrier had 12 landing gear failures out of 17 AC. The Navy did not operate Buffaloes at Midway. The Buffaloes, all shot down during the IJN air strike were USMC, however the Marines operating Wildcats in the same battle fared much better. Marion Carl being one of them.

Richard, these numbers vary between the models. For instance, the B339D in the NEI had an initial climb rate of 4700 fpm, while the British B339E only managed 3000 fpm. This was because the British version 10% heavier, while having 100hp less power. The B339-23 was also bad This a/c had only 1000 hp, while being much heavier than the 339D. It had a top speed of only 264 mph and a climb speed of 3100 fpm.

Actaully the Dutch and British did as well.

No, they didn't. Let there be no mistake, the Buffalo did very poorly against the Japanese. JoeB did some excellent posting about this some time ago. But so did all types in the same area.
My point is this: All aircraft would have done (and did) as bad as the Brewster under the same circumstances. The negative judgement of the Brewster compared to the F4F was based on one fight and one fight alone. This is a little thin for such conclusions. I still believe the Buffalo was used to justify the early losses of allied AF's against the Japanese to the public. It was a convenient sheep goat, especially since they wanted to get rid of the inefficient Brewster company anyway.

 

[Vincenzo]

Marcel have you info on what's the FTH for R-1820G-205 on dutch brewster?

 

[Marcel]

Marcel have you info on what's the FTH for R-1820G-205 on dutch brewster?

Nope, sorry.

 

[syscom3]

My point is this: All aircraft would have done (and did) as bad as the Brewster under the same circumstances..

No!

The P40's did well enough (ever hear of the AVG?). The Wildcats could also hold their own.

But it was the Buffalo that had the unique distinction to show so little accomplishments.

 

[Catch22]

The P-40 also served with the RNZAF for quite a while, until '44 I think, and did fine there.

 

[renrich]

There are all kinds of numbers floating around about all the fighters in the WW2. I will stick with my source as it is using both manufacturer's numbers and user's numbers(USN or AAF) Having said that, there is a huge disparity between performance data on the Buffalo and the Wildcat because they were both early( in fact the original) mono plane fighters for the USN and they went through a long gestation period. Part of the reason for this was that, as designed, neither was ready for combat in WW2. Both early versions were much lighter than the versions that ultimately served in WW2. One could almost say that the Buffalo was the mirror image of the Zeke when first designed except for armament. They both were very light and very maneuverable. Neither had folding wings. Both had good range. The Zeke had better performance up high but lower they were about equal. The problem with the Buffalo was that the USN wanted an AC that was rugged as far as battle damage, had adequate armor, SS tanks, could withstand the shock of carrier landings and was adequately armed. By the time all these requirements were even partially met, the airplane lost most of it's performance virtues. The Japanese initially were content with an airplane that had no armor and no SS tanks and was already adequately armed so it's performance remained good. The Wildcat with SS tanks and armor and good armament had a little performance advantage on the Buffalo and was very suitable for carrier landings and was a more rugged airplane than the Buffalo. Pretty simple decision to be made. The stripped down Buffalo was a good advanced trainer. Those who keep bringing up Buffalo performance in the ETO are beating a dead horse. The reason the Finns or Dutch had some success withe Buffalo is that "Ole ugly is better than ole nothing." The carrier war in the PTO was different than the air war in the ETO.

 

[vikingBerserker]

No, they didn't. Let there be no mistake, the Buffalo did very poorly against the Japanese.

F2A Buffalo in action by Squadron/Signal Publications

"During the three months of combat, the four ML-KNIL Buffalo squadrons lost 17 pilots KIA, 30 aircraft in air combat, 15 to surprise Japanese bombing attacks, and a number of non-combat accidents collisions, and crashes in bad weather. Against these losses, the ML-KNIL Brewster squadrons claimed 55 aircraft destroyed, a victory to loss ratio of almost 2 - 1." pg 32

I regards to the British:
"60-70 were lost in combat, 40 destroyed on the ground, 12 lost through non-combat acidents.......The Commonwealth Buffalo Squadrons claimed at least 80 kills and Austrialian historians believe that some squads may have acheived a 2 to 1 kill ratio." pg 23

I'll give both sides:
USN Use
Naval Aviation Combat Statistics - WWII

The F2A flew 17 sorties to engage enemy aircraft and engaged 31 bombers and 15 fighters.
They shot down 6 bombers and 4 fighters but lost 14 aircraft in the process, a kill ratio of 1-0.7 pg 67

Overall a kill ratio of 1-1.3 to 1-1.4 , not exactly what I would call a poor performance, not the greatest but also not the worst.

 

[syscom3]

The P-40 also served with the RNZAF for quite a while, until '44 I think, and did fine there.

Yes indeed. Well into the later part of 1944.

 

[Doughboy]

No!

The P40's did well enough (ever hear of the AVG?). The Wildcats could also hold their own.

But it was the Buffalo that had the unique distinction to show so little accomplishments.

Ditto.

 

[syscom3]

Viking, we should ignore the losses from bombing as that doesnt mean anything regarding an aircrafts performance. Bomber claims should also be looked a differently as compared with fighters.

Thus when you look at its performance against Japanese fighters, its apparent it was incapable of doing much.

And also consider this. The Wildcat was a carrier plane, the Buffalo a land based plane. The P40 was at least a magnitude better than the Buffalo, and their combat records prove it.

 

[Juha]

Not in Pacific but as info
Vast majority of claimed 478 kills by Finnish Brewster B-239 pilots were against fighters, which incl 48 Hurricanes, 41 LaGG-3s, 45 MiG-3s, 27½ Yak-1s, 23 La-5s, 13 "Spitfires" (Yak-1s and 7s in reality), 4 P-40s and 2 Yak-7s.
Losses were 19 in aircombats, 5 on ground and 3 in accidents.

Juha

 

[vikingBerserker]

Viking, we should ignore the losses from bombing as that doesnt mean anything regarding an aircrafts performance. Bomber claims should also be looked a differently as compared with fighters.

Thus when you look at its performance against Japanese fighters, its apparent it was incapable of doing much.

And also consider this. The Wildcat was a carrier plane, the Buffalo a land based plane. The P40 was at least a magnitude better than the Buffalo, and their combat records prove it.

I believe the losses from being destroyed on the ground have been ignored, if not then it would make the kill ratio even more favorable for the Buffalo and I have never seen any airplanes kill ratios stated as vs. fighters, and vs. bombers (but I could be wrong).

If however I am wrong and it is tracked that way, the only data I could find was from the USN - I could not find anything about the Dutch and Commonwealth kills vs. bombers and vs. fighters. If you have it please share, but if you don't have it then I'm not sure how you are able to judge on this criteria.

The facts and data shows it was a capable little fighter which is the only point I am arguing. I never once commented on the F4F or the P-40.

 

[syscom3]

Not in Pacific but as info
Vast majority of claimed 478 kills by Finnish Brewster B-239 pilots were against fighters, which incl 48 Hurricanes, 41 LaGG-3s, 45 MiG-3s, 27½ Yak-1s, 23 La-5s, 13 "Spitfires" (Yak-1s and 7s in reality), 4 P-40s and 2 Yak-7s.
Losses were 19 in aircombats, 5 on ground and 3 in accidents.

Juha

This is for the Pacific, not Russian front.