Brewster F2A-4 Buffalo, the worst US fighter that fought in WW2?

In 1940 what other single engine bomber without fighter escort would have done much better?

Click to expand...

The big problem with the Battle was that the requirement was at fault; a single engine day bomber flying at medium altitude straight and level over a target in broad daylight was asking for trouble. the day bomber requirement was like other British pre war ideas that in reality of combat proved to be non-starters, such as the bomber transport and turret fighter.

Marcel Lobelle's Battle was actually a well built, beautifully designed machine that was very advanced when it was first conceived, which led to large off-the-drawing-board orders. It was apparently pleasant to fly as well, being stable and responsive. So, in reality it fulfilled the requirement excellently.

It took a while before the RAF accepted the ground attack role, even preferring to call it "Army Co-operation".

Anyhoo there's a new thread to duscuss such things as the worst piston engined bomber of the war, now...

Hi Oldcrow! You are right and teh Buiffalo is in the thread title.

The thread was expanded around page 9 or so, but that is hard for anyone to actually FIND ... so ... OK, I give and will either start another thread for more "Worst Of" candidates ... or else simply let it die a natural death. I haven't decided, but will likely just let it go.

Greg, one of the best debates on this forum in a long time!

buffnut453 said:

Some further commentary:

2. The F4F-3s of VMF-221 didn't have armour plate or self-sealing tanks so one would expect them to have better performance than an aircraft fitted with those additional items (as noted in comparisons between the -3 and -4).

4. The F4F-3s were largely flown by more experienced pilots (per Flyboy's hunch earlier).

5. While fighter-vs-fighter claims are an interesting measure of "effectiveness", that was not the mission assigned to VMF-221. Their role was to hit the Japanese bombers and that's exactly what Parks tried to do

6. The Commonwealth squadrons operating in the Far East also used inappropriate tactics.

7. The performance of the F2A-2 was comparable, if not better than, the F4F-3 although neither were truly fit for combat due to the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks and armour plate.

Click to expand...

2. Source? F4F-3's were retrofitted with seat armor and tank liners shortly after the war began. AFAIK the only F4F's to enter fighter combat without armor or tank liners were VMF-211's at Wake in their one combat with Zeroes; some USN F4F-3's in the combats with Type 96's in Feb 1942 carrier raids had homemade armor but not tank liners. If generic sources say that -3's in June 1942 lacked these features, they are probably just carelessly assuming it.

4. None of the pilots had previous combat experience. If the ones with more flying experience flew F4F's that's partly a circular argument, it would have been because 221 thought the F4F superior.

5. As always when this dubious gambit is used, such an argument is plausible in case of interceptors achieving say 1:2 ratio's v escorts (Spits v Bf109's over Malta, etc). It's not plausible when the result is totally one sided in fighter-fighter combat. And the actual results show VMF-221 didn't shoot down many strike a/c (see above 5 or 6 strike a/c, causes can't be determined v AA) and the RAF/Dutch Buffalo's didn't shoot down not a lot more total Japanese bombers over many weeks of action than the JNAF's total losses over Midway. If interceptors can't contend with escorts on a *reasonably* even basis, they won't achieve other goals, and Midway and early SEA campaigns show this clearly.

6. Again, same point debated year after year. Yes, *but* when stated that way it tends to imply that tactics is some easy thing to fix. Hurricanes had 1:4-5 ratio v Type 1's in 1942 *and* 1943. Not some easy switch to flip for them apparently, and no one is assuming the unit leaders in those cases were derelict in their duty. The enemy was capable, including his a/c despite their weaknesses, and the Allied models used perhaps not as good as their fans like to believe.

Likewise as we've covered ad nauseum the USMC over G'canal did not use any preplanned anti-Zero tactics. Thach Weave was only used in 1942 in combat by VF-3 at Midway and VF-10 in the G'canal campaign. The F4F units at G'canal did have the opportunity to learn from mistakes, of course the *whole* difference wasn't that F2A sucked and F4F didn't.

7. And this gets back to the confused tendency to speak of a/c capability as if only aerodynamic performance mattered. For example the 'pin cushion tactic' of F4F's at G'canal (just let a Zero on you tail fire into your armor and try to run, don't turn and give him a deflection shot at the cockpit) didn't work with an unarmored a/c. So F4F-3's lacking armor would not have been more capable, but less capable for *combat*. Same confusion with attributing the AVG's success to 'superior' P-40B's v 'inferior' P-40E's (though actually AVG and FEAF both flew a mixture of those types). Yes P-40E weight was used as an 'explanation' for poor results by FEAF after the fact, and also the new a/c had mechanical bugs the B's didn't (gun chargers) and the pilots were less familiar with them. But in general the idea that P-40E was a strictly inferior combat a/c to the B, ignoring its greatly superior firepower when the guns worked properly, is highly dubious.

And we, I anyway am, defining best/worst as *combat effectivness* of fighters. That's not to say it's easy to discern this independently of totally non-plane factors, but if we start mixing up pure aerodynamics or flying fun with combat effectivenes, it gets hopelessly confused IMO.

Joe

Joe,

If the F4Fs at Midway were fitted with self-sealing fuel tanks then the pilots should have returned them to the manufacturer and asked for their money back. From the combat report of 2Lt Corry (who flew an F4F during the battle), "By this time my tanks were all leaking badly and the fighters were shooting my plane up very effectively."

Just for fun here are some other less well-known quotes from combat reports from Midway:

Canfield, also flying an F4F reported his undercarriage collapse upon landing.

Armistead reported a 20mm shell in the starboard wing fuel tank of his F2A-3

Irwin, also in an F2A-3, wrote "My plane has several cannon holes in it, although my right wing tank which was struck by cannon fire did not burn, but was hot enough to scorch and blister paint on the wing and aileron."

We can all cherry-pick sources to paint a different picture...

I agree measuring combat effectiveness is hard - there are just too many variables for sweeping generalizations to be made. I do agree, however, that the F4F in concert with the pilots who flew it and the operational conditions under which it faced combat, did remarkably well.

I would note that there are "bullet proof" tanks which are a far cry from "shell proof" tanks.

It also took a few minutes for the self sealing material to work in order to plug the "bullet" holes.

Armistead reported a 20mm shell in the starboard wing fuel tank of his F2A-3

Click to expand...

Sounds like it was 'sealed' nonetheless!

Folks - a few points...

Self sealing tanks aren't bulletproof. They aren't leak proof either. They are designed to swell around punctures and minimize leakage. If you absorb an excessive amount of damage, you will see excessive leakage.

As FlyboyJ says, They minimize leakage and most were designed to protect against rifle caliber holes. 7-8mm in diameter, meaning the sealing compound/effect only had to move in 3.5-4mm from the edge of the hole. Slant hits with oval holes/tears presented problems as did 12.7-13mm hits let alone 20mm hits. The big bullets could also generate enough force (depending on how full the tank was and the size of the tank) to split seams. Things may have gotten better for some air forces as the war went on (1944 tank/cell being better than a 1941/42 tank/cell?) but things are relative and later war aircraft had the heavier guns.

Of course in the early part of the war some "self sealing' tanks weren't even without combat damage, See the P-43

JoeB said:

7. And this gets back to the confused tendency to speak of a/c capability as if only aerodynamic performance mattered. For example the 'pin cushion tactic' of F4F's at G'canal (just let a Zero on you tail fire into your armor and try to run, don't turn and give him a deflection shot at the cockpit) didn't work with an unarmored a/c. So F4F-3's lacking armor would not have been more capable, but less capable for *combat*. Same confusion with attributing the AVG's success to 'superior' P-40B's v 'inferior' P-40E's (though actually AVG and FEAF both flew a mixture of those types). Yes P-40E weight was used as an 'explanation' for poor results by FEAF after the fact, and also the new a/c had mechanical bugs the B's didn't (gun chargers) and the pilots were less familiar with them. But in general the idea that P-40E was a strictly inferior combat a/c to the B, ignoring its greatly superior firepower when the guns worked properly, is highly dubious.

Joe

Click to expand...

The P-40B (early in WW2) with lighter armament and a lower powered engine had a higher ceiling than the P-40E. The AVG evidently flew only P-40B's during their salad days until March 23rd before they started to incorporate a few P-40E replacements. From that point on they presumably flew a mix with the P-40Es becoming a progressively greater portion until the AVG was disbanded in early July 1942. You could be correct that fighting the IJA in Burma and China, any P-40 might have done well and the E might not have been at any serious disadvantage. Although my source is suspect, it seems as though IJ aircraft flew higher against the PI's FEAF and against Java. Were these IJ aircraft predominantly Navy? The FEAF P-40E's seem to have been unable to successfully intercept high altitude IJ aircraft (above about 27,000 feet during the campaign (the B's were largely eliminated on the first day) and at Java many opportunities appear to have been lost due to the P-40Es inability to reach the 27,000 + foot altitude regime where the bombers and their escorts were flyng according to Bartsch. In April, it appears the USAAF P-40E's defending Darwin began to use tactics to achieve some success in intercepting IJ raids.

WRT to the 6 gun's greatly superior firepower, I agree that the P-40B was at a relative disadvantage (compared to an aircraft that could confront an enemy A/C at or above its altude with 6 working HMGs) but it seems to me that 4 x 50's (as in the P-40C and D) would have been adaquate and a better option. Deleting 2 50s and their associated ammo should have lightened the P-40E by ~280 pounds. Trading some of that weight savings with an increased ammo load might have been desirable as 200 rpg seems a very short firing time at least compared to the USN which argued strongly against the F4F-4 with a reduction from 450 rpg in the -3 to just 240 when the two additional 50's were added. The USN returned to the 4 gun configuration with the FM-1 as did the army with the P-40L in January of 43 until engines with higher power became available. even with the FM-2 the USN stayed with the 4 gun configuration even the F8F had a 4 gun installation so 4 guns were judged to be sufficient. IIUC, that was the opinion of USN Pilots in 1942. By comparison the ammo load of the F2A-3 was 325 rpg.

I think there also would have been a maintenance, logistic and supply benefit to the 4 vs the 6 gun rig. Fewer guns may translate to faster A/C maintenance, and rearming and easing the ammunition logistical demands of each aircraft by a third. IMHO, the 6 gun installation on the P-40E and F4F-4 early in the war was a big mistake that cost lves and perhaps more. JMO

Well, we have several different discussions going on here. Some of it has to do with an F2A-4, which never saw service, and some of it has to do with the F2A versions that did see service, and whether or not they were worthy aircraft. Well. I would never say the F2A was better than the F4F overall, or equal, but I think it was within 90% of being equal. That puts it squarely within the zone where pilot skill and a myriad of other factors can make all the difference. Many of the Japanese pilots of the time were highly experienced combat veterans who had been blowing Chinese aircraft out of the sky for years. The Japanese system had learned how to conduct war, and was comfortable with its way of conducting combat. The allied forces in the early days of the war, on the other hand, were surprised out of their wits, so to speak, by the audacious Japanese blitzkrieg of the Pacific world, and many of these men had not seen combat before. The US and NEEIF had seen little to no combat. Many of the Commonwealth men had seen no combat, also. Whether armed with F2A's, F4F's, P-36, P-40, or Hurricanes, everybody saw a hammering. There were brief moments of hope, and some outfits, such as the AVG, did better than others. It may have been partly to do with the aircraft they flew, and partly to do with leadership, experience, opposition, intelligence, organization, timing, climate, support structure, morale, and so on. The Finns probably would have trounced the Russians even if they had flown the castoff aircraft from every nation of the World. Oh. That's right. They did.

Gentlemen,

I don't understand what does make the F2A-3 Buffalo so bad for a 1942 fighter. I am not a Buffalo fan and I don't contest your comments, but I would like to understand why do you rate the Buffalo so poorly and the Wildcat so high, while they seem to have, on the paper the same characteristics : both have the same level speed (about 320 mph), wing loading (+/- 31 lb/sq;ft) and power loading (about 7.3 lbs/bhp) ; yet the Buffalo has, as far as I know, better climb rate (2760 fpm at SL vs less than 2500 for F4F-4) but the Wildcat has better firepower and armor.
So why is the Buffalo so bad and the Wildcat so good ?

Thanks for your clarifications,

Francis Marliere

Francis, the answer to your question can be found on reading through the discussion going on in this thread. Mind you, if you can't really deal with trawling through the pages, just take a look online. Mere statistics don't really tell you anything, I'm afraid. You have to look deeper than comparing figures.

Francis marliere said:

Gentlemen,

I don't understand what does make the F2A-3 Buffalo so bad for a 1942 fighter. I am not a Buffalo fan and I don't contest your comments, but I would like to understand why do you rate the Buffalo so poorly and the Wildcat so high, while they seem to have, on the paper the same characteristics : both have the same level speed (about 320 mph), wing loading (+/- 31 lb/sq;ft) and power loading (about 7.3 lbs/bhp) ; yet the Buffalo has, as far as I know, better climb rate (2760 fpm at SL vs less than 2500 for F4F-4) but the Wildcat has better firepower and armor.
So why is the Buffalo so bad and the Wildcat so good ?

Thanks for your clarifications,

Francis Marliere

Click to expand...

I"ll check my numbers but I don't believ they will agree with those you've quoted above. That's not to say the numbers I am thinking are all that different. But, in general, I believe the edge is more favoriable to the F4F. The most critical consideration, as I have been saying, is which model are we talking about? Are you comparing the F2A-3 with the more lack luster but later F4F-4? Or are you comparing it with the more sprightly contemporary F4F-3? Of course the big difference between the two (other than the manufacturer's competence) was the P&W 2 stage supercharger in the F4F and the Wright's single stage SC. Wing loading for the F4F-3 was a litttle less than 29 #/sq. ft. (~7,500 # and a 260 sq ft wing) That of the F4F-4 more like 30.8 #/sq ft. (~8,000# and the same wing area) The F2A-3 (~7,200 # for a 209 sq ft wing) a wing loading of 34.4 #/sq ft. That parameter shows a pretty distinct advantage to the F4F even ignoring the much better high altitude performance.

Part of the problem with comparing just a few numbers is that they give a "snapshot" of the performance instead of an album or movie. Many planes performance changed with altitude and some got better and some got worse. Another point of confusion is that max speeds are often not quoted at the same altitude. The F4F-4 had a two stage supercharger and it's performance did not fall off as bad at higher altitudes for one thing.

I agree Shortround: Another part of the problem is reputation; the Buffalo has a bit of a bad rap - some of it deserved, some of it not and unfortunately for it, some of its bad reputation is based on its performance over Singapore, which it couldn't actually do anything to change the outcome, which is the gist of this thread, but then again, the Finns made something of it.

One of the big problems of making comparisons between performance figures is that comparisons don't really count for much in real world conditions. Take the Fairey Swordfish for example - an aircraft getting a huge amount of words being hurled around about it in another thread as we speak. Here was an aeroplane that had worse performance figures than the machine (the Blackburn Shark) that it supplemented and eventually replaced in FAA service. It then went on to serve longer than its intended replacement (the Fairey Albacore) from the same company that built it, aaaand it was very much obsolete at the outbreak of war and yet it has an enviable combat record. On paper, both the Shark and Albacore had better performance and offered a superior product in so many ways, but the Swordfish emerged from the war as one of the great combat aircraft in history.

Other examples include the SBD Dauntless and Ju 87 Stuka, both slow, cumbersome dive bombers that when subject to the attentions of enemy fighters got shot down in droves, but both are in the annals of history because of their war record and their staying power in the hands of the services that employed them. Also the Il-2M3 Sturmovik and the Fairey Battle, both had very close performance figures, yet the Battle flew the kind of operations that earned its crews posthumous Victoria Crosses and has a poor reputation as a result, the Sturmovik was the most mass produced aircraft in history and emerged from the war - despite high losses at the hands of enemy fighters as - like the Swordfish, one of the greats.

SR, Been looking at the tables and charts for the P-40 F L and E (from tech section of the website) and the frustrating thing is that the gross weights quoted seem to be more alligned with generic combat loads than for the specific interceptor mission. For example, If I compare the GWs for the -L in the table and those in AHT, it seems OK. (8,486# (AHT vs 8,500#): so far so good assuming I add a drop 366# tank. (I don't know. but would be surprised to learn that F4F-4s flying interceptor missions out of Cactus in he Fall of 1942 used drop tanks, unless their early warning net gave them really advanced warning) On the other hand, the table purported to be applicable to the -F shows gross weights of 7,500, 8500, and 9,300# If I take the AHT clean GW of 8,678# and add a 366# tank it is well above the 8,500# and well below the 9,300# line. Are these meant to use as simple guides for interpolation? were performance nomographs ever published for any of these aircraft? In short, its difficult to estimate the performance of the P-40D-type A/C that might have provided a more effective interceptor early in WW2. Just how much climb and ceiling improvement can one expect for a 4-gun, allison powered ship with ~230 rpg?

Did I just post in the wrong thread? I know SR posted those reference manual and chart somewhere. Now if I can only find where we were posting

SR, Been looking at the tables and charts for the P-40 F L and E (from tech section of the website) and the frustrating thing is that the gross weights quoted seem to be more alligned with generic combat loads than for the specific interceptor mission. For example, If I compare the GWs for the -L in the table and those in AHT, it seems OK. (8,486# (AHT vs 8,500#): so far so good assuming I add a drop 366# tank. (I don't know. but would be surprised to learn that F4F-4s flying interceptor missions out of Cactus in he Fall of 1942 used drop tanks, unless their early warning net gave them really advanced warning) On the other hand, the table purported to be applicable to the -F shows gross weights of 7,500, 8500, and 9,300# If I take the AHT clean GW of 8,678# and add a 366# tanks it is well above the 8,500# and well below the 9,300# line. Are these meant to use as simple guides for interpolation? were performance nomographs ever published for any of these aircraft? IN short its difficult to estimate the performance of the P-40D-type A/C that might have provided a more effective interceptor early in WW2. Just how much climb and ceiling improvement can one expect for a 4-gun, allison powered ship with ~230 rpg?

Click to expand...

Nuuu, Not so much a microwave moment as a senior moment.

Gentlemen,

sorry for not answering earlier and thank you for answering me.
I understand that statistics don't tell all about a plane. It's the reason why I asked my question : the F2A-3 and F4F-3/4 were very close 'on paper' but apparently not on the air. Did the Wildcat have better altitude performance, roll rate or dive acceleration ? Or is there something else that makes the Buffalo so bad ?

Best regards,

Francis