Brewster Buffalo - what is the verdict?

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

Greg Boeser said:
First, the Finns never got a 1200 hp Cyclone, and couldn't use them if they did. They had no 100 octane avgas.
Click to expand...

They had some. Unfortunately my source doesn't go into detail on the stocks in depots by fuel grade in 1941, like it does with later years. Here's a table I made based on a page in a Finnish book back in March of this year. All dates are DD/MM/YYYY.



Source: Atso Haapanen (2000): Suomalaiset pommikoneet sodan taivaalla [Finnish Bombers in the Sky of War], p. 170


I'm currently compiling a table of all the various Brewster Buffalo models, mainly to see their power-to-weight ratio, and your table is helpful, so thank you for that. However I have a problem with some of the weights given in the table, namely armament weights, which consequently affect the gross weights as well:



The numbers here at least up to the F2A-2 are clearly based on a 1 x .30 cal + 1 x .50 cal armament setup, but neither the Finnish* nor to my knowledge the F2A-2 used this setup. The Finnish B-239s started out with a 1 x .30 cal + 3 x .50 cal setup, which according to the BAC's detailed specs manual on the B-239 weighed 463.1 lbs or thereabouts/about 210 kg, more than twice the weight reported in the above table. The same manual gives the 1 x .30 cal + 1 x .50 cal setup a weight of 201.4 lbs/91.35 kg. I will link the relevant passages from the BAC detailed specs manual further down.**

Additionally starting in the winter-spring of 1941 the Finns upgraded the .30 cal to a fourth .50 cal and installed armour to the pilot's seat, bringing the loaded weight of the aircraft at 160 gallons/606 litres of fuel to 5,820 lbs/2,640 kg. Prior to these upgrades the loaded weight of the B-239 with 160 gal/606 l was about 5,580 lbs/2,530 kg, while a version with only the frame MGs would have been 5,325 lbs/2,415 kg. By 20 July 1943 all surviving B-239s had had the .30 cal in their frames swapped out for another .50 cal. On 14 January 1944 the order was given to remove the armour on the pilot's seat to save weight as the armour had become obsolete against Russian fighters which by then more or less all sported cannons capable of piercing the armour. The Finns made several other modifications to their Brewsters as well, mostly in the form of temporary experiments, which however are outside the scope of this post.

I'm not entirely sure what's going on with the variants in the table from the B-339B on. What is their armament (one source I have mentions 2 x .30 cal + 2 x .50 cal for the B-339s, but I know sometimes the B-339s had their .50 cals swapped out for .30 cals), and especially from the B-339E on, why is the weight so heavy? A lot of ammo?

To my knowledge American Brewsters from the F2A-2 on sported 4 x .50 cals, and 8 of the remaining F2A-1s were upgraded to the F2A-2 standard from 1940 on, so the armament weights of the F2A-2, F2A-3 and even the XF2A-2 in the table puzzle me. On a related note, in an engine list from Curtiss-Wright I came across a mention of an F2A-2A, note the additional "A" at the end. Could it be the base version, prototype included, of the F2A-2 had only two MGs, and the F2A-2A was the upgraded version with four MGs?

*Granted, I'm not entirely sure now whether the additional two .50 cals were installed during the Interim Peace after the B-239s had already arrived. At any rate they certainly all sported four MGs by the time they saw action in 1941.

**As promised, the relevant passages:



Finally, I've some questions regarding engines. First, I mentioned a C-W engine list. It's this one. The list clearly shows the engine for the B-239 being a GR-1820G5 Model 286T, whose specs match those of the engine of the B-239, except that it's an engine with reduction gear, which the B-239's engine didn't have. Nowhere elsewhere have I ever seen the B-239's engine be referred to with the prefix GR either, which is the Wright Aeronautical Division (WAD) prefix for a radial engine with reduction gear. Instead it's always simply an R-1820G5 (exact spelling may vary). Now if we look further below, an engine by that designation does exist, twice, actually, as the WAD Model for the 1820-22 Model 542 and 1820-34 Model N548A. Other than not having reduction gear, the specs of neither of these engines match with that of the B-239. Is it possible that the engines of the B-239 were indeed GR-1820G5 Model 286Ts but with the reduction gear removed (or never installed), which would also explain the absense of the "G" in the engine's prefix in all other sources? Also, I wonder what's up with the Brewster F2A-1 being mentioned in the list of aircraft this engine was installed on. I guess they tried it with the F2A-1 too, even though they ended up with the R-1820-34 for the F2A-1?



Second, not only do loaded/maximum/gross weights radically differ for some of the same Brewster Buffalo variants across different sources, some don't even agree on the engine. Wikipedia claims the B-339E, aka the Buffalo Mk. I, received the R-1820-G-105, which would be the Model 331 rated at a TO power of 1100 hp/2200 RPM, but other sources specify this to have been the R-1820-G105A Model 564, rated at a TO power of 1100 hp/2350 RPM. The latter as far as I know is the correct one out of the two. Other sources still mention the "Cyclone 1890-G-105", which I believe is a typo meant to say "Cyclone 1820-G-105", while yet others, including a British pilot's handbook for the aircraft, speak of a Cyclone G.R.1820-G5E. This one is genuine and seems to be a different engine. I know the Allies had to swap out the engines of some of their Buffaloes in Southeast Asia and Oceania or so, so perhaps it's to do with that. I did not see a "1820-G5E" in C-W's engine list, so I'm wondering if it's specifically a British designation. I also have one book that claims the B-339C, D and E all had the R-1820-G205, but I'm quite certain in reality only the B-339D had this particular engine. Once again it's unclear which exact engine version this was: the G205 Model 589, G205A Model 704 or G205B 587. Based on the different HP and RPM ratings between the versions, I've for now surmised it's the first one. Meanwhile Wikipedia claims the B-339Ds had the R-1820-40 Model 647, known by WAD as the Cyclone G251.

Any help in determining the exact engine models and loaded weights of all the Brewster Buffalo variants is appreciated.

Apologies for the avalanche of questions.
 
The publication is based on myths, all the numbers are far from reality. Absolutely unreliable source.
 
bf109xxl said:
The publication is based on myths, all the numbers are far from reality. Absolutely unreliable source.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, I am curious what specifically in this article you feel is based on "myths" and "far from reality".

In giving the article a quick read over, it appears to make a couple claims, including;
  1. The Finns went looking for a modern aircraft from the US and were able to procure some Brewster fighters that the US Navy had identified as "surplus" to their requirements, which were;
    • fitted with a 950HP engine
    • refitted with metric instruments,
    • fitted with four 12.7mm machine guns and armor plate.
    • the article also notes that they were fitted with self-sealing tanks, though other sources that I have seen suggest that they may not have been.
  2. The primary Soviet Air Force's frontline fighter facing Finland at that time was the Polikarpov I-16, Rata which was;
    • primarily armed with four 7.7mm macine guns,
    • primarily made of wood and covered with fabric, with lightweight tubing and aluminum skin forward of the cockpit,
    • designed with an open cockpit that may have been difficult to bail out of if the pilot were wearing heavy clothing for warmth.
  3. The author notes that, overall the performance of the B239 and the I-16 appeared about equal, with;
    • Their top speeds being within eight knots.
    • The Rata having an edge in rate of acceleration and climb along with much better visibility from its open cockpit.
    • While, the larger wings of the heavier B239 gave the plane a similar wing loading to that of the Rata.
  4. The author then notes that "As a fighter, the Buffalo had four advantages" relating to;
    1. Its four .50 caliber machine guns with 400 rounds per gun was superior to the four rifle-caliber machine guns in the most common versions of the Rata.
    2. The servo tabs on its control surfaces, making it easier to control pressures on those surfaces even in dives, further noting that Finnish pilots described the the B239 as a delight to fly which "could easily outturn an I-16 whose controls stiffened noticeably above 250 m.p.h. making the Rata harder to maneuver."
    3. The pressurized injection carburetor used in the B239 engine not being affected by positive or negative g's, whereas the float carburator in the Rata engine could result in fuel starvation for a few seconds if the plane were forced to do certain extreme maneuvers.
    4. And finally the wood and cloth structure of the Rata could be succeptible to catching fire if hit by tracer rounds
  5. During the "Continuation War" the author notes that;
    1. Combat Effectiveness:
      • "Between June 25, 1941, and May 1944, Finnish Air Force Buffalos shot down 477 Soviet aircraft for a loss of only 19 B-239s"
      • "About a third of the Finnish air-to-air kills were bombers, the rest were fighters – mostly I-16s and then Lavochkin LaGG-3s, MiG-3s, Yak-3s that were just coming into service along with some Lend-Lease Hurricane IIs."
    2. Training and Culture:
      • Soviets
        • The average Soviet fighter pilot had 100 to 150 hours of flight time when he reported to their squadrons when the "Continuation War" began
        • In the Soviet Air Force, political orthodoxy was prized and in training "deviating from the script was frowned upon, even potentially even punished."
        • Pilots were promoted based on their political reliability not their skill as a pilot or a leader.
        • In the Soviet Air Force, orders were passed down from higher commands and were expected to be followed to the letter, no matter what the losses.
        • If planes and pilots were lost, there were always more in the pipeline.
      • Finland
        • Before their first combat missions, Finnish pilots typically had more than 300 hours including unscripted, free-for-all dogfights, pushing their aircraft to the limits.
        • They grew up in a free society in which they were taught to think for themselves.
        • Initiative in the cockpit and flying skills were valued.
        • Section, Flight, and Squadron Leaders were selected based on their experience, skill, and track record.
    3. Aircraft Differences:
      • The Finns took advantage of the Buffalo's turning ability.
      • If a Finnish pilot could not quickly get into a firing position, he would dive away and then climb above the Ratas before diving and re-engaging.
    4. Potentially Better Command and Control:
      • Since much of the war was fought over their own territory and the Finns had a network of listening posts that could alert them of approaching airplanes
    5. Despite their superiority in numbers and their losses, the Soviet's never gained air superiority. That belonged to the Finns.
I can see that whether the B239s were ever fitted with self-sealing tanks may be a point of contention, but I believe that the rest of the comments about the B239 and I-16 Rata appear to be mostly correct with them being close to similar in general performance (at leat in terms of speed) but with each plane having its own strengths and weaknesses.

So my questions I guess are that since you indicated that you believed that "all the numbers are far from reality", which specific numbers are you concerned about?
  1. Is it your belief that the "combat loss" claims are based on myth?
  2. Do you feel the comments on "training and culture" are basd on myth?
  3. Or is it something else?
Regards

Pat
 
I can't answer all of FulmentheFinn's questions, but this one I can:
"Granted, I'm not entirely sure now whether the additional two .50 cals were installed during the Interim Peace after the B-239s had already arrived. At any rate they certainly all sported four MGs by the time they saw action in 1941."
The 239 [second Brewster product offered for export in 1939] was based on the F2A-1. 43 were not new builds, but reworked F2A-1's. As such they were equipped for two wing .50's - after the first F2A-1 appeared at the New York World's Fair, it and the rest of the order were modified in several respect including the wing armament. That late addition is why the wing gun round counter (dial visible from the cockpit) was scabed onto the wing in the little bump next to the larger gun cover. I have some notes that suggest Brewster expected to build 66 239's for Finland but the end of the Winter War ended that at 44.
 
PFVA63 said:
Out of curiosity, I am curious what specifically in this article you feel is based on "myths" and "far from reality".
Click to expand...

I wondered the same thing. Granted, I only skimmed through the article myself, and while it seemed mostly correct, a few things did stick out to me:

1. It claims the Finns suffered 221,200 military dead in the Continuation War. This is over three times the actual count of 65,581. The claimed figure is even higher than the total Finnish military killed, wounded and captured of both the Continuation and Lapland Wars 1941-45 combined, 208,007 men in all, of which over 2k returned from captivity after the wars. Finnish civilian dead from the 1941-45 period amounted to in excess of 1k, so their inclusion can't inflate the figure by over 3 x the actual count of military dead either. What I'm guessing happened, is that the author of the page took a high-end estimate of all Finnish military casualties, perhaps not just from the Continuation War, but the Lapland War as well, and confused them to be a figure for the military dead alone. Winter War casualties from 1939-40 I don't think are included in his numbers. I have a table on Finnish military casualties 1939-45 here, if the reader would like to glance at some of the numbers himself:
View: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cDeSE4KBxZsYGuYSiEMrlOQNQzYkKsD2x9Ndiga1ubI/edit?usp=drivesdk

2. The engine is called a 950 hp engine. This always bothers me because the engine's actual max. rating was 1000 hp. This was the engine's equivalent of WEP and could be maintained for 5 minutes at a time. From what I understand this means it should be called a 1000 hp engine. Sometimes you also see it being called a 850 hp or in some sources even a 940 hp engine. I'm not sure where the latter figure comes from as it doesn't appear in any of the documentation related to the engine that arrived with the 44 B-239s or in any of the Curtiss-Wright papers I've seen.

3. The site claims all .50 cals had 400 rounds each. However the two fitted in the nose had half that, 200 rounds each. Additionally not all, probably not even most, B-239s entered the Continuation War with 4 x .50 cals, but 1 x .30 cal + 3 x .50 cals. The single .30 cal was mounted in the nose and had 600 rounds. By 20 July 1943 all B-239s had had the .30 cal swapped out for another .50 cal with 200 rounds, bringing the total .50 cal count to four guns. The ones in the wings had 400 rounds each.

What I'm guessing bf109xxl is on about, and apologies if this is the wrong assumption, is that the Finnish kill count with the aircraft against the Russians, which by the way should be 478, not 477 as cited in the article, is inflated. From what I've gathered from research over the decades, including reading what military aviation historians have to say about this, Finnish kill claims are reliable to be in the ballpark of reality. That is, they may not be the exact real count, but they are close to it. The biggest source of "air" in the claims for the B-239 are the battles over water over the Gulf of Finland during 1942-43, but even then we're probably not talking of anything in excess of perhaps 15% overclaiming over the water. What is also of note that conversely if a B-239 shot down a Russian aircraft and no friendlies besides the shooter himself, often not even him, was around to see it go down, and it went down behind Russian lines, often (or as I've understood, most of the time), it didn't get credited. And this happened quite often, which also has the effect of counteracting what little overclaiming there was when it comes to the total kill count. If we do not know the identity or even unit of a shot down Russian plane, that does not mean it was not shot down. From just now glancing at the B-239's kill list, I'd say about half remain unidentified (by unit, at least). It used to be almost all of them. So while there's still work to be done on that front, we've come a long way. Unfortunately since 1997 Russia has restricted (or forbidden?) access to military historical archives for non-Russian historians, and with how things are now, it is difficult to have even intermediary access through Russian historians. Point being, that work will have to wait.

Oh, and I spotted another mistake in the article: the author claims the Finns lost 19 B-239s against the Russians. This figure dates back to before the 1990s and is problematic in many ways. Firstly it doesn't include losses whose cause of loss was unknown. Secondly it includes planes lost against Russian AA (one of which has since been revised to having been shot down by the VVS), which is fine if talking about total losses but not when comparing to how many aircraft the B-239 shot down (which is where that famous, and wrong, 26:1 kill-to-loss ratio comes from), which is what the author of the article is doing here. Here's the final tally on the Brewster B-239 fates based on post-1991 research:

Continuation War, 25 June 1941-19 September 1944:
-16 shot down by the VVS
-2 by Russian AA
-5 destroyed in VVS air raids or hangar fires caused by them
-5 lost in accidents

Lapland War, 15 September 1944-27 April 1945:
-4 shot down by German AA
-2 lost in accidents

Total including the entire time B-239s flew in the FAF, 1 March 1940-14 September 1948:
-16 shot down in aerial combat
-12 lost in accidents
-6 lost to AA
-5 to air raids or their causes

5 survived to be scrapped, and sadly all were. Before that some were installed at childrens' playgrounds for the children to marvel at and play with! I am something of a "B-239 enthusiast", and you can imagine how annoyed I am that they didn't preserve even one of these aircraft that were so significant to Finland's aerial defence during the first couple of years of the Continuation War.

At any rate, that's 21 B-239s lost against enemy aerial action, air raids and the fires caused by them included. Against the 478* kill count that's a KLR of 23:1. Still extraordinary, but lower than 26:1 (sometimes you also see "32:1" being claimed for the "first half of the Continuation War", but this is also wrong and includes B-239 losses to all causes, even accidents!). In 1941 the B-239s were credited with 140 Russian aircraft shot down for no losses against enemy aircraft, meaning an astounding KLR of 140:0 for 1941!

*In the Lapland War Finnish B-239s claimed two Ju 87s, bringing the total kill count for the model to 480. But it is my opinion, and that of many professionals far more knowledgeable on the topic than me, that these were bogus claims, made to keep the Russian Control Commission off the Finns' backs. No wrecks have ever been found and German records show no losses. Evidently a flight of 6 Finnish B-239s did meet with a flight of 12 unescorted German Ju 87s above the Kemijoki. The Finns circled them a bit, the Germans dropped their bombs without them exploding and turned tail back home, after which the Finns also turned back without engaging the Germans, and that was the end of that. This is also the German record of the events that day. It is not unexpected that there was no fight, as being old brothers in arms the Finns and Germans were reluctant to engage oneanother, especially at the beginning of the Lapland War, when this occurred (3 October 1944). The Finnish record differs in that it claims that one of the Ju 87 gunners got nervous and opened fire, after which the Finns gave chase to the now-bombless Ju 87s and shot two of them down. What's curious is that the Finnish pilots who made those kill claims maintained for the rest of their lives that they shot down those Stukas. Of course I can't say with 100% certainty what the truth is, but the evidence, or more accurately lackthereof, supports the German version.


Right, makes sense. I actually just earlier asked a Finnish professional aviation historian whether or not the wing guns were installed in Finland or before they arrived there. He said before, which is in line with what you said. Also, interesting; what you wrote gives me an answer on my question relating to the armament of the XF2A-1 and early F2A-2; if the reworked F2A-1 had the .50 cal wing guns, then those later versions probably did too. Though I still wonder what the "F2A-2A" mentioned in the Curtiss-Wright engine list was.

Another question: Did the reworked F2A-1 have a specific designation that differed from the base version of the F2A-1 without the wing guns, e.g. "F2A-1A"?

EDIT: Thank you for the attached file Simon Thomas . Some interesting information there. Am I correct in understanding that like the B-239's R-1820G5, both the XF2A-1's R-1820-22 and the F2A-1's R-1820-34 engine had a military rating of 1000 hp/2200 RPM for 5 minutes?
 
Last edited:
PFVA63 said:
Is it your belief that the "combat loss" claims are based on myth?
Click to expand...
No, it's not my belief, it's knowledge drawn from reliable sources. Do you really believe that the Finnish overclaim rate was surprisingly lower than for anybody else? Have you tried to validate the Finnish claims by Soviet data? Or ever compare Finnish numbers with the total Soviet losses in Karelia/Kola Peninsula? I have no doubt that the brave Finnish pilots demonstrated high efficiency, scoring many victories over the Soviets - Buffalo was absolutely adequate and even superior to the most Soviet fighters in Karelia. They were well trained and highly motivated, outperforming their Soviet opponents on almost all counts. But you have to be realistic - the number 477 is simply an overclaim (I guess, factor 2 or 3, may be more). My estimation of the overclame rate is based on several episodes in 1941 and 1942. And I have absolutely no interest to discuss even more absurd loss ratios.
PFVA63 said:
Do you feel the comments on "training and culture" are basd on myth?
Click to expand...
Partially. The situation with the training of Soviet Air Force pilots was changing. The Karelian front was almost stable with low intensity of air battles. Soviet rookie pilots even with miserable flight hours had a chance to gain experience.
PFVA63 said:
Despite their superiority in numbers and their losses, the Soviet's never gained air superiority. That belonged to the Fin
Click to expand...
Air superiority belonged to Luftwaffe until 1943. Moreover, it was not absolute - the Soviets were able to carry out ground attack operations all the period. Any talks about _Finnish_ air superiority are not serious - despite of very high efficiency of Finnish pilots.
PFVA63 said:
mostly I-16s and then Lavochkin LaGG-3s, MiG-3s, Yak-3s
Click to expand...
I guess, Hurricanes could be on the second place. And just for information: Yak-3 arrived at the front in August-September, 1944 (and I am not sure if they were even used in Karelia), when the most Buffalo's were already either in a non-flying condition or barely used as fighters (and yes - I know about the last Buffalo's victory over Ju.88 in January, 1945). I would be very skeptical of reports about a super ace in a Buffalo scoring a victory over even a novice in a Yak-3. But I am curious to hear such a story with an indication of the source.

FulmenTheFinn said:
but even then we're probably not talking of anything in excess of perhaps 15% overclaiming over the water.
Click to expand...
Yes, abslolutely. We are talking about the typical overclame rate of factor 2 or 3.
 
Last edited:
bf109xxl said:
But you have to be realistic - the number 477 is simply an overclaim (I guess, factor 2 or 3, may be more).
Click to expand...

So you're replacing one myth with your own myth of 2-3 times overclaiming when it's clear that different forces overclaimed to different extents. Is it two times, three times or some other figure? The figure is actually a "claims to losses" number which, frankly, is the only thing that we can reliably compare against other fighters. Trying to identify the exact cause of loss for every single aircraft is an impossible task and leads to all sorts of categorization problems (e.g. an aircraft that's heavily damaged in air combat, manages to make it back to base but is subsequently written off, or an aircraft that simply disappears with no known cause).



You are mistaking air superiority for air supremacy. Air superiority is never absolute. Air superiority involves securing the ability to conduct ones own air operations at the time and place of your choosing. By definition, air superiority is temporary in nature. Therefore, it was entirely possible for the Finns to achieve air superiority so they could complete their missions.
 
buffnut453 said:
So you're replacing one myth with your own myth of 2-3 times overclaiming
Click to expand...
Nope. This overclaiming rate is rather typical.
buffnut453 said:
it's clear that different forces overclaimed to different extents
Click to expand...
To whom? Have you tried to compare overclaim rates for different airforces? Ok, I would say, 2.5 time is a rough estimation of the mean value. But the overclaim rate varies not so significantly if you consider representative statistics.
buffnut453 said:
Trying to identify the exact cause of loss for every single aircraft is an impossible task
Click to expand...
This is exactly the task that some (I am not sure, whether "many" can be used) aviation historians are engaged in at the moment.
buffnut453 said:
aircraft that's heavily damaged in air combat, manages to make it back to base but is subsequently written off, or an aircraft that simply disappears with no known cause
Click to expand...
You may not believe me, but these cases also can be analyzed and categorized.
buffnut453 said:
Therefore, it was entirely possible for the Finns to achieve air superiority so they could complete their missions.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. As auxiliary forces for the Luftwaffe. But not alone.
 

This post deserves more than an "informative" and was very informative.
I like the Buffalo too!
 
bf109xxl said:
Ok, I would say, 2.5 time is a rough estimation of the mean value. But the overclaim rate varies not so significantly if you consider representative statistics.
Click to expand...

But there are dangers in applying representative statistics to a small sample set. There were only ever 44 B239s in Finnish service. If flown by more experienced/better trained pilots, and coupled with more rigorous claims criteria, then it's entirely feasible that the small sample set may differ widely from your 2.5 times mean.


bf109xxl said:
This is exactly the task that some (I am not sure, whether "many" can be used) aviation historians are engaged in at the moment.

You may not believe me, but these cases also can be analyzed and categorized.
Click to expand...

I love it that you make the assumption that I'm not a historian myself. I've actually tried to do what you've suggested. The problem is you will still come up with a bunch of situations where the exact details simply aren't known. Errors in record keeping are commonplace. Mis-reporting of airframe serial numbers is commonplace. Then you have losses for which no claims were made.

Again, on a statistically small sample of just 44 aircraft it's going to be really tough to come up with any better metrics. There will still be a whole bunch of caveats which could introduce significant variance to the final number that's obtained.
 
buffnut453 said:
But there are dangers in applying representative statistics to a small sample set.
Click to expand...
Episodes of overclaiming by Buffalo pilots are known. You can find some of them even in Wikipedia. 44 planes in 3 years - it is quite enough for conclusions.
buffnut453 said:
The problem is you will still come up with a bunch of situations where the exact details simply aren't known.
Click to expand...
Oh, really? You just opened my eyes.
buffnut453 said:
I love it that you make the assumption that I'm not a historian myself.
Click to expand...
I haven't made any assumption about you personally.
buffnut453 said:
I've actually tried to do what you've suggested.
Click to expand...
I read articles by those who still tries to find out the truth by this method. I just agree, that now it became more challenging.
buffnut453 said:
Errors in record keeping are commonplace. Mis-reporting of airframe serial numbers is commonplace. Then you have losses for which no claims were made.
Click to expand...
I know the difficulties. But there is no other way to find the truth. Fairy tales about 477, sorry, 478 shot down by Buffalo pilots are for propaganda purposes only.
 
Last edited:
bf109xxl said:
Fairy tales about 477, sorry, 478 shot down by Buffalo pilots are for propaganda purposes only.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you're way off base with that comment. They were legitimate claims made by the pilots based on what they perceived at the time, in the heat of battle, where they had perhaps a fraction of a second to make a judgment call on what they were seeing.

There is nothing mythical or factually correct in stating that Finnish pilots claimed 477 kills in Brewster B239s. Or are you suggesting that the pilots were deliberately making up claims purely to support a propaganda campaign? That really is too much.
 
buffnut453 said:
They were legitimate claims made by the pilots based on what they perceived at the time, in the heat of battle, where they had perhaps a fraction of a second to make a judgment call on what they were seeing.
Click to expand...
You opened my eyes again. The reasons why claims cannot be a reliable criterion for the efficiency evaluation are obvious.
buffnut453 said:
There is nothing mythical or factually correct in stating that Finnish pilots claimed 477 kills in Brewster B239s.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. And now we have to interpret these _CLAIMS_ correctly to derive a REALISTIC number of kills. Сlaims are uninformative and misleading to the mass audience.
buffnut453 said:
Or are you suggesting that the pilots were deliberately making up claims purely to support a propaganda campaign?
Click to expand...
I am suggesting that many authors use claims for propaganda purposes.
 

Well, if we apply a consistent factor of overclaiming across all claims (e.g. 2.5), we can still get a relative indicator of a fighter's operational performance. It's probably no less accurate than trying to solve the unsolvable with bad/missing data.

I'm not sure there's a "mass audience" for Brewster kills while in Finnish service. There isn't much of a "mass audience" for the Buffalo at all. Indeed, in this day and age, aviation history is a pretty niche area of interest.

As to your last point, you've previously stated that history is about "truth" and now you're claiming that authors use claim ratios for propaganda purposes. Neither are correct, IMHO. Historians seek to explain WHY something happened rather than trot out a boring set of statistics or figures. That's why we have the concept of historiography so historians can review how positions/attitudes on a topic have changed over time. Bald kill/loss figures are no more informative than claims/loss figures because there are so many factors at play in any given engagement. Pilot experience and training level are the most important factor. Then there's the operational context. If an air force lacks early warning and most of its fighters get shot down while taking off, that's hardly the fault of the fighter aircraft itself.

I still say that trying to chase down data on every single kill/loss is an unachievable goal and actually doesn't inform much more than data that's more readily to hand. I admire the devotion of people who seek to do that but, at the end of the day, it's the operational outcome that matters. Over the past 40 years, historians have re-evaluated the number of actual kills achieved by Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain which, inevitably, was far lower than the claims. However, the key point is that the RAF won, or at least didn't lose, the Battle. For the first time, Hitler's war machine was held in check...and THAT's the key point. There are parallels with the Brewster B239 in Finland. It doesn't really matter whether its kill:loss ratio was 26:1, 13:1 or 8.66:1...the important thing is that, operationally, it performed very well and helped Finland achieve its operational objectives.
 
Last edited:
Did they ever use the LKk/42 guns on the Buffaloes, or where they all the American M2's? I've seen conflicting information on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

What is this?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Explosive ammo for HMGs - what is the verdict?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
What is a TF-51H?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Tom Fey
T
S
Request help identifying Carrier-based Brewster aircraft type
Replies
5
Views
714
SaparotRob
What was it about the black crosses on the wings that made German aircraft the best?
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
10K
mikewint
Menu
Log in
Register