Brewster Buffalo - what is the verdict?

[FulmenTheFinn]

Nice chart. I have seen the 10 Mar 42 Neefus kill listed as a H8K1.

So I looked into this, and this website lists the following on the production of different H8K variants:

• 1 H8K1 prototype (Dec 1940)
• 2 H8K1 pre-production aircraft (1941)
• 14 H8K1 production aircraft (1941-42)
• 112 H8K2 production aircraft (1943-45)
• 2 H8K3 prototypes (1944)
• (2) H8K4 prototypes modified from H8K3 frames (1945)
• 36 H8K2-L production aircraft (1943-45)

In other words, if the above is correct, which it appears to be, then it has to be a model 1 and the Stenman and Thomas book is wrong. I'll make the correction to the list, thank you.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Sources are conflicted on just what the Marines shot down that day. Either a pre-production H8K1 that had been part of Operation K, or a H6K4 of the Yokohama Ku. I suspect the former. I'm sure there are others with better knowledge of the Japanese records, who could weigh in.

 

[bf109xxl]

Sourced additions are welcome.

I am wondering if you are familiar with this source:

Chronicle of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union on the Baltic Sea and Lake Ladoga, 8 issues plus appendices, published in 1945–1951 by the Naval Publishing House and classified as "top secret"; in other words, this is an "unvarnished" version of events.
At first glance, many of the listed victories by Finnish aces from HLeLv 24 over pilots of the Baltic Fleet (for the Air Force, other sources may be needed) are not confirmed - the Soviets simply make no mention at all of any air combats in the specified area/time, although, for example, many victories over La-5s (!) and Yaks are fully confirmed.
One of the LiveJournal authors analyzed (1 + 2) this publication (and not just this one, as he claims) to verify the Finnish pilots' claims; I'm currently reviewing the source ("Chronicles...") by myself and can supplement (and in some places correct) your table if you're interested. However, if you're familiar with the source and don't consider it worthy of attention, then I won't spend any time on it.
PS. In a couple of weeks, I plan to read this book:

PPS. It would be helpful if you could post a link to the file containing your table, rather than to a protected Google doc.

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

I am wondering if you are familiar with this source:

Chronicle of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union on the Baltic Sea and Lake Ladoga, 8 issues plus appendices, published in 1945–1951 by the Naval Publishing House and classified as "top secret"; in other words, this is an "unvarnished" version of events.

Only by name. But I wouldn't imagine anything new to come from there not already factored in by Keskinen & Stenman and their sources.

At first glance, many of the listed victories by Finnish aces from HLeLv 24 over pilots of the Baltic Fleet (for the Air Force, other sources may be needed) are not confirmed - the Soviets simply make no mention at all of any air combats in the specified area/time, although, for example, many victories over La-5s (!) and Yaks are fully confirmed.

Interesting.

One of the LiveJournal authors analyzed (1 + 2) this publication (and not just this one, as he claims) to verify the Finnish pilots' claims; I'm currently reviewing the source ("Chronicles...") by myself and can supplement (and in some places correct) your table if you're interested. However, if you're familiar with the source and don't consider it worthy of attention, then I won't spend any time on it.

It could be worth browsing, but I'd think these publications from 1945-51 have already been factored in. Newer releases, especially after 2000, might yield new information. Sources like the Timin article you linked previously are a gold mine.

PPS. It would be helpful if you could post a link to the file containing your table, rather than to a protected Google doc.

I'll DM you.

 

[Wildcat]

Sources are conflicted on just what the Marines shot down that day. Either a pre-production H8K1 that had been part of Operation K, or a H6K4 of the Yokohama Ku. I suspect the former. I'm sure there are others with better knowledge of the Japanese records, who could weigh in.

Edward M Young, in "Kawanishi H6K Mavis and H8K Emily units", lists the 10 March kill as a Yokohama Kokutai H8K1 (aircraft Y-71) flown by Lt Hashizume.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Edward M Young, in "Kawanishi H6K Mavis and H8K Emily units", lists the 10 March kill as a Yokohama Kokutai H8K1 (aircraft Y-71) flown by Lt Hashizume.

Thanks. Heinl, writing just after the war, thought it was a Mavis, flying out of Wake. I would not have liked being a Japanese patrol plane crewman. It seems the best way to find the US fleet was to head in the direction of the last known location of their missing patrol planes.

 

[bf109xxl]

Only by name. But I wouldn't imagine anything new to come from there not already factored in by Keskinen & Stenman and their sources.

And what sources were cited by K&S? Let's consider, for example, the air battles on April 21, 1943. The Soviets did not report any Yak losses on that day at all, nor any LaGG losses - only one LaGG-3 (Sgt. Ryabushkin from the 3rd GIAP) was heavily damaged during a bad landing due to pilot mistake (braking too sharply) . The Soviets note that several aircraft were [heavily] damaged, but not fatally, and acknowledge the loss of two La-5s, while Finnish pilots claimed 19 (!!!) aircraft shot down—11 (!!!) Yak-1s, 4 LaGG-3s, and 4 La-5s.. I find this discrepancy with Soviet data surprising, especially since K&S, as I can see, filtered pilots' claims quite heavily, removing some of the most unreliable ones (for example, those from Juutilainen)

It could be worth browsing, but I'd think these publications from 1945-51 have already been factored in. Newer releases, especially after 2000, might yield new information. Sources like the Timin article you linked previously are a gold mine.

I would completely agree with you if this source weren't classified as "top secret." Of course, that doesn't mean the source can be trusted blindly, but for me personally, it's evidence that it may contain at least some elements of truth (which may be completely absent from unclassified Soviet sources). In the USSR, analytical materials were published under various classification levels, ranging from "for official use only" to "top secret"; they were intended primarily for senior officers and students at military academies (who were also already experienced officers), and the higher the classification level, the more unvarnished information the document contained.

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

Let's consider, for example, the air battles on April 21, 1943. The Soviets did not report any Yak losses on that day at all, nor any LaGG losses - only one LaGG-3 (Sgt. Ryabushkin from the 3rd GIAP) was heavily damaged during a bad landing due to pilot mistake (braking too sharply) . The Soviets note that several aircraft were [heavily] damaged, but not fatally, and acknowledge the loss of two La-5s, while Finnish pilots claimed 19 (!!!) aircraft shot down—11 (!!!) Yak-1s, 4 LaGG-3s, and 4 La-5s..

Russian sources record 1 La-5 from 4 GIAP KBF shot down in this battle (flown by Gds. Sgt. A. M. Stepanov, who was killed). K&S record 1 La-5 from 4 GIAP KBF verified shot down in this battle.

I find this discrepancy with Soviet data surprising, especially since K&S, as I can see, filtered pilots' claims quite heavily, removing some of the most unreliable ones (for example, those from Juutilainen)

To my knowledge K&S list all victory claims credited by FAF HQ; they haven't removed anything that FAF HQ accepted. Additionally the lists also contain cases reported as damaged that later research confirmed as actually shot down.

And what sources were cited by K&S?

This is a consistent problem with all K&S literature: there are none. No footnotes, no cited works. The introductions to some of their works give some clues as to what their sources may be, but that's it. The introductions to their two volumes on victory claims accepted by FAF HQ mention the following:

"This work includes every airman, pilot or gunner who has written an aerial combat report and in it claimed an aerial victory, solo or shared with others. In short, here is a detailed list of all Finnish airmen and the aircraft they shot down, organised by shooter.

The personal information of personnel found in this work have been gathered from military service cards in the War Archive as well as from orders of the day. The maintaining of military service cards has ended when the respective person has died or turned 60. Of events after this we have received further information from the war pilots' organisation "Pilven Veikot" [Fellows of the Clouds -F].

The aerial victory lists have been gathered primarily from the original copies of aerial combat reports. Information has been supplemented from copies from unit archives and in some cases from unit summaries.

The majority of the photographs in the book have been obtained from the people depicted or their relatives. Photos have also been obtained from PvKK's photograph department, the Aviation Museum Association, the Aviation Museum of Central Finland and the Air Force Centre of Photography. We've also been aided by Lassi Eskola, Pentti Manninen, Kyösti Partonen, Eino Ritaranta and Yrjö Toivanen. We wish to thank all these people and establishments, without which this book could not have been completed in this scope.

We also wish to thank Carl-Fredrik Geust, as well as the Russians Mikhail Bykov, Oleg Kiselev and Andrey Mikhailov, whose research in the Central Archive of the Russian Ministry of Defence in Podolsk and the Central Archive of the Navy at Gatshina made it possible to cross-reference aerial victory claims in detail.

In Helsinki on 31 January 2006

Kalevi Keskinen
Kari Stenman"

That's unfortunately as good as it gets. Their works are in many ways closer to hobbyism than any kind of professional historiography, full of tiny mistakes that go unfixed between a multitude of releases spanning half a century. Much of their works can be described as partially non-comprehensive squadron and aircraft histories with plenty of selected aerial combat reports copied word-for-word from the Finnish archives, and partially as photo albums. I have personally grown a little disillusioned with the nature of their works. However it must be said that they did do historiography a great service in listing the victories accepted by FAF HQ, along with listing cases confirmed by cross-referencing with Russian sources, as well as going through the individual aircraft histories of every single aircraft that ever served in the FAF, at least up to the end of WW2. It's also quite safe to say they haven't fabricated anything, even if they are prone to mistakes and their "source culture" leaves much to be desired.

 

[bf109xxl]

Russian sources record 1 La-5 from 4 GIAP KBF shot down in this battle (flown by Gds. Sgt. A. M. Stepanov, who was killed). K&S record 1 La-5 from 4 GIAP KBF verified shot down in this battle.

Yes, that's right, I'm sorry - I mixed it up with another day; I knew the pilot's last name.

To my knowledge K&S list all victory claims credited by FAF HQ; they haven't removed anything that FAF HQ accepted. Additionally the lists also contain cases reported as damaged that later research confirmed as actually shot down.

I see - I've already flipped through a couple of their books. I assumed that Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia 26/27, which I don't have access to, would still contain references. In other words, most of the claims haven't been verified.

We also wish to thank Carl-Fredrik Geust, as well as the Russians Mikhail Bykov, Oleg Kiselev and Andrey Mikhailov, whose research in the Central Archive of the Russian Ministry of Defence in Podolsk and the Central Archive of the Navy at Gatshina made it possible to cross-reference aerial victory claims in detail.

I consider the Russian researchers listed above to be truly the most competent in the areas under discussion. This makes it even more surprising to me that such a high overclaiming was not noted in some way.

That's unfortunately as good as it gets. Their works are in many ways closer to hobbyism than any kind of professional historiography, full of tiny mistakes that go unfixed between a multitude of releases spanning half a century. Much of their works can be described as partially non-comprehensive squadron and aircraft histories with plenty of selected aerial combat reports copied word-for-word from the Finnish archives, and partially as photo albums. I have personally grown a little disillusioned with the nature of their works. However it must be said that they did do historiography a great service in listing the victories accepted by FAF HQ, along with listing cases confirmed by cross-referencing with Russian sources, as well as going through the individual aircraft histories of every single aircraft that ever served in the FAF, at least up to the end of WW2. It's also quite safe to say they haven't fabricated anything, even if they are prone to mistakes and their "source culture" leaves much to be desired.

I have no intention of accusing anyone of anything or nitpicking at publications. I'm simply interested in getting an accurate picture of the events. Along the way, I unexpectedly stumble upon interesting facts - for example, an assessment of the Baltic Fleet's air force command during the first year of the war, compiled by NKVD officials - and some things become clearer.

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

In other words, most of the claims haven't been verified.

Correct, as per K&S's lists which I've digitised and expanded upon in my table. Just to clarify, the rows that make no mention of a unit to which the claimed kill belonged to are unverified from that country's archives. Only the claims with associated units mentioned are verified from the victim country's archives. This is explained in the table. There is a total of 501 kill claims of all types in the table for the Brewster 239, 155 of which have been verified from Soviet and German archives (or 154 as per the Timin article, which "deverified" one of the SBs). I provided an example below on how to read the unit column:

 

[Dimlee]

Regarding the loss verification, without the intention of relaunching another round of discussion of the well-worn topic.
In the current war, we observe a lot of evidence of "creative" loss statistics on many levels, from the field and up. Just one:

"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."

This one should be interesting. English titles and audio track are available. I clicked in randomly and listened to how this guy (Russian deserter) spoke about the personnel's loss records. "20 people killed one day. They wrote 10 and, after some time, gradually added another 10." It reminds me...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Greg Boeser]

Regarding the loss verification, without the intention of relaunching another round of discussion of the well-worn topic.
In the current war, we observe a lot of evidence of "creative" loss statistics on many levels, from the field and up. Just one:

"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."

This one should be interesting. English titles and audio track are available. I clicked in randomly and listened to how this guy (Russian deserter) spoke about the personnel's loss records. "20 people killed one day. They wrote 10 and, after some time, gradually added another 10." It reminds me...

ww2aircraft.net

Indeed. After Midway, the IJN survivors were "quarantined" at a remote base, lest their harrowing tales demoralize the fleet. The ships were quietly struck off the rolls months later.

 

[bf109xxl]

Correct, as per K&S's lists which I've digitised and expanded upon in my table. Just to clarify, the rows that make no mention of a unit to which the claimed kill belonged to are unverified from that country's archives. Only the claims with associated units mentioned are verified from the victim country's archives. This is explained in the table. There is a total of 501 kill claims of all types in the table for the Brewster 239, 155 of which have been verified from Soviet and German archives (or 154 as per the Timin article, which "deverified" one of the SBs). I provided an example below on how to read the unit column:

View attachment 887548

My goal is to evaluate both verified claims and confirmed overclaims - cases where no victory is confirmed. Furthermore, according to the documents, the 65th ShAP did not have any I-153s - until December 1941 the regiment was armed with the I-15bis only.

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

In the weeks since posting the aerial victory table I've added to it the missing Sq. 67 RAF victories from Burma. I still need to merge them to the main 339E table. I also intend to go through the other 339E victories using my newly acquired sources and adding in any missing information or possible corrections.

I've also added an alternate table for the 239 using another source. This time the tally was 500 victories as before, but 56 damaged and 171 "verified" instead of 54 and 155 respectively. This alternate source deverified some kills from the first table while verifying others. This alternate source too is unlikely to be the final word on the question of which planes the 239s actually shot down.

On a loosely related note, I'm looking for the Detail Specification for Model ### Airplane reports by Brewster for the various "Buffalos", save the one for the 239 which I already have. I made a post about that on this forum here. I've tried contacting a number of individuals who I believe may have some of them, but they have not returned my messages. I've also scoured through a multitude of archive sites to see if they have them even in physical form, to no avail. I think the Smithsonian might have some and that at this point I'll just have to reach out to them and pay them to scan them for me.

What I want to do is create a table where I can compare the performance and characteristics of all the different F2A-type fighters, including the export versions. There is some performance and characteristic data on the variants in certain secondary sources, but the data there is so clearly inaccurate, particularly pertaining to aircraft weight, but also to other stuff like endurance, that it's just not usable. So I have to get my hands on the primary sources.

In my quest for said primary sources I also found this:

It's from a 1942 Luftwaffe frontline news bulletin on enemy aircraft, which can be found here. Assuming the depicted figures are indicative of a 339E (Buffalo Mk. I), I'm wondering how correct they are.

The 302 l on both sides of the fuel tanks is either indicative of a slight drop in capacity from 606 l to 604 l from the Linatex and horshide leather the Brits coated the fuel tanks on the 339E with, or it's just a mistake.

America's Hundred-Thousand (AHT) mentions the armoured glass on the 339E as having been 1.5" thick which translates to 38.1 mm, not 41.28 mm. Perhaps the 1.5" given in AHT was a ballpark figure? It is worth mentioning that the Germans captured at least one 339B airframe at Crete in 1941. It is known that the Brits made modifications to the 339B. Perhaps the armour figures come from there? At any rate this image is the only source I've seen thus far that indicates the position and thickness of the armour applied to the fuselage of the 339E. AHT also mentions a section of armour on both sides of the fuselage behind the pilot, which is not displayed in the above image. Interestingly the top-down image seems to indicate armoured glass above the pilot as well. EDIT: AHT also does not specify the thickness of the pilot's seat armour, which it mentions consisted of a plate aft of the seat. 4.25 mm, if accurate, is remarkably thin!

What's also interesting is that the bulletin claims the American manufacturer's (i.e. Brewster's) designation for the aircraft is Brewster 439. This is almost certainly incorrect, but it is the earliest use I've seen of the likely non-existent "Model 439". I've seen a similar German wartime report call Finnish Brewsters 339s and F2A-2s; these sorts of inaccuracies on designations in reports on foreign-used equipment is nothing out of the ordinary.

Here's another interesting little tidbit, more on the trivial side, that I came across in the 1943 United States-British Glossary of Aeronautical and Related Nomenclature, references to the 339B as the Buffalo (Mk.) II and III:

 

[Greg Boeser]

In the weeks since posting the aerial victory table I've added to it the missing Sq. 67 RAF victories from Burma. I still need to merge them to the main 339E table. I also intend to go through the other 339E victories using my newly acquired sources and adding in any missing information or possible corrections.

I've also added an alternate table for the 239 using another source. This time the tally was 500 victories as before, but 56 damaged and 171 "verified" instead of 54 and 155 respectively. This alternate source deverified some kills from the first table while verifying others. This alternate source too is unlikely to be the final word on the question of which planes the 239s actually shot down.

On a loosely related note, I'm looking for the Detail Specification for Model ### Airplane reports by Brewster for the various "Buffalos", save the one for the 239 which I already have. I made a post about that on this forum here. I've tried contacting a number of individuals who I believe may have some of them, but they have not returned my messages. I've also scoured through a multitude of archive sites to see if they have them even in physical form, to no avail. I think the Smithsonian might have some and that at this point I'll just have to reach out to them and pay them to scan them for me.

What I want to do is create a table where I can compare the performance and characteristics of all the different F2A-type fighters, including the export versions. There is some performance and characteristic data on the variants in certain secondary sources, but the data there is so clearly inaccurate, particularly pertaining to aircraft weight, but also to other stuff like endurance, that it's just not usable. So I have to get my hands on the primary sources.

In my quest for said primary sources I also found this:

View attachment 890243

It's from a 1942 Luftwaffe frontline news bulletin on enemy aircraft, which can be found here. Assuming the depicted figures are indicative of a 339E (Buffalo Mk. I), I'm wondering how correct they are.

The 302 l on both sides of the fuel tanks is either indicative of a slight drop in capacity from 606 l to 604 l from the Linatex and horseshoe leather the Brits coated the fuel tanks on the 339E with, or it's just a mistake.

America's Hundred-Thousand (AHT) mentions the armoured glass on the 339E as having been 1.5" thick which translates to 38.1 mm, not 41.28 mm. Perhaps the 1.5" given in AHT was a ballpark figure? It is worth mentioning that the Germans captured at least one 339B airframe at Crete in 1941. It is known that the Brits made modifications to the 339B. Perhaps the armour figures come from there? At any rate this image is the only source I've seen thus far that indicates the position and thickness of the armour applied to the fuselage of the 339E. AHT also mentions a section of armour on both sides of the fuselage behind the pilot, which is not displayed in the above image. Interestingly the top-down image seems to indicate armoured glass above the pilot as well.

What's also interesting is that the bulletin claims the American manufacturer's (i.e. Brewster's) designation for the aircraft is Brewster 439. This is almost certainly incorrect, but it is the earliest use I've seen of the likely non-existent "Model 439". I've seen a similar German wartime report call Finnish Brewsters 339s and F2A-2s; these sorts of inaccuracies on designations in reports on foreign-used equipment is nothing out of the ordinary.

Here's another interesting little tidbit, more on the trivial side, that I came across in the 1943 United States-British Glossary of Aeronautical and Related Nomenclature, references to the 339B as the Buffalo (Mk.) II and III:

View attachment 890244

Shores quotes a British pilot in Singapore refer to the Dutch Brewsters as 439s.

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

Shores quotes a British pilot in Singapore refer to the Dutch Brewsters as 439s.

What book, what page?

 

[Shortround6]

What's also interesting is that the bulletin claims the American manufacturer's (i.e. Brewster's) designation for the aircraft is Brewster 439. This is almost certainly incorrect, but it is the earliest use I've seen of the likely non-existent "Model 439"

AHT shows the Model 439 as the last 20 planes built for the DEI. This was a separate order from the 72 B-339Ds They were built after Brewster finished production of the F2A-3 for the USN. Jan and Feb with one completed in March, all 1942.

The wing fuel tanks were the wing spar. There was no way to make it smaller inside. Didn't matter what they put on the outside, the inside was not going to change.

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

AHT shows the Model 439 as the last 20 planes built for the DEI. This was a separate order from the 72 B-339Ds They were built after Brewster finished production of the F2A-3 for the USN. Jan and Feb with one completed in March, all 1942.

Brewster expert Jim Maas has not found any documentation by Brewster referring to any "Model 439s". See here. I suspect it is a post-war fiction same as the B-prefix in the names of the export models (EDIT: or I suppose in the case of the 439, possibly a wartime one!). The series you refer to was the Model 339-23.

The wing fuel tanks were the wing spar. There was no way to make it smaller inside. Didn't matter what they put on the outside, the inside was not going to change.

Would be great to find photos or drawings of the Linatex and horsehide-leathering the Brits did on the tanks: where exactly did they put it?

The Finns applied limited rubberisation on some of their Brewsters in the form of a 20 mm self-sealing carpet on the cockpit's side of the fuel tank. They also created two custom wings (the wings on the Brewster were a single piece), one out of metal and one out of wood, where the fuel tank was replaced with four self-sealing fuel cells. The rubberisation took up so much space that the total fuel capacity dropped from 160 gal to less than 62 gal. To compensate, a 95 gal fuselage tank, also rubberised, was fitted onto aircraft with either custom wing. Only one of each wing was produced, and they were not a success: the fuselage tank shifted the aircraft's centre of gravity, and both wings were heavy, particularly the wooden wing. The latter was installed onto BW-392, and fully loaded the aircraft weighed about 6,390 lb. By comparison a regular 239 in the 1942 configuration (10 mm pilot's seat armour, 4th .50 cal, etc.) weighed around 5,870 lb fully loaded.

 

[Greyman]

America's Hundred-Thousand (AHT) mentions the armoured glass on the 339E as having been 1.5" thick which translates to 38.1 mm, not 41.28 mm. Perhaps the 1.5" given in AHT was a ballpark figure? It is worth mentioning that the Germans captured at least one 339B airframe at Crete in 1941. It is known that the Brits made modifications to the 339B. Perhaps the armour figures come from there? At any rate this image is the only source I've seen thus far that indicates the position and thickness of the armour applied to the fuselage of the 339E. AHT also mentions a section of armour on both sides of the fuselage behind the pilot, which is not displayed in the above image. Interestingly the top-down image seems to indicate armoured glass above the pilot as well.

I've run into this a lot. Armour (just like a lot of aspects of frantic, wartime manufacturing) has a spec/nominal value, and an actual, real-world value. Maybe they were all 41.28 mm, or maybe they were just 41.28 mm for a specific lot due to a particular machine calibration, or maybe it was just that one -- who knows. Less than 10% off the spec doesn't seem outlandish to me, based on other measurements of captured material from various nations.

Those German intel diagrams are great. I've seen a handful of them, would be wonderful if the entire collection was somewhere.

 

[Greg Boeser]

What book, what page?

I'll check tomorrow. It's way past my bedtime.