eBay: Brewster Buffalo

Just to get this back on track, here are a few more interesting Buffalo pics that came to light recently at the Australian War Memorial. They show a couple of 453 Sqn machines:


This is Buffalo W8210 'TD-Y' following a landing accident on 8 Oct 41.


This is a previously unseen pic of the famous line-up of 453 Sqn and 21 Sqn Buffalos at Sembawang on 19 Nov 41. Nearest aircraft is W8180 'TD-U'.

Hope these are of interest. The AWM reference numbers are at the bottom right corner of the image for those who wish to procure copies from the Museum.

One of my favorite photos of the F2A and perhaps one of the most unusual, is this F2A-1 of VF-3 at North Island NAS, California, 1940.

It's painted in an experimental camouflage, design 1. There is also a gun camera mounted to the starboard fuselage, just below the aerial mast.

Love that one as well Dave. Mike Grant, I believe a member here, and decal maker residing in Alberta, built a model of that...

He did an excellent job with that pattern!

I think it's 1/72 as well

Indeed it was. I talked to Mike about it when he brought it to the local show about 3 or 4 years ago. Mike specializes in the smaller scales and it's a very impressive build.

Groovy man!

By the way I fired off an email to Jim Maas, the author of Squadron Signal's Buffalo In Action, asking him if he had any pictures of the supposed pressurized version one-off. Let's hope he responds. Been about eight years since we last talked. Honestly, not even sure if he's alive.

Oh, Jim's still well and truly with us. Of that I'm sure.

GrauGeist said:

Perhaps one of the biggest problems the Allied pilots had, in dealing with the Japanese early on, is that they were trying to fight them with European tactics with aircraft that simply were not on a par with the Ki-43 and early A6M types and they faced a huge learning curve until newer, more agile types were introduced, that could counter the Japanese types' performance.

Until then, they learned to rely on their better armor and tactics like the "Thatch Weave" to survive.

Click to expand...

I would hardly call the heavier, faster planes the Allies fielded as the war progressed as "more agile". I think Erik Schilling said it best, though I can no longer find his quote, that the problem that the Allies faced going in was they were trying to use their aircraft the wrong way. They were trying to use a rifle like a club against a guy armed with a sword. Once they started using their planes properly, things improved.

Marcel said:

Most forget when discussing the merits an faults of the buffalo, the tactical situation they were in. I speak for the NEI as I know that situation best. The NEI area is the same size as the whole of Europe and was defended by around 80 buffalo's, part of which was used to help the British defend Singapore. So the line was very thin. There was no early warning to speak off. In such a situation, the attacker based on carriers has an enormeous advantage. He can strike where he wants and at the height wants, always having the height advantage. Even a very good aircraft would struggle in that situation. Hurricanes in the far East almost had a worse record than the buffalo while they could hold their ground during the BoB. Dutch pilots were not badly trained not inexperienced, maybe the commonwealth were, I don't know. The comparison with Finland is not fair as it is a totally different situation. And the Japanese were a much more formidable enemy than the USSR at that time.

Click to expand...

My comparison with Finland is, if anything, a defense of the Buffalo. Though not a capable aircraft, the defeat in SEA was not due to the shortcomings of the aircraft.

Jim, you referring to the F2A-4 project?

The F2A-3 (BuNo 01516) used for the project:

buffnut453 said:

Oh, Jim's still well and truly with us. Of that I'm sure.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... Are you, he?

Key thing to remember is that the Finns had the earliest version of the F2A, originally issued to the USN, equipped with only two guns and no armor plate or armored windshield. The F2A had only a 30 ft wingspan - the same as my Ercoupe - and when the later models added 2 more guns, armor, and in the case of the Dutch, armored windshields as well, the added weight had a telling effect on the airplane, especially in the high density altitude situations of the Pacific. The RAF in the Pacific even took the four .50 cal guns out and replaced them with .303 guns in order to reduce the weight, although if a Dutch Buffalo was shot up they would sometimes take the armored windshield off and put it on one of theirs.
If not for some real RN command stupidity, we might think differently of the Buffalo today. When the Prince of Wales and the Repulse headed out to intercept the Japanese invasion force headed for Malaya, the commander, Vice-Admiral Phillip, asked for RAF fighter cover. They expected battle location was so far out at sea that the RAF had to say they could not help. The commander must have put fighter cover out of his mind, because he never asked for any after the ships missed intercepting the invasion force and headed back to Singapore.
There were 4 squadrons of Buffalos in Malaya and the RAF allocated one squadron to give the ships fighter cover. But the commander of the force feared being DFed and held radio messages to a minimum even when he was well within range of the fighters.
The Nell and Betty bombers that attacked the ships had no fighter escort. The IJN did not think they needed any given that there was no aircraft carrier with the two ships. The Buffalos were none too great airplanes but 13 of them arriving while the Nells and Bettys were setting up their attacks could have been a rude shock to the IJN. As it was, the RAF launched the Buffalos when they heard a message from Phillips that enemy aircraft had been sighted but they got there just as the Prince of Wales was going down. The poor old Buffalo could have been known as the fighter that saved those ships and savaged the Japanese bombers if someone had given it even half a chance.
By the way, the first of the Eagle squadrons, 71, in Great Britain was equipped with the Buffalo, and the squadron commander ordered his pilots to land with the tail wheel unlocked, thereby ensuring a ground loop that would damage the airplane. After all the Buffalos were wrecked they were reequipped with Hurricanes.
And I would like to recommend an excellent book I just finished reading, "Bombers Versus Battleships."

I put Jim Maas's answer in the dedicated thread for the XF2A-4.

"Brewster Buffalo XF2A-4"

GrauGeist said:

Jim, you referring to the F2A-4 project?

The F2A-3 (BuNo 01516) used for the project:
View attachment 353791

Click to expand...

Perhaps. I don't know much about it at all?

MIflyer said:

Key thing to remember is that the Finns had the earliest version of the F2A, originally issued to the USN, equipped with only two guns and no armor plate or armored windshield. The F2A had only a 30 ft wingspan - the same as my Ercoupe - and when the later models added 2 more guns, armor, and in the case of the Dutch, armored windshields as well, the added weight had a telling effect on the airplane, especially in the high density altitude situations of the Pacific. The RAF in the Pacific even took the four .50 cal guns out and replaced them with .303 guns in order to reduce the weight, although if a Dutch Buffalo was shot up they would sometimes take the armored windshield off and put it on one of theirs.
."

Click to expand...

Wrong, FA2 Finnish version was installed in Finland, four 12.7 mm machine guns, and armored seat. The plane was despite the almost 400 kg lighter than the F2A3 (empty weight). No bullet-proof windscreen or rubber-coated tanks.
File:Brewster Model 239 (BW-372) front.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

On the left is the seat armor, which has been broken bullet hit

More pic... The World's Best Photos of bw372 and finland - Flickr Hive Mind

Yeah, my history seems a bit different than MIFlyer's. Also, the Dutch were the ones scrounging armo(u)red windscreens from RAF wrecks.
I will say it again, the Buffalo took it on the chin in SEA not because it was inferior to its opposition, one would be hard pressed to argue that a 330 mph fighter with armor and 4 x .50 caliber guns was inferior to the most numerous enemy fighter type, the sub 300 mph, fixed gear, twin rifle caliber armed Ki-27, that relied on the obsolete telescopic sight. But attitudes about it by the RAF command, especially those coming from BoB experience, coupled with low levels of training and experience in aircrew and maintenance, made it an easy scapegoat for the collapse in the East. Most people who flew the Buff and the Hurricane preferred the Buff.

Greg Boeser said:

...... When you quote kill ratios, are these based on claims or comparing actual losses?

Click to expand...

One of the numbers I have is 68 kills with 34 probable and the Dutch claimed 55 enemy aircraft destroyed. The Japanese claimed about 60 shot down and 40 destroyed on the ground of the RAF. The Dutch lost 30 in air combat and 15 on the ground. The Brewster RAF numbers come from the book "Buffaloes over Singapore", the Dutch/Japanese numbers come from "F2A Buffalo in action" and the Japanese/RAF numbers come from the web

Greg Boeser said:

Yeah, my history seems a bit different than MIFlyer's. Also, the Dutch were the ones scrounging armo(u)red windscreens from RAF wrecks.trtry
I will say it again, the Buffalo took it on the chin in SEA not because it was inferior to its opposition, one would be hard pressed to argue that a 330 mph fighter with armor and 4 x .50 caliber guns was inferior to the most numerous enemy fighter type, the sub 300 mph, fixed gear, twin rifle caliber armed Ki-27, that relied on the obsolete telescopic sight. But attitudes about it by the RAF command, especially those coming from BoB experience, coupled with low levels of training and experience in aircrew and maintenance, made it an easy scapegoat for the collapse in the East. Most people who flew the Buff and the Hurricane preferred the Buff.

Click to expand...

Excellent points. AHQFE wanted the Buffalo to be used primarily as a defensive asset but there was no organized ground control system, meaning the few available squadrons were used sub-optimally. Much effort was expended by 453 Sqn simply in ensuring a constant patrol over their own airfield because they didn't know if/when the Japanese would attack them. Keeping 2 aircraft in the air constantly over an airfield is a tremendous drain in resources that were already too few in number.

The situation was made far worse by Japanese numerical superiority. Front-line strength of Buffalo squadrons was 90 airframes at the outbreak of the fighting but even if all units operated in squadron-sized formations, they would scarcely get 60 aircraft in the air. The IJAAF had 59 Ki-43s and some 114 Ki-27s at the outbreak of the conflict.

Using the Ki-27s to defend shipping routes and forward airfields freed the two Ki-43 Sentai to conduct offensive counter air missions and, as the attacking force, had the freedom of deciding where and when to attack. By comparison, the RAF's Buffalos had to try and defend everywhere at once, including providing escort for resupply convoys coming into Singapore. With scarcely a full squadron complement in Malaya and no effective radar or ground control system, the odds were stacked against the smaller RAF force.

The biggest challenge the Japanese faced was lack of operational reserves - they had no ready mechanism to replace combat casualties. A more aggressive stance by AHQFE, employing Buffalos on airfield strafing missions, might have taken a greater toll of IJAAF air strength, and caused some real challenges for the invading forces and limiting their ability to achieve air superiority. Unfortunately, such thoughts never entered the minds of the AHQFE decision-makers and the rest is history. It's also highly questionable whether it would have made any difference in the long run. The overall mindset in Singapore was to defend until reinforcements arrived. The campaign might have been more costly for the Japanese but the ultimate result probably wouldn't have changed.

Greg Boeser said:

Yeah, my history seems a bit different than MIFlyer's. Also, the Dutch were the ones scrounging armo(u)red windscreens from RAF wrecks.
I will say it again, the Buffalo took it on the chin in SEA not because it was inferior to its opposition, one would be hard pressed to argue that a 330 mph fighter with armor and 4 x .50 caliber guns was inferior to the most numerous enemy fighter type, the sub 300 mph, fixed gear, twin rifle caliber armed Ki-27, that relied on the obsolete telescopic sight. But attitudes about it by the RAF command, especially those coming from BoB experience, coupled with low levels of training and experience in aircrew and maintenance, made it an easy scapegoat for the collapse in the East. Most people who flew the Buff and the Hurricane preferred the Buff.

Click to expand...

RAF Buffalos were hard pressed to hit 310 MPH at their best altitude, which was pretty low. Four .50 cal. guns are worthless if they can't be brought to bear on a fast climbing tiny aircraft that could turn on a dime. The Ki-27 may have
been slower than the Buffalo but it's acceration rate was much faster from crushing speed to combat speed thus negating the Buffalos slight max speed advantage which took all day to attain. As far as telescopic gunsights go, I don' t think the scores of Commonwealth and Dutch pilots shot down by JAAF fighters ( the early Ki-43 used the same sight)
were critical of their opponents lack of reflector sights.