Brewster F2A-4 Buffalo, the worst US fighter that fought in WW2? (2 Viewers)

[Timppa]

You guys who are Buffalo fans, name me a US contemporary Naval fighter type with worse performance. Donl;t even say the Grumman F4F. Its reputation is well established.

Well, reputation and performance ( if you mean flight performance ) are two different things.
There was only one contemporary to the F2A, the F4F.
From the "American Hundred-Thousand", the speed of the F2A-3 was about equal to F4F-4.
Both the F2A-2 and F2A-3 outclimbed the F4F-4.

 

[Shortround6]

The first crop of monoplane fighters includes the I-16, Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, A5M and A6M, F4F, P-38,P-39, P-40, Blackburn ROC, ... etc. It does not include biplanes. The P-39 was 50 mph faster, rolled better, climbed better, and was much better armed.

"The first crop of monoplane fighters..........It does not include biplanes". Rather self evident. However the rest of the statement is rather misleading. First flight of the I-16---30 December 1933, first flight of the P-38--- 27 January 1939 5 years and 1 month later, I would say that they were not contemporaries and the P-38 was not in the first crop. The A6M was designed as a replacement for the A5M so it is hard for them to be contemporaries unless the F3F-3 and F2A are contemporaries. hard for the A6M to be in the first crop if it is a replacement for a first crop fighter. The P-39 and P-40 were also second generation monoplanes. First generation US ARMY monoplanes being the P-26, P-30, P-35 and P-36. The P-39 may have been a much better fighter than the Buffalo but it was 1-2 years latter in timing and could not operate of a carrier. the Bell XFL Airabonita was 2 1/3-3 years behind the F2A in timing.

Just my opinion, but the Buffalo was firmly in last place and has made at LEAST 3 of the books entitled "World's Worst Aircraft ..." with other things thrown into the title.

Doesn't the P-39 make at least one of those books?

 

[GregP]

Hi SHortround,

Yes, the P-39 makes at least one, maybe two. But the poor old Buffalo won't come close to a P-39 in combat and the F4F never made ANY book of "worsts," but DID make several "Best of" lists including Top Ten Fighters on television (no, I don't always agree with them either ...), where it came in tenth.

If you are rooted in reality, the F4F beats the Buffalo every time. If not, combat record must not mean much, regardless of the Finnish experience. Those people citing only that are conveniently forgetting the 150+ Buffalos lost at the start of WWII in the Pacific for almost no result.

You can make things as interesting as you want in discussion, but the Buffalo is firmly in MY basement, even if not in everyone else's.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I've never put a lot of faith in the "Books of Worst Aircraft" so IMHO that really does not give a lot of weight. The issues at Midway were not just about aircraft, but of tactics and under estimating the enemy as well. IIRC several folks based at Midway recommended the F4F be with drawn as well. The Buffalo 239 was supperior then the early F4F - that's why it was selected over it. The big difference was the changes to the Buffalo made it worse whereas the changes to the F4F made it better.

 

[GregP]

In combat record, the "issues" don't matter; results do.

The F4F was WAY better in overall results and justified its selection with flying colors.

C'mon, there were 509 Buffalos made and 7,886 F4F Wildcats. You tell ME which one the government liked best! I simply agree with the Navy.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Well if you agreed with the USN the first time, you would have picked the Buffalo over the F4F, just as they did.

Ok let's talk about results then. How did the Marine F4Fs based on Midway fair? The TBF's made their combat debut based on Midway and lost 5 out of 6 aircraft. The B-26's based there lost 2 out of 4 planes. That hardly made them bad aircraft.

You can have the best weapon in the world, but if you don't use it correctly it's useless.

 

[GregP]

Stop making excuses.

The Buffalo, in total, was as complete failure except in Finland ... and they would have won the war with Hellcats!

I reject your hypothesis ... the Buffalo was cancelled and the Windcat was produced. Really, check the facts.

Didn't you READ the numbers? Or am I just blind? Wait, I have 20-20 so it must be you.

C'mon, join the REAL world! I'm sure legendary tales of the Buffalo live on, huh? Not ...

It is a broken cookie in the breadbox of life. Let it go or look foolish to everyone except flag wavers.

The Buffalos were simply shot out of the sky except in Finland, where they were rendered invulnerable due to the cold ... or so it is said. In reality, they ran across some really bad Russian pilots and aircraft and did good for awhile ... not too long.

The Wildcat held the line against the Mistubish Zero until the Hellcat stomped it and the Wildcat served on in places where the Hellcat was not really needed due to obsolete opposition until their numbers and servicerability were declining. Some survived as squadron hacks into the 1950's and maybe beyond, but not as fighters.

Don't you read real history? Or is this a video game or a joke?

Crimney, ask ANY WWII Naval pilot. I have.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I don't need to make any excuses as I was stating nothing but facts, and even used your own logic to prove a point.

Show where anything I have posted is not factual. I can back up everything I've said from valid sources.

On the other hand you have thrown out nothing more than rhetoric opinion and have displayed an inability to actually debate with any sort of maturity.

 

[Shortround6]

Crimney, ask ANY WWII Naval pilot. I have.

And how many of them flew Buffalos in WW II?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Play nice guys!

 

[Wayne Little]

Was thinking that, when I popped in earlier....

 

[Shortround6]

There is little doubt that the Buffalo was inferior to the F4F for a number of reasons. Some of them had to do with construction and maintenance as well as performance. But to go from "plane A is inferior to plane B therefore plane B is the worst fighter plane of the war" is quite a stretch.
US use of the Buffalo in combat was in numbers too small to have any real statistical meaning.

as for the Buffalo in the far east, how many were shot down in combat, how many were destroyed on the ground and how many were abandoned ( or destroyed because they could not be flown out) in the retreats/surrenders. Would any other fighter plane of the time have made any real difference aside from changing the numbers in the tables a bit?

The Buffalo was not a "great" aircraft but does it deserve the reputation it has?

AS for "Worst aircraft....... " books, after the "Christmas Bullet", the " Tarrant Tabor " and few other such obvious choices the author has to fill the book up with something.

 

[muscogeemike]

There is little doubt that the Buffalo was inferior to the F4F for a number of reasons. Some of them had to do with construction and maintenance as well as performance. But to go from "plane A is inferior to plane B therefore plane B is the worst fighter plane of the war" is quite a stretch.
US use of the Buffalo in combat was in numbers too small to have any real statistical meaning.

as for the Buffalo in the far east, how many were shot down in combat, how many were destroyed on the ground and how many were abandoned ( or destroyed because they could not be flown out) in the retreats/surrenders. Would any other fighter plane of the time have made any real difference aside from changing the numbers in the tables a bit?

The Buffalo was not a "great" aircraft but does it deserve the reputation it has?

AS for "Worst aircraft....... " books, after the "Christmas Bullet", the " Tarrant Tabor " and few other such obvious choices the author has to fill the book up with something.

I agree, especially when one considers that such US aircraft as the P-26, P-35, P-43, P-66 and CW-21 all saw combat. Not to mention several other pre-war bi-planes use by the Chinese AF prior to the US entering the war.

 

[Timppa]

Not proving the point one way or the other, but some thoughts from Geoff Fisken, the top Buffalo ace outside Finland (FlyPast, 2006):

"In order to be succesful aginst the Japanese, especially the 'Zero', one had to have an altitude and attitude advantage. I thought the Buffalo was a delight to fly. A beautiful aircraft but a bit underpowered. The 'Zeros' were too fast and they could turn inside of us. If you wanted to dogfight them, you simply committed suicide.
Being young and and somewhat foolhardy, I still had aspirations of growing old back in New Zealand. When we saw a flight of Japanese fighters coming in, we climbed as high as we could above them. As they drew closer, we pushed the old Buffalo over, throttles to the stops and went screaming down, firing through them. We were always outnumbered, which to me was an advantage as I had more targets to pick from. On February 1, 1942, it was no different. I already had five victories against various Japanese aircraft. Little did in know that this woud be my last fight in the Buffalo.

Pushing the nose over and picking up speed, I hurtled myself at the swarm of 'Zeros' below. I picked one out and gave him a three-second burst. With no protective armour, it burst into flames and cartwheeled down.
Two of his friends latched into me and as I tried to shake them, I got a bit of a cannon shell in the leg and a bullet into my arm. The Buffalo was chewed to pieces as I dove for the deck. My undecarriage was shot out. My engine was coughing and smoking as my prop stopped. I managed to bring it in to Kallang, and crash-landed in there. In the process, I busted up my knee, but other than that I was all right.

In late 1943, the injuries that I received in Singapore began to catch up my body. Reluctantly, I was invalided out of the war and returned to New Zealand. I picked up where I left off, working as a shepherd on one of my family's stations."

Geoff Fisken - Telegraph

 

[GregP]

Well, I debated with maturity for maybe 20 posts and them just lost patience. Mea Culpa and abject apologies. You can't argue with an evangelist; he has God on his side.

The Buffalo is in the basement according to ME, but not you, and that's OK ... OK? Let it go ...

None of the Navy pilots I ever spoke with flew Buffalos, but several flew against them in mock combat and universally said they were "meat on the table." Good enough for me, even if not for you. I have not run across even ONE former Navy pilot who thought the Buffalo was anyyhing but an abject failure. Accordingly, I feel the same way, with a LOT of heresay to back me up.

Perhaps you can tell ME about the pilots who loved the Buffalo, had COMBAT experience both the Buffalo as well as other aircraft and STILL said the Buffalo was a good plane.

That might be interesting.

 

[nuuumannn]

Perhaps you can tell ME about the pilots who loved the Buffalo, had COMBAT experience both the Buffalo as well as other aircraft and STILL said the Buffalo was a good plane.

Geoff Fisken, the highest scoring Commonwealth ace in the Pacific. There's one. The following is from wiki and for once comes from creditable sources. All of these kills were whilst flying the Buffalo over Singapore.

"On 16 December, Fisken claimed a victory over a Zero. A fortnight later, on 29 December, he claimed two unidentified Japanese bombers. On 12 January 1942, Fisken claimed a Ki-27. He claimed a Mitsubishi Zero two days later on 14 January, being lucky to land after being caught in the explosion of the Japanese plane. On 17 January, he shot down, or assisted in the destruction of, three Mitsubishi G3M bombers, and four days later brought down another fighter.

By this time, 243 Squadron had lost the majority of its pilots and virtually all its aircraft. As a result it was merged with the Australian No. 453 Squadron RAAF, which continued to operate, along with No. 488 Squadron RNZAF. Fisken claimed another fighter on 1 February. Five days later, he was "bounced" by two Japanese fighters. He nevertheless shot one down, but only narrowly escaped the other, being injured in the arm and leg by a cannon shell before the dogfight ended. He was evacuated to New Zealand shortly before Singapore fell."

Thanks Juha, for bringing him up.

 

[GregP]

OK, there's ONE.

I think there are maybe about 7,000+ F4F pilots who can testify to their mount's abilities. How many are still alive is another story. Advantage Wildcat by a LARGE margin.

Basement, the Finns notwithstanding, but just my opinion. Yours may vary, like your EPA mileage estimate of your new car.

If the only worse-performing fighter was the F3F, you HAVE your worst-performing monoplane; the Buffalo.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Still waiting to hear what facts/data that I had previously posted were incorrect.

Spent a few minutes getting this together:
But since you asked here are a few:

Flt Sgt Vic Bargh, Brewster Buffalo pilot
Willie and I tried them out, the Hurricane versus the Buffalo. The Buffalo wasn't so bad.
Interview with Dan Ford in 1995

As a followup to this:
"(339E) A 1942 mock fight between a Buffalo and a Hurricane showed the former as inferior below 16000 feet, equal at 16000 feet, and superior to the British aircraft at 20000 feet and above"
America's Hundred-Thousand by Francis Dean, page 465

Gordon Firebaugh, former Naval Aircraft Pilot with VF-2, later Captain USN"The Brewster fighter handled like a sports car – "a real dinger," in Captain Firebaugh's opinion. By comparison, the Grumman Wildcat seemed to fly like a pickup truck."
Air Space magazine, "The Sorry Saga of the Brewster Buffalo," published in 1996.

Pappy Boyington
"But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other ****, they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little f**ks could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah--sweet little ship; but some engineer went and f****d it up."
Interview with Rick West Ford in 1977

I can post more if needed.

 

[nuuumannn]

C.V. (Vic) Bargh was a New Zealander who flew with 67 Sqn RAF and 488 (NZ) Sqn RAF over Singapore.

That Boyington quote certainly stands out!

British test pilot (the infamous) Eric Brown had this to say about the Brewster B-339B:

"In normal cruise at 160 mph the aircraft was longitudinally unstable, laterally neutral stable, and directionally positively stable. Maximum speed was 290 mph at 16,500 ft. and the service ceiling was only 25,000 ft. Not very impressive performance. However, it was a different story when it came to handling, for the ailerons were highly effective throughout the speed range, the elevators almost equally so, and the rudder very good too."

"My feeling after flying the Buffalo was one of elation tinged with disappointment. It was a true anomaly of an aeroplane with delightful manoeuvrability but poor fighter performance. Indeed above 10,000 ft. it was labouring badly."

 

[Njaco]

You guys who are Buffalo fans, name me a US contemporary Naval fighter type with worse performance. Donl;t even say the Grumman F4F. Its reputation is well established.

I'm sure there might be some and then again not. I like the Buffalo not because of any performance stats or airworthiness - its just because I do. I like the underdog, the "Rocky" of the air, the Little Plane that Could. Yeah its ugly as hell, has no grace and a design only a beermiester could love but I love how , despite its failure in every other Air Force, the Finns use it to great advantage.

I just like it. no reason.