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

FLYBOYJ said:

VMF-211 could have been in Wildcats, I doubt the outcome would have been much better.

Click to expand...

But if you look at the details of the Midway combat, which involved both F2A-3's and F4F-3's, the latter did do better. The Marines were officially credited with 4 Zeroes, 3 by F4F's v 2 F4F's lost. The actual Japanse loss/damage for Zeroes was: PO1C Ito from Kaga missing and probably shot down by VMF-221, PO1C Iwami of Akagi missing but Japanese and US accounts and recovery of the wreck showed the a/c downed by AA, PO1C Tanaka regained Kaga but died of his wounds, PO1C Kikuchi regained Akagi with 30 holes in his a/c; another Zero was hit once. So taking a 'soda straw' view of just the F4F participation, not so bad, by the usual standard of Zero success against Allied fighters in the first half of 1942. I hasten to add that some element of this apparent difference in success even in this same combat could have been just the luck of the draw, but still there it is.

Marion Carl was flying one of the F4F's, and was credited with one of the Zeroes claimed, which I think might be relevant to the statement attributed to him above saying F2A wasn't so bad. The official reports of 221 were not complimentary to the F2A-3. This page gives lots of detail from US side including such reports:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/midwayx.htm

I have to agree with GregP the Buffalo was viewed by the USN and USMC as the worst of their WWII fighters as a combat airplane (if we're talking USN/USMC 'WWII' starts 12/7/41; F3F is a pre-war a/c in that context). Statements about the joy of flying stripped down versions of particular planes, or how they were 'ruined' with combat equipment weight make me wonder. Sure it's important to realize whether combat modifications had a little or not so little impact on performance. But the additions were for valid combat reasons. If not, they could have been stripped back off, at least to some degree. So, yes the F4F-4 had lower aerodynamic performance than F4F-3, but rating the -4 inferior to -3 simply on this basis raises a question in my mind what people are really talking about in terms of 'better' or 'worse'. And it seems in general that the F4F/FM in various versions had a way of being a more effective *fighter combat a/c* than it appeared on paper or how lovable it might have been to peacetime pilots.

That said, the counterpoint to GregP is also correct that 'worst' for Buffalo in USN/USMC means second place to a single roughly contemporary competitor: the F4F. It doesn't mean 10th out of 10. The Buffalo also had a poor combat record v Japanese fighters in RAF/Dutch service, but so did the Hurricane and minor Dutch types (Hawk 75, CW Demon) flown by same air arms v same opposition. P-40's flown by AVG did noticeably better than Buffalo and Hurricane facing the same Japanese Army fighter units, but that's not the same air arm; P-40's flown by USAAC didn't do well v Japanese Navy fighter units in same early months of the war. Anyway, the Buffalo's record in RAF/KNIL doesn't IMO support an argument that it was as good as the F4F afterall, but OTOH it doesn't strongly support an argument for a bigger and broader 'worst' sign to be hung on the Buffalo either. But I think it's pretty easy to support the assertion that the USN and USMC *viewed* the Buffalo as the second best of two, and therefore worst, *combat fighter a/c* available to them early in WWII, as a general consensus.

Joe

JoeB said:

But if you look at the details of this combat, which involved both F2A-3's and F4F-3's, the latter did do better. The Marines were officially credited with 4 Zeroes, 3 by F4F's, v PO1C Ito from Kaga missing and probably shot down by VMF-221, PO1C Iwami of Akagi missing but Japanese and US accounts and recovery of the wreck showed the a/c downed by AA, PO1C Tanaka regained Kaga but died of his wounds, PO1C Kikuchi regained Akagi with 30 holes in his a/c; another Zero was hit once. So taking a 'soda straw' view of just the F4F participation, not so bad, by the usual standard of Zero success against Allied fighters in the first half of 1942. I hasten to say that some element of this apparent difference in success even in this same combat could have been just the luck of the draw, but still there it is.

Click to expand...

Point made - but also consider the experience level of the pilots (or I should say the lucky ones) who flew the 7 F4Fs at Midway in lieu of the Buffaloes. I don't think any of the "greener" pilots were flying the F4Fs. Info?

GregP said:

Well guys, so far I have a lot of Buffalo defenders, but no list of possible US naval monoplane fighters worse than the Buffalo. The Seamew isn't a fighter and prototypes listed a few pages above were just that; prototypes not selected for production. So, again, O'm wondering if tehre is another candidate ... and I see the answer is most probably no. Becasue it is the worst doesn't mean it was useless; it means the others were better, that's all.

Therefore I nominate the Brewster Buffalo as the worst US naval monoplane fighter at the start of WWII that was designed from 1936 forward.

I picked 1936 because the Messerschmitt Me 109, which is a very strong candidate for the best piston fighter ever by virtue of its combat record alone, hails from that time. If Willy could do it, then who ELSE could do it? I chose US just for the heck of it, but this opens the plate for the worst 1936 and forward monplane fighter of WWII regardless of nationality.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to call a violation on this Greg. If the criteria is a naval design, after 1936, monoplane and operational (not a prototype) at the start of WWII then I don't think you can use the Bf 109. It wasn't designed as a naval a/c and was developed in 1935 - first flight Sept 1935.

Your turn.

From this site...

http://www.warbirdforum.com/midwayx.htm

The following is number of listing of the personnel and the aircraft of VMF-221, that participated in aerial combat in the defense of Midway Island on the morning of June 4th, 1942.

FIRST DIVISION (F2A-3)



Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status
MF-1 01518 Maj. Floyd B. Parks USMC MIA
MF-2 01548 2Lt. Eugene P. Madole USMCR MIA
MF-3 01525 Capt. John R. Alvord USMC MIA
MF-4 01537 2Lt. John M. Butler USMCR MIA
MF-5 01569 2Lt. David W. Pinkerton Jr. USMCR MIA
MF-6 01552 2Lt. Charles S. Hughes USMCR Did not engage,
Turned back due
Engine problems


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND DIVISION (F2A-3)

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status
MF-7 01552? Capt. Daniel J. Hennessey USMC MIA
MF-8 01541 2Lt. Ellwood Q. Lindsay USMCR MIA
MF-9 01524 Capt. Herbert T. Merrill USMC Bailed out WIA
MF-10 01528 2Lt. Thomas W. Benson USMCR MIA
MF-11 01568 Capt. Phillip R. White USMC Survived
MF-12 01542 2Lt. John D. Lucas USMCR MIA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD DIVISION (F2A-3)

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status
MF-13 01562 Capt. Kirk Armistead USMC Survived
MF-14 01563 2Lt. William B. Sandoval USMCR MIA
MF-15 01553 Capt. William C. Humberd USMC Survived
MF-16 01523 2Lt. Williams V. Brooks USMCR WIA
MF-17 01521 2Lt. Charles M .Kunz USMCR WIA
MF-18 01559 2Lt. Martin E. Mahannah USMCR KIA (his body washed
up later)
23 (F4F-3) 3989 2Lt. Walter W. Swansberger USMCR MIA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOURTH DIVISION (F2A-3)

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status
MF-19 01520 Capt. Robert E. Curtin USMC MIA
MF-20 01550 2Lt. Darrell D. Irwin USMCR Survived


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIFTH DIVISION (F4F-3)

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status
22 4008 Capt. John F. Carey USMC WIA
24 4000 Capt. Marion E. Carl USMC Survived
25 3997 2Lt. Clayton M. Canfield USMCR Survived
26 4006 Capt. Francis P. McCarthy USMC MIA
27 2532 2Lt. Roy A. Corry USMC Survived
28 1864 2Lt.Hyde Phillips USMCR Did not engage;
a/c out of order.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Losses for June 4th, 1942 for VMF-221:
Aircraft: 12 F2A-3, 2 F4F-3
Pilots: 13 MIA, 1 KIA, 4 WIA 4

Count the 2Lts (who I would assume to be the "greener" of the listed pilots) who were killed or wounded. There was one flying an F4F in the 3rd division MIA (KIA). Again you can slice these small numbers but I don't think an entire F4F VMF-221 would have been a big game changer.

Not to take anything away from the unit, VMF-221 when on to be the 2nd highest scoring Marine Fighter Squadron in WW2.

From Wiki;

Marine Fighting Squadron 221 (VMF-221) was a fighter squadron of the United States Marine Corps in World War II. During the war, they flew the Brewster F2A-3 and, after reconstitution in 1943, the F4U Corsair. The squadron, also known as the "Fighting Falcons," is most notable for its actions on June 4, 1942 during the Battle of Midway, which resulted in 23 members of the squadron, many posthumously, being awarded the Navy Cross for their actions in combat. VMF-221 ended WWII with 185 air to air victories, the second most of any Marine Fighting Squadron in the war.

GregP said:

The only praise I have ever heard for teh Buffalo it is in here. None of the presenters at any WWII fighter symposiums I have attended have had one good thing to say about the Buiffalo. I decline to rewrite history's view of the Buffalo ...

Click to expand...

As we have seen, there exists ample literature and personal testimony that praises the qualities of the F2A-1 and -2, which includes a very successful combat career for the former and endorsements by combat veterans for the latter. But, as stated before, it really doesn't seem fair to subsume either of them with the name Buffalo given to the export Brewster fighter by the British and its ill fated USN brethren developed from these two progenitors. The USN entered the war with the F2A-3 and that aircraft, for a variety of reasons (including manufacturer deficiencies) proved to be a turkey. The F2A-1 went to the Finns as the B-239 and the F2A-2 never saw combat and AFAIK was not in front line service at the time of PH so neither is a contender in worst USN fighter of WW2 sweepstakes.

JoeB said:

I have to agree with GregP the Buffalo was viewed by the USN and USMC as the worst of their WWII fighters as a combat airplane (if we're talking USN/USMC 'WWII' starts 12/7/41; F3F is a pre-war a/c in that context). Statements about the joy of flying stripped down versions of particular planes, or how they were 'ruined' with combat equipment weight make me wonder.

That said, the counterpoint to GregP is also correct that 'worst' for Buffalo in USN/USMC means second place to a single roughly contemporary competitor: the F4F. It doesn't mean 10th out of 10. The Buffalo also had a poor combat record v Japanese fighters in RAF/Dutch service, but so did the Hurricane and minor Dutch types (Hawk 75, CW Demon) flown by same air arms v same opposition. P-40's flown by AVG did noticeably better than Buffalo and Hurricane facing the same Japanese Army fighter units, but that's not the same air arm; P-40's flown by USAAC didn't do well v Japanese Navy fighter units in same early months of the war. Anyway, the Buffalo's record in RAF/KNIL doesn't IMO support an argument that it was as good as the F4F afterall, but OTOH it doesn't strongly support an argument for a bigger and broader 'worst' sign to be hung on the Buffalo either. But I think it's pretty easy to support the assertion that the USN and USMC *viewed* the Buffalo as the second best of two, and therefore worst, *combat fighter a/c* available to them early in WWII, as a general consensus.

Joe

Click to expand...

The F2A-1 and F2A-2 were not stripped down aircraft. They were delivered as combat ready aircraft (albeit to a prewar, unblooded USN) The Finns took the F2A-1 and, with minor modifications turned it into a winner, through 1944 or the bulk of WW2. Good points otherwise...

Any comparison of the the AVG with the USAAC should note that the former were flying the P-40B, which, similar to the fate of the F2A-2 and F4F-3, wasn't yet loaded with among other items, the additional weight of replacing the B's four 30's with the heavier four 50's) that gave it a lower ceiling and slower climb rate than its "more advanced" P-40E flown by USAAC pilots at the start of WW2. It looks like the loaded B was about 1,000 pounds lighter than the E. Story in Brautsch's Doomed at the Start: early in the campaign, experienced pilot, 1st Lt John Brownewell, along with other gear, pulls four of his 50's out of his P-40E while he is tasked flying recce flights out of Del Monte field. Despite the CG issues, Brownewell reports it seems to perform far better than before. Later a rookie, unfamiliar with its handling quirks is killed in the ship on a routine local flight.

Some further commentary:

1. The F2A-3 wasn't only weighed down with additional operational equipment (ie armour plate and self-sealing fuel tanks) - it also had extra fuel and oil tanks and carried more ammunition per its intended role as a long-range patrol fighter. At Midway, it was expected to perform the role of interceptor.

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).

3. VMF-221 was using outdated divisional tactics and were committed largely piecemeal to the fight.

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 (indeed, one could argue that the first pass against the bombers was accomplished quite effectively). The Zeros, operating above the bombers, were able to engage the VMF-221 aircraft at an altitude advantage (per Bader "he who holds the height controls the battle"). I cannot imagine the bravery of the VMF-221 pilots who knew they had to hit the bombers but also recognised that a sizeable formation of Japanese fighters was about to engage them.

6. The Commonwealth squadrons operating in the Far East also used inappropriate tactics. They continued to use 3-ship vic formations which were unwieldy and prevented the implementation of effective countermeasures against the more nimble Japanese fighters.

Undoubtedly the F4F-3 was a better performer than the F2A-3 but the 2 aircraft were supposed to fulfill different roles, the latter being intended as a long-range patrol fighter. That the 2 types ended up on the same squadron says much about the hand-me-down nature of the USMC's equipment provision. The performance gap between the F2A-3 and the F4F-4 was less pronounced, indeed per Marion Carl's comments the two were broadly equivalent in terms of general combat performance. 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.

AFAIK, the F4F-3 that went to war from December 7, 1941 onward was equipped with both armor and self sealing tanks. IIUC, a widely reported early problem with the -3 were fuel contamination from the tank liners. I believe a number of F4F-3 were lost at sea before and after December 7. I think that is also true for the F2A-3, I believe it was armored, although, as others have stated here, some of its fuel tanks remained unprotected.

I believe most of the weight problem with the F4F-4 was due to its wing-fold hardware and the addition of two HMGs.

DO you have source for the intended role of the F2A-3 as a long range patrol fighter?

IF "America's Hundred Thousand" is correct the extra fuel capacity was rarely used. If the plane's fuel filler for the port fuel tank was sealed off and stenciled "Not to be filled except on the special authority of Commanding Officer." it would seem that for routine flying the fuel capacity was the same 160 gallons as the earlier planes. With 5 fuel tanks available one would think that the fuel load was adjusted to the mission at hand (of the day?) and if the Mission was defend a fixed base and intercept incoming bombers then an overload of 240 gallons was not needed, especially if flying in company with F4F-3s which had a fuel capacity of 160 gallons unprotected and 147 gallons protected. The book claims that the F4F series only gained drop tanks with the -4 model.

The "extra" fuel tanks in the F2A-3 were to restore fuel capacity with protected tanks due the difficulty of fitting the existing tanks with the type of protection the US wanted to use.

oldcrowcv63 said:

I believe most of the weight problem with the F4F-4 was due to its wing-fold hardware and the addition of two HMGs.

Click to expand...

That was a large part but "general" weight gain played a part. 40lbs of engine section, 30lbs in the fuel section, almost 50lbs in "surface controls"?, 13lbs of furnishings and equipment and a few more pounds in instruments and controls? (not counting a few pounds here and there that might be just variation from plane to plane). of course the deletion of 90lbs worth of flotation gear at some point helped. another 4lbs of "pyrotechnics" and perhaps another 30lbs of com/nav gear?

A "fully" loaded F4F-3 could go 7543lbs (4 guns full ammo, full internal fuel, no bombs) while an F4F-4 could go 7972lbs ( 6guns, full ammo, full internal fuel, no bombs) IF the numbers in "AHT" are correct ( and there may be a few typos in the the F4F-4 weight charts?) that is only about a 430lb weight gain if we are comparing apples to apples. The Navy seems to have played a lot games with weight charts and giving performance figures for planes with part fuel and part weapons load (including stripping a plane to just TWO guns when carrying bombs) so we have to be sure we are comparing like to like to like with the performance numbers.

Shortround6 said:

DO you have source for the intended role of the F2A-3 as a long range patrol fighter?

Click to expand...

Jim Maas's "In Action" book on the Buffalo states "The increased fuel capacity dramatically raised both the endurance and range of the F2A-3. The additional 80 gallons gave the F2A-3 a maximum range of 1,680 miles - approximately 13 hours of flying time. A number of F2A-3 pilots reported routinely flying 5 or 6 hour patrols. It is believed the Navy intended to use the F2A-3 to maintain standing patrols at considerable distances from the carrier however the advent of shipborne radar made the need for long range standing patrols unnecessary." I've known Jim for many years and there is no more knowledgeable person when it comes to Brewster Aeronautical.

Since the F2A-3s were new-build aircraft, there was no issue with retro-fitting self-sealing tanks as you seem to indicate. The RAF Buffalos were also fitted with a form of self-sealing fuel tank so I think your final comment is dubious at best. Irrespective, the lengthened fuselage, extra tankage (whether empty or full), self-sealing fuel tanks, armour plate and additional ammunition all increased the weight of the aircraft.

I'll answer you Njaco,

My own time of interest starts about 1936 or so and includes the second world war onward. The Bf / Me 109 is one of the all time WWII greats and it occurred to me that f Willy Messerschmitt could design a plane relevant all the way through WWII, theh maybe others could, too. We all KNOW Reginals Mitchell did. Incidentally, the first flight was in May 1935, but service introdutction was 1937. So it falls into my timeline of 1936 onwards becasue no Me 109 saw Luftwaffwe service until after the start of 1936.

So, I posted inquiring as to what was the worst monoplane fighter of WWII, and expected to hear a chorus of "Buffalo." I didn't, and it was and IS surprising. It evolved into US because I really didn't expect to include low-production European types, I was and am looking for the planes that were accepted into service and produced and FOUGHT in WWII as WWII designs and not carry-overs from the early 1930's, such as the P-26, which although it DID participate in WWII, was NOT a WWII design and was withdrawn quickly.

Yet, when I asked for lists of same, I got a lot of prototypes that never made production, which were specifically eliminated earlier in the requirements for the thread topic.

So, yes, I know the Me 109 was not Naval. But the thread evolved into Naval since the Buffalo, my prime nominee, was Naval. I didn't realluy want to narrow it, but allowed it because I intended to expand the worst to include other types, too. It was pointted out that while the Buffalo was probably the worst US type, there were other types from other nations that were worse. Not wanting to be perceived as a "bash Eruope" type of American, and not being one in fact, I thought I'd first find the worst US monoplane fighter and then expand to include worst overall monoplane fighter. Then I'd probably ask for the worst light, medium, and heavy bomber, worst Naval torpedo bomber, etc.

So far, all I get is arguments about the Buffalo's GOOD points, which, as I stated, no single WWII fighter pilot I have spoken with supports, and that includes this past Saturday. We had 5 WWII pilots make a presentation on long range Pacific escort, and I got to speak to 3 of them. Keeping this thread in mind, I asked all 3 about the Buffalo. None had flown it; one had flown against it in mock combat, and all 3 said it was abysmal for combat though fun to fly for sport and aerobatics. That comes from the people who were contemprary with the Buffalo.

Not to be argumentative, but none of the assertions put forth in about the Buffalo here has ever been supported by any WWII combat pilot I have spoken with ... which now amounts to about 8 or 9 that have actually talked about the Buffalo at all.

So, although it mat appear to change, I am really seeking the worst WWII monoplane fighter in military service in about 1940 - 1941, 1942 - 1943, and 1944 - 1945. I just didn't geta round to it since everyone is staunchly defending the Buffalo. If it was so good, why didn't we fight with it for more than a battle or two? I can't say and am really not interested in extenuating circumstance, just results, and the Buffalo, except for the Finish service experience, was awful. Hurray for the Fins!

If the Buffalo fans continue, I may never GET to the worst 1944 - 1945 fighter ... but I intend to do so.

1. Worst WWII fighter 1940 - 1941, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
2. Worst WWII fighter 1942 - 1943, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
3. Worst WWII fighter 1944 - 1945, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
4. Worst WWII light bomber 1940 - 1941, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
5. Worst WWII light bomber 1942 - 1943, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
6. Worst WWII light bomber 1944 - 1945, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
7. Worst WWII medium bomber 1940 - 1941, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
8. Worst WWII medium bomber 1942 - 1943, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
9. Worst WWII medium bomber 1944 - 1945, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
10. Worst WWII heavy bomber 1940 - 1941, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
11. Worst WWII heavy bomber 1942 - 1943, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
12. Worst WWII heavy bomber 1944 - 1945, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.

This could go on to torpedo bomber, reconaissance, observation, liaison, dive bomber, etc.

Since we have had a lot of threads of "best of," I just wanted to start a series of "worst of." That's all, but they must be planes in actual service, not prototypes. So forget the Natter, it was a passing protoype fancy that was much more deadly to German test pilots than Allied aircrew. Forget the Me 264; never made it into service. Forget the BV238; never made it into service ... etc.

I'm sure the Fairely Battle and the AW Whitely might show up somewhere. So will the P-39, Mitsubish G4M, etc. Maybe the Morane Salunier MS.406, who can say?

So, this is now a "general Worst Of" thread. Pick a category and sling the mud!

For worst Torpedo Bomber, I nominate the Douglas Devastator. They only made 130, but that shows production. For worst medium bomber I WOULD nominate the LWS-6 / PZL-30 Zubr except they only built 17 before they realized the airframe life was used up in just about 1 flight! So, although very deserving of a "Worst Of" title, it doesn't make the grade to be considered as a "Worst Of" champion. I suppose we COULD come up with a "Worst Of" as long as at least ONE was built ... if we did THAT, the Zubr would be a viable champion, and probably a number one seed in the medium bomber class.

Hopefully, that clears up the intent of the thread? If not, I withdraw the poll! The intent is humorous, but also a real look for the worst of the war at different times.

For worst-looking naval aircraft, the Fairey Barracuda is a strong contender. When the wives of Barracude pilots found out what their husbands were flying, they divorced them rather than face the neighbors ... OK, run with it!

Well stated! I hope that maybe we have shed some light on the flying pork barrel. Don't get me wrong: It was not great, good or even mediocre. But as for worst I guess we disagree.

As far as worst looking Naval aircraft, I would go with the Vultee Vengeanace. Ugghhh!!!

GregP said:

So far, all I get is arguments about the Buffalo's GOOD points, which, as I stated, no single WWII fighter pilot I have spoken with supports, and that includes this past Saturday. We had 5 WWII pilots make a presentation on long range Pacific escort, and I got to speak to 3 of them. Keeping this thread in mind, I asked all 3 about the Buffalo. None had flown it; one had flown against it in mock combat, and all 3 said it was abysmal for combat though fun to fly for sport and aerobatics. That comes from the people who were contemprary with the Buffalo.

Not to be argumentative, but none of the assertions put forth in about the Buffalo here has ever been supported by any WWII combat pilot I have spoken with ... which now amounts to about 8 or 9 that have actually talked about the Buffalo at all.

Click to expand...

Greg,

I'll see your "8 or 9 pilots that have actually talked about the Buffalo" and raise you 25 pilots I've met, spoken to or with whom I've corresponded who flew it in combat (including 3 Midway veterans), and a further 6 who flew it in non-combat situations. We can add to this the written and oral accounts of former Buffalo pilots I've accessed from books, magazines and museum archives which easily puts the figure of combat-veteran views over the 30 mark. None of them hated the Buffalo and many had considerable affection for the aircraft. None would claim it was a particularly good aircraft but all accepted that, for the most part, it was thrown into combat under extremely disadvantageous conditions. From the USN and USMC veterans the general consensus was that the F2A-2 was far preferable to the F2A-3 and many considered the -2 better even than the F4F.

Let's get past hearsay please...

Cheers,
Mark

Njaco said:

As far as worst looking Naval aircraft, I would go with the Vultee Vengeanace. Ugghhh!!!

Click to expand...

Err...the Vengeance was a USAAF aircraft.

"I asked all 3 about the Buffalo. None had flown it; one had flown against it in mock combat, and all 3 said it was abysmal for combat though fun to fly for sport and aerobatics." Interesting, if they had not flown it, how would they know? A couple of references from pilots who did fly the Brewster fighter, but I guess that since you have not talked to them personally they do not count, just like your dismissal of the sucess the Finns had with the plane while being fixated on one battle. A disastrous fight can be found for almost every fighter plane as can a success. Why not fixate on the following battle: In a major engagement above Semplak on 19 February 1942, eight Dutch Brewster fighters intercepted a formation of about 35 Japanese bombers with an escort of about 20 Zeros. The Brewster pilots destroyed 11 Japanese aircraft and lost four Brewsters; two Dutch pilots died.[33]

Captain Piet Tideman, commander of 3-Vl.G.V, gave in the recently published book "Buffaloes over Singapore" the following analysis of the Brewster fighter: "Coming to an evaluation of the Brewster fighter, especially compared to the Zero by which it was opposed - I think that my views are not directly in line with what is generally said about the Brewster. Generally it is said that that it was far inferior to the Zero. (.....) On the contrary, the Brewster was a good, sturdy, fast fighter with two half-inch armour-plates behind the seat. She would take a hell of a beating. My view is that our drawback during the fighter actions was not an inferior aeroplane, but that we had too few of them and also our armament was too little and too light.

"In 1992, I had the opportunity to speak with the late MGEN Marion Carl, who had flown one of the VMF-221 Wildcats at Midway, during which he scored his first victory. Later a famous ace in the bloody struggle for Guadalcanal, General Carl startled me by saying that -had the Marines at Midway had the understanding of proper tactics against the Japanese that he and others used over Guadalcanal - the outcome might have been far different. He went on to say that the difference between the F2A-3 Buffalo and the F4F-4 Wildcat performance-wise was not so much that if he had flown the F2A-3 at Guadalcanal using proper tactics, he believed he would have scored as he did in the Wildcat.

I was incorrect about the installation date for self-sealing tanks and armor on the F4F-3 and probably F2A-3. Acording to Don Linn, 11 December 1941 BuAer issued the change order to install these in the F4F-3 and 3A fighter aircraft. I assume that went for the F2A-3 as well. Apparently the dozen F4F-3s of VMF-211 delivered to Wake were not so equipped.

Buffnut, you go ahead and get past the heresay. I'll stay with it. They only built 509 and withdrew them RAPIDLY when they started the withdrawl. That speaks to me if not to you. Do you think they would have stopped with 509 P-51 Mustangs or 509 Spitfires or 509 Fw 190's? Maybe, but I think not. If you disagree, that's OK; we disagree. I never said the Buffalo was all bad, just that it was overall the worst US Naval fighter of the early war. Since it made production, it HAD to have some good points, no argument there. I simply think the others had MORE good points, even if the more good points were armament and ammunition ... or even fuel.

Njaco, the Vengeance WAS ugly ... at least to me. If it wasn't to you or whoever, then ... OK. One man's dog is another man's queen, and there is nothing wrong with that. Otherwise the dogs would never have lovers, and that would be a shame.

Hey, if you don't agree with my assertions or my lists, that's OK; make your own. I certainly do and will. You don't have to agree; it is just my opinion ... like yours. I don't want to fight about it and you won't change my mind. My own research does that, as I assume yours does. It's OK if we come to different conclusions.

I might think Rare Bear will CRUSH the competition this year at Reno but, considering the sate of its engine about now, it won't even compete! If we all thought the same, life WOULD be dull, huh?

Cheers to all, even Buffnut ... I like the P-26 (because we HAVE one and FLY it) and that puts me firmly in the minority of aviation people, too!

Ssnider, the Navy didn't agree with Marion Carl; they bought the Wildcat instead. Says SOMETHING, doesn't it? Marion Carl could be right, or the Navy could be right.

The Navy, using their choices, won the war in the Pacific, Marion Carl didn't by himself.

GregP said:

Ssnider, the Navy didn't agree with Marion Carl; they bought the Wildcat instead. Says SOMETHING, doesn't it? Marion Carl could be right, or the Navy could be right.

The Navy, using their choices, won the war in the Pacific, Marion Carl didn't by himself.

Click to expand...

Yup, says that the brewster plant was the worst in production. Gruman could deliver much faster.

Hello Greg
The 4 Brewster B-239 pilots I have met all liked it as a combat plane, namely
Pokela 2 kills while flying B-239 and 3 while flying Bf 109G
Lampi 5.5 kills while flying B-239 and 8 while flying Bf 109G
Järvi 11,5 kills while flying B-239 and 17 while flying Bf 109G
Juutilainen 2 kills while flying Fokker D.XXI, 34 kills while flying B-239 and 58 kills while flying Bf 109G
In fact I haven't heard on a FiAF pilot who didn't like the plane or who had considered it a bad fighter in 1941-42. In 1944 the weary B-239s were clearly underdogs against newer fighters, but so would have been old F4F-3s or Spifire Mk Ias or Bf 109E-3s, in fact all in 39 built fighters constantly flown would have been underdogs in 44 enviroment.

Juha

Greg,

You made a number of assertions and I was simply trying to offer alternative interpretations based on my research. I'm simply trying to share some knowledge that many don't know about. About 15 years ago, I read "Bloody Shambles" starting from the position that the Buffalo was an abject failure and was shot down in droves. That book made me ponder the accuracy of my "knowledge" because it was pretty clear that relatively few Buffalos were actually shot down in combat and so I started to look into the aircraft's reputation. I have no problem with other people's opinions but it's usually more productive if they are based on reasoned knowledge and sometimes, as I did, it's appropriate to reconsider our opinions. If you're happy continuing to spout misinformation citing, as sources, people who had no real dealings with the aircraft then crack on. That's fine so long as we all understand your position and can counter it reasonably...which is all I've tried to do.

I think the Marion Carl jibe is a bit silly - he was a fantastic pilot and a true gentleman but, more importantly, we've also shown that there were several other pilots who quite liked the Buffalo. As for the USN, they went with a company that was able to deliver, Grumman (again, when the USN wanted a fighter it went to Grumman...that was the case right through to the F-14), not the bunch of crooks that led Brewster. However, that doesn't mean the F2A was a bad design, indeed for its time it was literally revolutionary. For the record, the Wildcat didn't win the war in the Pacific either and was replaced as soon as possible by a couple of aircraft that continued service for a decade - that says something about the generational differences between aircraft designed in the mid/late 1930s and those designed post-1940.