- Thread starter
- #101
Brewster F2A-4 Buffalo, the worst US fighter that fought in WW2?
- Thread starter oldcrowcv63
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hello A4K
I came across some photos on Buffaloes in Malaya, at the bottom of the page:
1941 | 2536 | Flight Archive
Juha
I came across some photos on Buffaloes in Malaya, at the bottom of the page:
1941 | 2536 | Flight Archive
Juha
Not nearly unflattering enough
Good page Juha - the photos were taken by a chap called Carl Mydans for Life magazine originally although they were published in Flight in this instance and were taken at Seletar. The last pic of the line up might have been taken at Kallang. The majority of these aircraft served with 67, 263 and 488 (NZ) Sqns.
GregP
Major
Old Crow,
Actually, I'm eating Buffalo jerky right now and enjoying it.
Loved the drawing of the Buffair or the Corsalo. Glad they didn't acutally think of it in WWII, or we might be building models of them now. Its bad enough reading about them without seeing one on my bookshelf!
Actually, I'm eating Buffalo jerky right now and enjoying it.
Loved the drawing of the Buffair or the Corsalo. Glad they didn't acutally think of it in WWII, or we might be building models of them now. Its bad enough reading about them without seeing one on my bookshelf!
A4K
Brigadier General
Damn, can't see the page yet...acrobat reader crashed when tried to open it. Thanks in advance though Juha!
Evan
Evan
You could've put it on your mantle next to the P-26 Peashooter
- Thread starter
- #107
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Brewster thought of it, but evidently more highly than did BuAer. Fortunately the USN chose not to build it. From 1941 to wars end, I am sure Brewster could have managed to push maybe a dozen of these war winners out the factory door. On the other hand, imagine Corsalo replacing all 735 of Brewster built Corsairs?
I am sure the RN FAA woild have endorsed the exchange of the 430 they received!
Last edited:
Hello nuuumannn
thanks for the extra info on the photos. I think that I have seen the first and the last before but the erection photos are probably new to me, I have seen a couple photos on assembly of F2As but IIRC correctly the planes were A-3s or -339Ds.
Juha
thanks for the extra info on the photos. I think that I have seen the first and the last before but the erection photos are probably new to me, I have seen a couple photos on assembly of F2As but IIRC correctly the planes were A-3s or -339Ds.
Juha
GregP
Major
Hi gis 238,
The Peashooter is one I like. It is probably because we have one that is flyable and it flies about every 3 - 4 years or so. If I hadn't been in the cockpit, I might never have noticed the Peashooter. Up close and personal changes that sometimes. From right in front you get a nice view of an R-1340 with cowl and 30-cal machine guns on each side.
We also have a Boeing FB-5 that recently completed restoration to static condition. I have ignored that plane for decades but, after being up close and personal and looking into the cockpit at the original instrument, I now think it is pretty neat, too. Ours spent most of its service life on the USS Langley, our first aircraft carrier!
So, one's favorites are sometimes tied to ones experiences. If you helped restore ... say ...a Buffalo, you might actually find it to be one of your favorites.
The Peashooter is one I like. It is probably because we have one that is flyable and it flies about every 3 - 4 years or so. If I hadn't been in the cockpit, I might never have noticed the Peashooter. Up close and personal changes that sometimes. From right in front you get a nice view of an R-1340 with cowl and 30-cal machine guns on each side.
We also have a Boeing FB-5 that recently completed restoration to static condition. I have ignored that plane for decades but, after being up close and personal and looking into the cockpit at the original instrument, I now think it is pretty neat, too. Ours spent most of its service life on the USS Langley, our first aircraft carrier!
So, one's favorites are sometimes tied to ones experiences. If you helped restore ... say ...a Buffalo, you might actually find it to be one of your favorites.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #110
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
(Hopefully my last post on the revolutionary wonderfulness (It's a word, I looked it up) of the F2A-1/B-239)
Relevant to the point that B-239 victories came at the start of the Continuation War (fought: 6/25/41 through 9/19/44) and were therefore scored against relatively poorly trained opponents while the capability of the aircraft diminsihed when confronted by more skiled opposition later in the war:
During the continuation war (the Finn piloted Buffalo B-239 was credited with the following victories:
1941: 145.5
1942: 191
1943: 135.5
1944: 23
If we normalize to victories per month
1941: ~24 victories/month
1942: ~16 victories/month
1943: ~11 victories/month
1944: ~ 2 victories/month
These numbers appear to provide some support for that position.
What I find interesting in the above numbers is that the decline was as slow as it evidently was.
However, interpretation of the talley is, as might be expected, more complicated when considered in detail:
The 1941 total includes 67, I-153 and 21, I-16, so nearly 60% of its total victories were over A/C types of an earlier generation, and might be expected to be easy meat for a more advanced aircraft flown by capable pilots. In 1942 this had shrunk to 17, I-153 and 37, I-16, or less than 30% of combat opponents were these older a/c. By 1943, B-239 victores over older types had diminshed to less than 10%. So, as has been stated eslewhere, it seems to me that as russian pilots became more skilled and flew more modern aircraft, the B-239 more than held its own. The original aircraft subsequently called the Buffalo could be called a reasonably 'successful fighter' design, unless one judges an aircraft primarily by its growth potential, which was for the Brewster admitedly very limited. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Brewster fighter's real problem were corporate and on the assembly line floor.
(Someone may want to check these numbers. Arithmetic has always been a challenge for me).
http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm
Relevant to the point that B-239 victories came at the start of the Continuation War (fought: 6/25/41 through 9/19/44) and were therefore scored against relatively poorly trained opponents while the capability of the aircraft diminsihed when confronted by more skiled opposition later in the war:
During the continuation war (the Finn piloted Buffalo B-239 was credited with the following victories:
1941: 145.5
1942: 191
1943: 135.5
1944: 23
If we normalize to victories per month
1941: ~24 victories/month
1942: ~16 victories/month
1943: ~11 victories/month
1944: ~ 2 victories/month
These numbers appear to provide some support for that position.
What I find interesting in the above numbers is that the decline was as slow as it evidently was.
However, interpretation of the talley is, as might be expected, more complicated when considered in detail:
The 1941 total includes 67, I-153 and 21, I-16, so nearly 60% of its total victories were over A/C types of an earlier generation, and might be expected to be easy meat for a more advanced aircraft flown by capable pilots. In 1942 this had shrunk to 17, I-153 and 37, I-16, or less than 30% of combat opponents were these older a/c. By 1943, B-239 victores over older types had diminshed to less than 10%. So, as has been stated eslewhere, it seems to me that as russian pilots became more skilled and flew more modern aircraft, the B-239 more than held its own. The original aircraft subsequently called the Buffalo could be called a reasonably 'successful fighter' design, unless one judges an aircraft primarily by its growth potential, which was for the Brewster admitedly very limited. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Brewster fighter's real problem were corporate and on the assembly line floor.
(Someone may want to check these numbers. Arithmetic has always been a challenge for me).
http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm
Last edited:
The information I have states the Finns only had 44 Brewster 239s, that's all they had. After the initial 44, I don't think they could have bought any more, they were on the wrong side.
By 1944 those 44 had to be reduced in number somewhat, and the ones left pretty tired, you can only re engine and rebuild any aircraft so much.
So the later in the war figures don't necessarily only reflect that the aircraft was less effective, but also that fewer were in action, and they might have been moved to less active sectors of the front.
By 1944 those 44 had to be reduced in number somewhat, and the ones left pretty tired, you can only re engine and rebuild any aircraft so much.
So the later in the war figures don't necessarily only reflect that the aircraft was less effective, but also that fewer were in action, and they might have been moved to less active sectors of the front.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #112
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Some time late in the war (IIRC late 43 - early 44 time frame), LeLv 24 exchanged their surviving B-239s for Bf-109s bought from Germany. The remaining Brewsters were handed off to LeLv 26 which I don't believe saw quite as much action as LeLv-24. The surviving number can probably be deduced form the website which also lists the fate of many (all?) of the Brewsters. Without looking at loss dates, it looks to me like about a dozen Brewsters survived the continuation war. It looks like many were damaged and restored to service after repair so I'd expect them to be pretty worn out. It would seem to show remarkable resilience (and of course amazing maintenance support) of so few airframes to have soldiered on for over 3 years.
http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm
http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
Late to the party - leading a scout camp and then without power for 6 days thanks to the storms in VA.
Anyhoo...I've corresponded with Marion Carl and met Bill Brooks both of whom survived the Midway carnage and had experience on both F2A and F4F aircraft. Both said that the F2A wasn't as bad as its reputation indicated - Carl is on record as stating that the Marines at Guadalcanal would have done just as well with F2As as they did with F4Fs. We should also remember that the F2A-3 was demanded by the USN because they wanted a long-range patrol fighter - if the -3 was crap then blame the USN requirements guys who asked for it (rather like the poor old Defiant).
From a Commonwealth perspective, the vast majority of Buffalos were lost in accidents or destroyed on the ground. With a few exceptions, the fighter-vs-fighter combats were generally undertaken at a tactical disadvantage due to lack of warning, and a number of Buffalos were lost due to return fire from bombers.
Now back to our normal programming....
Anyhoo...I've corresponded with Marion Carl and met Bill Brooks both of whom survived the Midway carnage and had experience on both F2A and F4F aircraft. Both said that the F2A wasn't as bad as its reputation indicated - Carl is on record as stating that the Marines at Guadalcanal would have done just as well with F2As as they did with F4Fs. We should also remember that the F2A-3 was demanded by the USN because they wanted a long-range patrol fighter - if the -3 was crap then blame the USN requirements guys who asked for it (rather like the poor old Defiant).
From a Commonwealth perspective, the vast majority of Buffalos were lost in accidents or destroyed on the ground. With a few exceptions, the fighter-vs-fighter combats were generally undertaken at a tactical disadvantage due to lack of warning, and a number of Buffalos were lost due to return fire from bombers.
Now back to our normal programming....
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #115
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
GregP
Major
Still the worst US-produced Naval monoplane fighter of the time ... unless you have another candidate?
We aleady know the Navy chose the Wildcat.
We aleady know the Navy chose the Wildcat.
Hello oldcrowcv63
LeLv. 26/HLeLv 26, H at the beginning means hävittäjä = fighter, had 18 BWs (B-239s) on 9 Jun 44
Juha
buffnut453
Captain
Depends on when you're talking. Prior to the F4F-3, then the F2A was actually the best US-produced naval monoplane fighter...it was the only one! The Wildcat was selected as much because Grumman could deliver where Brewster couldn't (and because, as we well know, Navy fighters are always produced by Grumman!
) than for any massive performance benefits it had over the F2A...and per my previous post, there are a few combat veterans who flew both that thought the performance of the 2 types was pretty similar. The F6F and F4U were a generation later and so hardly a fair comparison.- Thread starter
- #120
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Depends on when you're talking. Prior to the F4F-3, then the F2A was actually the best US-produced naval monoplane fighter...it was the only one! The Wildcat was selected as much because Grumman could deliver where Brewster couldn't (and because, as we well know, Navy fighters are always produced by Grumman!
You are wasting electrons Buffnut, Greg eats Brewtser Buffalo jerky and probably wears Brewster Buffalo pelts to the theater. He is insensitive to the plight of this endangered creature (Only one remaining of the species and that one soggy from neglect and its tenure at the bottom of a lake).
I would call the F2A-1 the best naval fighter in the world at the time of its introduction, recognizing that its tenure with the crown lasted only about 6 months.
The Recovery Of The Last Brewster Buffalo
Check out the landing gear! Still able to support the aircraft (sans engine) even after nearly a century of admitedly slow decay and disuse)
Attachments
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
