Excluding Spitfires and Hurricanes, best fighter for Malaya 1940-41?

Shortround6 said:

You are betting on an under armed, unprotected plane to outmaneuver and out performe the Zero and Ki 43 while using an engine that is, at best, no more powerful. That big wing is actually smaller than the Japanese wings, although not by much. No combat flap to match the Ki 43,either.
Armament is problematic. Even if supplied with Italian guns the ammo supply is not going to continue after the summer of 1940. British .5in ammo is close and might even work with minor modifications to the guns but the British never issued a .5in HE round. British might be faced with fitting US .50 cal guns for somewhat common ammo supply. Dropping to a pair of .303 guns is probably not going to happen.
Without redesigning/ rebuilding the wings mounting guns in the wing is out. The wing was the fuel tank. You not only have to seal up the space the guns and ammo would take up but route firing controls and possibly gun heating systems through the fuel space?
Anything can be done if you throw enough effort and money at it but this does not look like a good option.
BTW, the engine doesn't look good either.

Click to expand...

I think viability of the Re-2000 hinges on a new engine. An Re-2000 with a R-1830 (or some British equivalent) and a pair of M2 browning nose guns looks pretty good to me, probably as good as a P-36. Especially if you put an armor plate behind the pilot. If you can manage self-sealing tanks obviously much better, then you are starting to put together a first line fighter I think. Two M2s is enough to wreck most Japanese planes of the era including bombers.

With a Merlin or an Allison even more so.

Schweik said:

I think the quality of the fighters made a difference - both quantity and quality could help. But no doubt overall preparation was seriously lacking. Warning networks could have substituted in large part for lack of good radar - at least they had some radar. AVG didn't have any I don't think but used warning networks successfully. Other things mentioned like preparation of airfields and so forth also mattered.

But you can see in places like 75 Sqn RAAF at Port Morseby and Milne Bay where the Australians were equally ill-prepared, and lacked the cunning and experience of somebody like Claire Chennault: green pilots with new aircraft they had almost zero training on, bad conditions in the airfields, decimated by disease, limited repair facilities, I don't think they had radar, very limited if any warning network. What they did have were better fighters and fewer opponents. They had roughly the same or slightly less fighters in most of the air battles that took place, and they held their own. More importantly they were able to affect the ground war - shoot down bombers and sink invasion barges. Strafe troops and bomb tanks. Sufficient that it made a big difference in the campaign.

Which to me says if the British had more fighters in Malaya, so that they weren't so heavily outnumbered, and if they had a little logistical support perhaps from the Americans (which I think helped the Aussies), and better fighters closer to parity with the Japanese (or more precisely and maybe more important, able to somewhat reliably disengage from Japanese fighters when a fight wasn't going well) then they could have done better, maybe won that battle. Even when pretty badly outnumbered, RAAF units of say 7 or 8 fighters could attack 20 Japanese planes in New Guinea because they knew they could dive away and disengage. Not that it was easy, there were often long chases and the fights seem to have been quite harrowing. But they were able to cause damage and get away enough of the time to fight another day. Allowing them to last long enough as an effective force to prevent Southern New Guinea from being taken over by the Japanese (albeit Coral Sea also played a big role in that).

If the RN had showed up near Malaya with a carrier or two full of Martlets that definitely could have helped as well and they could have had their own Coral Sea perhaps...

Click to expand...

The Buffalo could dive just as fast as a P-40, but that's useless if you either can't get off the ground or climb to height because you have no warning of an incoming attack, the Hurricane encountered the same problem even though it had better climb and altitude capability.

No plane, not even the Spitfire will do better.

Probably quantity and maintanability / serviceability mattered more than quality to some extent. If the Brits have enough fighters to come close to matching Japanese air strength they have a much better chance.

Guys like Fisken and others mentioned that the F2A accelerated slowly into a dive which seems like a problem. But if it had a high dive speed and rolled well though it can probably escape which is good.

Kevin J said:

The Buffalo could dive just as fast as a P-40, but that's useless if you either can't get off the ground or climb to height because you have no warning of an incoming attack, the Hurricane encountered the same problem even though it had better climb and altitude capability.

No plane, not even the Spitfire will do better.

Click to expand...

Hi,

From all my reading I think that this is the key issue. I really have a hard time seeing any airplane doing any better under the same circumstances. This thread has been very useful in getting me to look back at previous things that I have seen and read about the Singapore/Malaya theatre early in WWII, and a couple of things that have stuck out to me through my reading is that a) the high command back in the UK does not really appear to have had a good appreciation of the situation in theatre. Specifically I vaguely recall one complaint made that the squadrons were not taken the opportunity to get new/replacement pilots in the air, out of the war zone for training, when in fact there really wasn't any specific area that wasn't in the war zone, and pretty much all serviceable airframes were needing to conduct active operations.

Similarly when you look at the theatre over time you begin to appreciate just how poorly supported the existing 4-5 squadrons of single engine fighters in theatre were.
Specifically, it has already been noted that issues with the firing solenoids on some aircraft were not realized until the war started, which appears to be due potentially in part to limited live fire exercises before hostilities. However, as time wore on it also appears that further problems with the weaponry arose from the lack of skilled armorers to properly maintain and clean the weapons between sorties. Similarly there also appears to have been a shortage of trained personnel to adequately maintain the 9 cylinder engines in the existing airplanes.

As such, I cannot see how replacing the existing aircraft with 12 or 14 cylinder engine aircraft and/or with planes fitted with 6 to 8 machine guns would not in fact actually be making matters worse. If you were then to potentially add on the need for additional consumables (like glycol for an in-line/liquid cooled engine) that would also seem to only add to more difficulties in keeping aircraft ready for operations.

As such, as I have noted earlier I strongly believe that just about any reasonably modern airframe would have likely performed similarly under similar circumstances, with respect to how things actually unfolded in real life.

As for the use of other types of single engine aircraft, I can understand the potential benefits of an air-cooled engine over a liquid cooled engine, and either the Re2000, P-35, P-36/H-75 or F4F all look like nice potential alternatives (or even P-40s, Spitfires or Hurricanes, if you prefer liquid cooled engines), However, I strongly suspect that they all would also have there own set of issues as well. For instance, in addition to some of the early teething troubles for the F4F that I have mentioned before, when you look at the P-36 (which I believe would make an excellent alternate choice for use in Malaya/Singapore) a couple things that stand out about it is that it actually has a smaller wing area than the B339, and a notionally lighter weapon load out of 2 .50 cal machine guns + 2 .30 cal machine guns (according to the H-75 brochure that was recently posted on these boards).

In addition to this while the Buffalo had undergone some fairly extensive wind tunnel testing to help reduce its appendage drag, it does not appear that the P-36 design. had done similar. In particular the partially protruding main landing gear, raised cowl mounted gun fairings, boxy oil cooler, and other miscellaneous fittings all likely add a bit to the aircraft's overall drag.

As such, I truly think it would be a matter of "6 of one, or half a dozen of another" would still leave you pretty much with pretty much the same results. Or put another way, the "path" from start to end" may vary a little, but you would likely still end up in almost exactly the same location regardless of the plane type chosen.

Pat

All these problems and more were experienced in New Guinea, in Darwin, in the Solomons, in China and so on. All kinds of issues with ammunition, faulty parts, green pilots, bad fields, processes not worked out yet. Horrible weather. Disease. Snakes in airplanes. And considerably worse and more severe isolation than in say Singapore. But they did overcome them. I don't think they were actually insurmountable, you just needed better leadership to crack the whip and some capable and motivated people to start figuring out problems. I think the Pacific colonial system was a bit moribund by the 30's which is part of the problem. There is as sense of everything being neglected.

On the other hand, until Malaya and the Philippines etc. actually fell, it was hard to perceive how big the threat actually was. Chennault knew because he had already been fighting the Japanese for several years.

There were a variety of configurations for export P-36s, but I believe the French Hawks had 4 or 6 x 7.5mm machine guns and the P-40 style landing gear farings.

Shortround6 said:

Without changes to both the training and tactics I don't see the Re 2000 really changing things.

Click to expand...

As it says on the tin, there are no Buffaloes. So the Re 2000 needs to be compared to what was available, namely Gladiators, Defiants, Skuas, Rocs, Blenheim 1F and whatever early Mohawks could be had.

Admiral Beez said:

As it says on the tin, there are no Buffaloes. So the Re 2000 needs to be compared to what was available, namely Gladiators, Defiants, Skuas, Rocs, Blenheim 1F and whatever early Mohawks could be had.

Click to expand...

Was Re.2000 available in any shape, form or time?

Schweik said:

All these problems and more were experienced in New Guinea, in Darwin, in the Solomons, in China and so on. All kinds of issues with ammunition, faulty parts, green pilots, bad fields, processes not worked out yet. Horrible weather. Disease. Snakes in airplanes. And considerably worse and more severe isolation than in say Singapore. But they did overcome them. I don't think they were actually insurmountable, you just needed better leadership to crack the whip and some capable and motivated people to start figuring out problems. I think the Pacific colonial system was a bit moribund by the 30's which is part of the problem. There is as sense of everything being neglected.

On the other hand, until Malaya and the Philippines etc. actually fell, it was hard to perceive how big the threat actually was. Chennault knew because he had already been fighting the Japanese for several years.

There were a variety of configurations for export P-36s, but I believe the French Hawks had 4 or 6 x 7.5mm machine guns and the P-40 style landing gear farings.

Click to expand...

Hi,
I think you may have hit on an important point. In the earliest phases of the Pacific War, In areas like the Philippines, Wake Island, Malaya, Burma, the Dutch East Indies and Singapore Japan was able to hit hard and hit first (more or less) and although they may have stumbled a little at times (like their 1st assault on Wake Island) they had the ability to keep up the pressure and continue attacking forcing the defenders off balance and depriving them of an ability to effectively counter their moves (eventhough some limited counter attacks did occur).

In later theatres though, as their supply lines stretched they weren't always able to keep up a constant push, and in battles like Guadalcanal, the advantage changed hands several times as the strength of the forces on each side ebbed and flowed. However, in the Guadalcanal theatre the US and its Allies were able to periodically bring in fresh aircraft, pilots and troops to replace losses, and also incorporate lessons learned over the first 1/2 year of combat.

Had the Japanese not attacked either Malaya/Singapore in the opening moves of the Pacific War and instead delayed until Mid 1942 (eg the notional start of the Battle of Guadalcanal) I would have no doubt there would be substantial differences in how the battle of Malaya & Singapore would have unfolded.

Pat

PFVA63 said:

Had the Japanese not attacked either Malaya/Singapore in the opening moves of the Pacific War and instead delayed until Mid 1942 (eg the notional start of the Battle of Guadalcanal) I would have no doubt there would be substantial differences in how the battle of Malaya & Singapore would have unfolded.

Click to expand...

If the Japanese can hold off until mid 1942 they may be reticent of starting the war.

By autumn 1942 the Germans have been pushed out of North Africa and ground to a halt well before their strategic objectives in Russia.


If they can hold out to Feb 1943 Japan would be seeing the total wipeout of the Germans and Italians and thinking, sh#t we dodged that bullet, now let's back a different horse. Japan's natural ally for offsetting USA hegemony in the Pacific is Britain, not Germany. Japan should have never signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, and instead in 1940 at the fall of France, when FDR was procrastinating on open support of Churchill and Britain, Japan should have called up London and offered to assist in exchange for Middle East oil.

Admiral Beez said:

If the Japanese can hold off until mid 1942 they may be reticent of starting the war.

The Germans have been pushed out of North Africa and ground to a halt well before their strategic objectives in Russia. If they can hold out to Feb 1943 Japan would be seeing the total wipeout of the Germans and Italians and thinking, sh#t we dodged that bullet, now let's back a different horse.


But can Japan hold out until 1942 or 1943 without seizing DEI oil?

Click to expand...

The only way the Japanese would still get that Dutch oil would be if the Dutch were neutral, and that's a big if. First it requires the Germans not to invade the Netherlands in 1940, and second it requires the Americans to sit idly by and not form a blockade line across the South China Seas preventing Japanese access to Dutch Oil. I think you still get war in 1941.

Part of the problem is tactics. If you are given a good handling plane, and by all accounts the Buffalo was a good handling airplane, just not best in the world,,
You train for and fight a turning/maneuvering battle. By the time the British in Mayalsia figured out that the Japanese fighters were the best in world at manoeuvring it was too late to try and retrain or change tactics except in the most basic terms. The Buffaloes seem to have fought on a pretty much one for one basis in the air, but the losses on the ground and the abandonment of bases, quickly depleted the numbers available.
Changing weeks or months of training in a couple of days by just repeating "boom and zoom" and "Boom and dive away" isn't really going to work.

Shortround6 said:

The F2A-3 was an improved -2.

Click to expand...

I disagree. F2A-3 was a worsened version of the F2A-2, which was a worsened version of the F2A-1 (BW-239).
IMO the BW-239 with a R-1820-40 engine could have been the best variant.

Quote Boyington:

"It was a DOG!" (His emphasis). Then he slowly leaned back in his chair and after a moment quietly said, "But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other shit, they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little fucks could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah--sweet little ship; but some engineer went and fucked it up."

Click to expand...

Everybody says what a nice airplane the early version was, then they say the US Navy or engineers screwed it up.
AND THEN the very next thing they they post is about improvements that would increase the weight.

the original 950hp engine used direct drive, no reduction and a small diameter high rpm propeller. The R-1820-40 engine used a reduction gear and a larger diameter, lower rpm propeller. The basic engine also had some major changes. The engine in the F2A-1 weighed 1105 lbs. The -40 engine weighed 1315lbs.

And Boyington was complaining about radios????

Like any western nation was going to leave them out in 1940/41.

tomo pauk said:

Was Re.2000 available in any shape, form or time?

Click to expand...

When Britain placed its order for 300 units in January 1940 it was likely too late to get 300 new builds. However the initial batch of 188 aircraft was immediately available, with Hungary and Sweden each taking 60-70 machines. Have Britain buy up all of the available 188 aircraft, and any airframes waiting for engines.

I don't think license production of the Re.2000 would be any easier than making Hurricanes, but for our interest here's a pic of the Re. 2000 internals.

Admiral Beez said:

When Britain placed its order for 300 units in January 1940 it was likely too late to get 300 new builds. However the initial batch of 188 aircraft was immediately available, with Hungary and Sweden each taking 60-70 machines. Have Britain buy up all of the available 188 aircraft, and any airframes waiting for engines.

Click to expand...

Seems like it was 1941 for both Hungary and Sweden to get it's 1st machines:
The Swedish Air Force purchased 60 Re.2000 Serie Is, which received the Swedish designation J 20 and were delivered during 1941-43.
and:
The first seven [Hungarian] Re.2000 were sent to the Eastern Front on an experimental basis during autumn 1941.
From Wikipedia entry about the type.

188 machines was what Regianne decided to produce in winter of 1939/40.

Now that we're at it - refurbish a 100 or so of Defiants into 1-seaters with front-firing guns and ship them in Malaya/Singapore?

It seems so strange Italy was exporting fighter planes (esp. to Neutral countries) when they were at war and really didn't have enough of their own.

IIRC the wiki mentioned something about a Regianne subsidiary in Portugal did they have a factory there?

Schweik said:

It seems so strange Italy was exporting fighter planes (esp. to Neutral countries) when they were at war and really didn't have enough of their own.
...

Click to expand...

France is just defeated, there is no Operation Barbarossa yet (prompted Italians to send military in the E.F.) Italians are expecting the V12-powered fighters now, and are short of money.

A bit more about the Re.2000 plan of delivery.
Reggianne was contracted in February 1940 to deliver 12 fighters within 6 months; those fighters were supposed to be made at the department for experiments ('Officina sperimentale'). Once materials are approved for Regianne for the rest of the order (200 minus 12 = 188), they are supposed to deliver further 12 machines within 7 months, and so on with increase in production until the last month (12th month after the approval, or 6th in the row) they were to deliver last 36 machines.

Schweik said:

It seems so strange Italy was exporting fighter planes (esp. to Neutral countries) when they were at war and really didn't have enough of their own.

Click to expand...

Italy should have remained neutral, and sold stuff to everyone. And with a strong military of its own to pay for, foreign funds would be welcome.

Schweik said:

IIRC the wiki mentioned something about a Regianne subsidiary in Portugal did they have a factory there?

Click to expand...

Sounds like a great source for finished airframes sans engines, shipped to Britain for Bristol radial install.

Shortround6 said:

Everybody says what a nice airplane the early version was, then they say the US Navy or engineers screwed it up.
AND THEN the very next thing they they post is about improvements that would increase the weight.
the original 950hp engine used direct drive, no reduction and a small diameter high rpm propeller. The R-1820-40 engine used a reduction gear and a larger diameter, lower rpm propeller. The basic engine also had some major changes. The engine in the F2A-1 weighed 1105 lbs. The -40 engine weighed 1315lbs.
And Boyington was complaining about radios????
Like any western nation was going to leave them out in 1940/41.

Click to expand...

Engine change would have brought about 330 lb extra weight to F2A-1. Not bad swap for extra 200hp (or 20% increase).
Finnish Brewsters had seat armor, 4*.50's, radios and weighed about 2415 kg gross (5324 lbs).
F2A-3 was about 1850 lbs heavier. It made a big difference.