FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Marshall_Stack said:
YEP!!! The B-57 had one as well. you would hear a "BANG" and see a whole bunch of smoke. You would think the airplne just exploded....
Brewster buffalo question
- Thread starter Salim
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
YEP!!! The B-57 had one as well. you would hear a "BANG" and see a whole bunch of smoke. You would think the airplne just exploded....
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
Yeah Salim as in almost every instance or comparison we see on this site of "hardware" most folks fail to factor in the human in the equation. It boils down to the guy in the pilot's seat. If he ain't with it he ain't gonna win even with a technically superior plane.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Twitch said:
True, but some of the technical things being brought up here affect what goes on even before going into battle. You could be the greatest fighter pilot in the world but what good is it if your aircraft doesn't always start, the radios can't work with the landing lights on or the engine overheats while waiting to take off. Eventually that part of the equation comes into play no matter how good of a pilot you are. As one of the other posters stated 60% pilot, 40% machine, I like those numbers....
Twitch
Staff Sergeant
Well sure. That's why pilots still voice their eternal dislike for crates like the P-39, F2A and such. If you have to abort before you ever see the enemy you aren't gonna get the opportunity to show if you're good or not. The whole pre-war comglomeration of machines were conceived and built with a completely different philosophy of what "modern" fighting planes should embody. Once WW 2 commenced everybody had to re-think things.
I mean we look at the virtuosos of the F4F on P-40 as guys like Joe Foss and Tex Hill and then look at the F6F and P-51 that subsequent aces flew and note the technological differences that translated to kills. Hill and Foss did great in basically obsolete planes which is more of a testament to their individual skills. By the time the Hellcats and Mustangs roamed the skies they made average skilled pilots much better. But the bottom line was the talented guys could become super stars in them just as Hill and Foss did in their "old" planes.
Just writing about it make you shiver to imagine how utterly awe inspiring these men and the men they fought were.
I mean we look at the virtuosos of the F4F on P-40 as guys like Joe Foss and Tex Hill and then look at the F6F and P-51 that subsequent aces flew and note the technological differences that translated to kills. Hill and Foss did great in basically obsolete planes which is more of a testament to their individual skills. By the time the Hellcats and Mustangs roamed the skies they made average skilled pilots much better. But the bottom line was the talented guys could become super stars in them just as Hill and Foss did in their "old" planes.
Just writing about it make you shiver to imagine how utterly awe inspiring these men and the men they fought were.
FlyingDutchman
Recruit
About the quality of the Buffalo......
First of all the guys who flew the Buffalo in combat had to combat a overwhelming amount of enemy planes. All of them ultralights!
Seeing your fellow squadronmates get shotdown and killed does something to you, so your opinion about your own mount gets negative.
About the armament.....
Quote from Jimmy Thach: Firepower is not a substitute for marksmanship
after the switch form 4 .50 (F4F-3) to 6 .50 (F4F-4)
In "Buffaloes over Singapore" is a quote from Kapitein Tideman (Dutch NEI-AF): "My view is that our drawback during the fighter actions was not an inferior aeroplane (the Brewster), but we had to few of them".
The Dutch pilots flew more often than not with half the fuelload and half the amount of ammo in the Buffalo.
In this configuration it could hold its own in combat with te Navy Type O.
But quantity was the deciding matter!
The Buffalo wasn't that bad, alltough obsolete at the time.
With the proper tactics it could hold its own.
The Finns showed that to be true. (26:1 kill ratio)
It all boils down to training and quantity.
First of all the guys who flew the Buffalo in combat had to combat a overwhelming amount of enemy planes. All of them ultralights!
Seeing your fellow squadronmates get shotdown and killed does something to you, so your opinion about your own mount gets negative.
About the armament.....
Quote from Jimmy Thach: Firepower is not a substitute for marksmanship
after the switch form 4 .50 (F4F-3) to 6 .50 (F4F-4)
In "Buffaloes over Singapore" is a quote from Kapitein Tideman (Dutch NEI-AF): "My view is that our drawback during the fighter actions was not an inferior aeroplane (the Brewster), but we had to few of them".
The Dutch pilots flew more often than not with half the fuelload and half the amount of ammo in the Buffalo.
In this configuration it could hold its own in combat with te Navy Type O.
But quantity was the deciding matter!
The Buffalo wasn't that bad, alltough obsolete at the time.
With the proper tactics it could hold its own.
The Finns showed that to be true. (26:1 kill ratio)
It all boils down to training and quantity.
