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

[Shortround6]

Some of those squadrons in Malaya did have veteran pilots from the Mideast and/or the BoB. Unfortunately they had learned the wrong lessons for fighting the Japanese.
and 1-3 pilots per squadron were not enough to keep the neebies alive, you couldn't even pair old and new on a 1 for 1 basis.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Per Wikipedia the RAF Buffaoes and late arrival Hurricanes had a positive kill ratio in Malaya, where most opponents were bombers, not agile fighters. Air ops in Malaya wasn't suicide for the Buffaloes, they just needed more of them, or for this thread, some other aircraft with at least Buffalo capabilities.

 

[michael rauls]

I'd take that bet. You'd have to give the IJN "Taihō " class carriers to carry the bigger planes. Those have armored flight decks like the RN carriers* and carries 65 aircraft. Maybe substitute something like a N1K1 or Ki-84 (pretend it's suitable for Carrier ops) for the A7 since we really don't know anything real about the latter. Sea Fury is impressive as a fighter - it's a beast, but the Barracuda is a crap bomber, B7A is a deadly ship killer (assuming it's running) and looks like it can hold it's own in a dogfight - wiki says it could outmaneuver A6M5s. It works as both a torpedo and a dive bomber so you don't need any (far less capable) D4Y. The B7A was made to replace the D4Y in fact along with the B6N.

* however maybe armor wasn't so great since the Taiho itself was sunk by a single torpedo from a the USS Albacore. Seems like abyssmal damage control was the real culprit.

I'd never heard of the B7a. Looked it up on Wikipedia and it sounds quite impressive but it's a real head scratcher that they only built a little over a hundred of of them.

 

[Schweik]

I'd never heard of the B7a. Looked it up on Wikipedia and it sounds quite impressive but it's a real head scratcher that they only built a little over a hundred of of them.

It was designed for a much bigger class of Carrier that didn't come to fruition - the main one (type for the class, the Taiho) got wrecked by a single torpedo after some really bad damage management.

 

[Schweik]

As for the Buffalo, I just really don't think it was a good aircraft for the Tropical environment. It didn't just do badly in Malaya (and no, sorry, I don't believe it did have a positive kill ratio there, nor did the Hurricane - maybe a positive claim ratio but that is not the same thing) but also in Burma and in Midway and in the Solomons and so on. And yet it continued to do well for the Finns, in fact they liked it so much they called it 'pearl of the sky'.

It is a combination of factors - they had poor build quality, they had many ancillary systems that couldn't handle the heat and humidity. But I don't think it was just that. Many of those things could have conceivably been improved or corrected. But I believe there was also an issue with the airframe, I think some aircraft just didn't seem to do well in hot, humid air. It's not something I can scientifically prove but I think it's a similar problem with the P-39.

Anyway the operational history speaks for itself, the F2A was a failure against the Japanese. It was no faster than a Ki-43 or a Zero and far less maneuverable, so what does it really offer? A little bit of sturdiness isn't enough. I think you are better off with Fulmars, as much as it pains me to say it.

 

[michael rauls]

As for the Buffalo, I just really don't think it was a good aircraft for the Tropical environment. It didn't just do badly in Malaya (and no, sorry, I don't believe it did have a positive kill ratio there, nor did the Hurricane - maybe a positive claim ratio but that is not the same thing) but also in Burma and in Midway and in the Solomons and so on. And yet it continued to do well for the Finns, in fact they liked it so much they called it 'pearl of the sky'.

It is a combination of factors - they had poor build quality, they had many ancillary systems that couldn't handle the heat and humidity. But I don't think it was just that. Many of those things could have conceivably been improved or corrected. But I believe there was also an issue with the airframe, I think some aircraft just didn't seem to do well in hot, humid air. It's not something I can scientifically prove but I think it's a similar problem with the P-39.

Anyway the operational history speaks for itself, the F2A was a failure against the Japanese. It was no faster than a Ki-43 or a Zero and far less maneuverable, so what does it really offer? A little bit of sturdiness isn't enough. I think you are better off with Fulmars, as much as it pains me to say it.

I think your last paragraph sums up why it may have done well for the Finns but not against the Japanese. That is the aircraft you're flying has to have at least one thing it does better than the oposition i.e.dive speed, turn radius etc. or your dead in the water( or dead in the sky as may be more applicable here).
I'm guessing it probably had at least one advantage on most early Soviet aircraft but against the Japanese nothing.

 

[Kevin J]

I think the issue with the Buffalo was it was too few. Make it four hundred Buffaloes with radar direction and Japan is in for a fight.

And that's what we need in the absence of the Buffalo, 400-500 of some fighter. If we exclude the Spitfire and Hurricane, that has to be a mix of Defiant, Whirlwind, Gladiator, Blenheim 1F, Beaufighter, Mohawk and Vanguard.

I'd knock the Beaufighter off the 1941 list, Whirlwind too, it's too few in number and a long way from home, lacks altitude capability too.

 

[Kevin J]

Every radial engine Mohawk built in Buffalo after 1940 is one less P-40 built.

Everybody wants the maneuverability of the Mohawk, nobody wants to pay the price of the better armament, the protection, fancier engines and so on, At some point you have to increase the structural weight of the plane starts breaking or bending in midair.

I was suggesting Australian built Mohawks, not American ones. HAL in India starts production but only completed 4.

 

[pinsog]

I'd say the Mohawk would be hard to beat in that theater. Radial engine, tough, simple, easier to maintain. I would have them install P&W 1830-33 engines with a 2 speed supercharger. That should give a top speed of around 320 mph at 17,000 feet. (Love to have the 2 stage Wildcat engine but it was much heavier and there simply weren't enough for just the Wildcat, much less several hundred Hawk 75/P36) Due to supplies I believe 6 303's would be the only viable armament.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's a shame Britain's 1940 order for 300 Reggiane Re.2000 wasn't delivered. For starters this would imply Italy remains neutral, making life easier in the Mediterranean and North Africa for Britain. And the Re.2000 would do well against the IJAAF.

 

[Kevin J]

It's a shame Britain's 1940 order for 300 Reggiane Re.2000 wasn't delivered. For starters this would imply Italy remains neutral, making life easier in the Mediterranean and North Africa for Britain. And the Re.2000 would do well against the IJAAF.

Unfortunately, Mussolini was an opportunistic fool, a bit like Bojo.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,
PS. to the above, I also seem to recall

As for the Buffalo, I just really don't think it was a good aircraft for the Tropical environment. It didn't just do badly in Malaya (and no, sorry, I don't believe it did have a positive kill ratio there, nor did the Hurricane - maybe a positive claim ratio but that is not the same thing) but also in Burma and in Midway and in the Solomons and so on. And yet it continued to do well for the Finns, in fact they liked it so much they called it 'pearl of the sky'.

It is a combination of factors - they had poor build quality, they had many ancillary systems that couldn't handle the heat and humidity. But I don't think it was just that. Many of those things could have conceivably been improved or corrected. But I believe there was also an issue with the airframe, I think some aircraft just didn't seem to do well in hot, humid air. It's not something I can scientifically prove but I think it's a similar problem with the P-39.

Anyway the operational history speaks for itself, the F2A was a failure against the Japanese. It was no faster than a Ki-43 or a Zero and far less maneuverable, so what does it really offer? A little bit of sturdiness isn't enough. I think you are better off with Fulmars, as much as it pains me to say it.

Hi,
It is my understanding that the Buffalo only partook of two battles while in active US service, during the Battle of Midway and earlier in the year when a flight from Midway Island shot down a Japanese H8K Flying Boat. Although some survivors were apparently sent to Australia and maybe India, but I do not believe that they were ever used in the Solomon Islands.

Other than that in reading both "Buffalos Over Singapore", "Bloody Shambles", and parts of "Ketchil" (I haven't finished it yet), and some stuff from "America's 100,000" it does not appear that the plane was in any way "universally dispised" by those that flew them in combat in Malaya and Singapore, and in fact some pilots actually had relatively reasonably good opinions of the plane.

Regards

Pat

 

[buffnut453]

I think your last paragraph sums up why it may have done well for the Finns but not against the Japanese. That is the aircraft you're flying has to have at least one thing it does better than the oposition i.e.dive speed, turn radius etc. or your dead in the water( or dead in the sky as may be more applicable here).
I'm guessing it probably had at least one advantage on most early Soviet aircraft but against the Japanese nothing.

Sorry but that's simply not true. The Buffalo could easily outdive Japanese fighters and it had considerably better firepower than the vast majority of the fighters it met in combat. Geoff Fisken, leading Commonwealth ace against the Japanese (and an ace flying Buffalos, incidentally), recounted using "boom and zoom" dive tactics over Singapore. Similarly, Sgt Harry Griffiths of 453 Sqn recalled using diving tactics to escape Japanese fighters.

There are also question-marks over relative speeds. Yes, according to book figures the Ki-43 had a higher top speed than the Buff. However, combat reports by 67 Sqn pilots in the Christmas 1941 period report that the Buffalo had a speed advantage over the Japanese fighter. Perhaps the Ki-43 couldn't sustain its maximum speed for very long?

 

[pinsog]

There was a mock combat between a Hurricane and a Buffalo somewhere in the Far East theater if someone can find it. I'm looking now. Seems like the Buffalo actually did ok against the Hurricane

 

[Schweik]

Hi,
PS. to the above, I also seem to recall


Hi,
It is my understanding that the Buffalo only partook of two battles while in active US service, during the Battle of Midway and earlier in the year when a flight from Midway Island shot down a Japanese H8K Flying Boat. Although some survivors were apparently sent to Australia and maybe India, but I do not believe that they were ever used in the Solomon Islands.

Other than that in reading both "Buffalos Over Singapore", "Bloody Shambles", and parts of "Ketchil" (I haven't finished it yet), and some stuff from "America's 100,000" it does not appear that the plane was in any way "universally dispised" by those that flew them in combat in Malaya and Singapore, and in fact some pilots actually had relatively reasonably good opinions of the plane.

Regards

Pat

I can't find it with a quick search but I thought they also had some F2A in the Solomons.

But my impression is based on comments by a lot of pilots in those Theaters. I know that in Burma opinion of the F2A was originally high among RAF pilots, but then plummeted after their first combat encounters with the IJA - originally facing only Ki-21 bombers, some miscellaneous recon and observation planes, and Ki-27 fighters. Later came the Ki-43s. Most of the AVG histories and memoirs get into this in some detail. The F2A could not, of course, turn with the Japanese fighters, didn't roll that well, was only slightly faster than the Ki-27 and (per pilot comments) not faster than a Ki-43, climbed relatively poorly (even when stripped of 'extras' including two of the guns) and did not keep up a high combat speed (apparently due to drag from the portly body). The unit over Rangoon was swiftly decimated, in contrast to the Tomahawks also fighting there.

The biggest problem mentioned by Buffalo pilots is that the plane had poor acceleration and especially poor dive acceleration. This meant when ending up on the losing side of a fight (a common occurrence not just due to the quality of Japanese fighters and pilots but also because they were usually outnumbered) it was hard to disengage, which was the chief strategy for successful Allied pilots in Theater.

Right now I'm reading "In my Sights", a memoir by US fighter ace James Morehead, and he described in some detail a conversation had with a Dutch pilot who landed a Buffalo on their airfield in Java. Morehead was flying with the remnants of the provisional 17th Pursuit Squadron, which was at that time down to their last few planes. He described in some detail the conversation with the Dutch pilot who specifically emphasized the near impossibility of disengaging from the Japanese fighters. He said the discussion was 'demoralizing' to the mostly doomed pilots and ground crew.

Most tellingly perhaps, outside of Finland there appear to be few Aces who flew the Buffalo (in stark contrast to the P-36 or even the Fulmar). I was looking last night and could only find a handful. The top Ace I am aware of on that type was the New Zealander Geoff Fisken. He did like the Buffalo but didn't have stellar things to say about it. He thought it was a basically sound design, but lacking in many respects compared to the Japanese fighters. These are some excerpts of his depiction of action in the F2A, which I found on this site:

"As I made my first flight in a real fighter, I thought that it was quite easy to fly and a real beautiful airplane. It landed as easily as it flew, and after a few hours of air time, I thought of it as an "old ladies' airplane." I thoroughly enjoyed doing aerobatics in the Buffalo, but I quickly found that it was underpowered, had poor turning capabilities, and climbed like a brick. It took fifteen to twenty minutes just to stagger up to fifteen thousand feet.

Although the Buffalo was not a suitable aircraft to fight the Japanese with, had it had another three hundred horsepower, I think things would have been much different."

He may have been right about that. Buffalo, like a lot of early Allied planes, seemed to be just short of having enough power. Another 300 hp might have done the trick. He mentions the Buffalo had some 'side armor' which they removed - that's kind of unusual and interesting. He also mentions the susceptibility to the Tropical conditions:

"The Buffalos would be deemed ready to fly in the early-morning hours, but as soon as the sun came up, most of the crates would be unserviceable because of the stinking heat and humidity. "

Positive comments included:

"I pushed the nose of the Buffalo downward because I knew that once the old Buffalo wound up while descending, there was nothing that was going to catch it."

Fast in a dive, once you got going. I believe it did have a faster dive speed than a Hurricane (it should with much shorter wings).

"I shot down my fifth airplane, another Zero, on January 21. On an earlier mission, I had come back with 143 bullet holes in the airplane, and I was fortunate that the Buffalo was such a tough old bird. I could not say the same for the outdated Vildebeests that were stationed nearby. "

So it was tough, which is good. But same is true of a Martlet, a Fulmar, a P-36 or a P-40. Granted P-36 doesn't have armor of course..

And finally:

"The Buffalo had saved my life countless times, and although I have not met many pilots that have anything good to say about her, I still consider her a very nice and easy airplane to fly, even for an old lady. "

So maybe we can call this good handling. That can be important.

Overall though I'd say Fisken got his victories in the F2A because like a lot of the N-Zeds, he was a well trained, skilled pilot with a lot of cunning and a knack for strategic thinking. The accounts on that link are an interesting read there are a couple of pages of excerpts there.




To me Fiskens account fits into the other anecdotal and operational histories I've read on the Buffalo in the Pacific and CBI Theaters. Fisken may have been right that with another 300 horsepower, the Buffalo might have been a winner. But that is probably true of a lot of fighters. The fact is it didn't have that and unlike some of the other fighters there didn't seem to be much leeway for increasing the boost of the engine. All in all I would say while not terrible as a fighter, and certainly a better option than a Gladiator for facing the Japanese, the Buffalo was not ideal for that Theater. A P-36 or P-40 could disengage with a fast dive and had the agility to evade or at least have a chance to turn the tables. The Hurricane and Fulmar could come pretty close to turning with the Japanese fighters and had impressive firepower. All four aircraft were pretty tough. The Martlet / Wildcat had many of the same features of the F2A but turned better, probably had less drag and better acceleration particularly into the dive, as well as heavier firepower.

 

[buffnut453]

I can't find it with a quick search but I thought they also had some F2A in the Solomons.

Nope. No Buffalos in the Solomons.

But my impression is based on comments by a lot of pilots in those Theaters. I know that in Burma opinion of the F2A was originally high among RAF pilots, but then plummeted after their first combat encounters with the IJA - originally facing only Ki-21 bombers, some miscellaneous recon and observation planes, and Ki-27 fighters. Later came the Ki-43s. Most of the AVG histories and memoirs get into this in some detail. The F2A could not, of course, turn with the Japanese fighters, didn't roll that well, was only slightly faster than the Ki-27 and (per pilot comments) not faster than a Ki-43, climbed relatively poorly (even when stripped of 'extras' including two of the guns) and did not keep up a high combat speed (apparently due to drag from the portly body). The unit over Rangoon was swiftly decimated, in contrast to the Tomahawks also fighting there.

A number of early losses by 67 Sqn was because the unit had not yet fitted the armour plate behind the pilot's seat. Certainly during the most telling combat, on Christmas Day 1941, at least one of the pilots was killed because his aircraft didn't have armour plate. Vic Bargh recalled that his aircraft didn't have armour installed until after Christmas Day. After the disastrous combat on that day, 67 Sqn redoubled its efforts to ensure all aircraft had armour installed.

As to the AVG accounts, I'm always cautious given the well documented antipathy between the AVG and "the Brits" (even though most 67 Sqn pilots were Kiwis). There's at least one report that 67 Sqn pilots sold their kills to the AVG. Also bear in mind that the AVG rotated squadrons through Burma, unlike 67 Sqn which stayed throughout with no respite.

Having spoken to or communicated with most of the surviving Commonwealth Buffalo pilots in the period 1998-2013, most did not reflect that their opinion of the aircraft "plummeted" after first combat. Letters from Peter Bingham-Wallis reflected continued affection for the type. Vic Bargh and Gordon Williams, both of 67 Sqn, quite liked it, too. Harry Griffiths of 453 Sqn appreciated the fact that it kept him alive, including the monumental fight over Kuala Lumpur on 22 Dec 41 when his aircraft suffered 60+ bullet holes but got him down safely (and was subsequently repaired). Others included Tim Vigors, Bill Collyer, George Scrimgeour, Wal Halliday and others....and none of them reported that the Buffalo couldn't hold speed, so I'd be interested to learn the source of that info.

Also, at no stage were 2 guns removed from RAF Buffalos. 453 Sqn did replace the 2 wing-mounted 50cals with .303s but there are no records of that modification being carried out by other Buffalo units.

Most tellingly perhaps, outside of Finland there appear to be few Aces who flew the Buffalo (in stark contrast to the P-36 or even the Fulmar). I was looking last night and could only find a handful. The top Ace I am aware of on that type was the New Zealander Geoff Fisken.

There were 4 Buffalo aces over Malaya and Singapore. That's one ace per squadron in a period of 2.5 months when most of the sorties were convoy escort, airfield patrols and, later on, ground strafing missions. During the entire month of December, there was never more than a squadron's worth of Buffalos engaged in combat, and usually far fewer airframes. Given the circumstances, that's probably not a bad number of aces.

Overall though I'd say Fisken got his victories in the F2A because like a lot of the N-Zeds, he was a well trained, skilled pilot with a lot of cunning and a knack for strategic thinking. The accounts on that link are an interesting read there are a couple of pages of excerpts there.

Fisken was trained as a flying boat pilot. He was not well trained as a fighter pilot. He'd never flown an aircraft with retractable undercarriage and flaps until he embarked on the fighter conversion training course flying Wirraways in southern Malaya before joining 243 Sqn to fly Buffalos. Fisken simply had a lot of innate skill...and, like all his colleagues, most of whom were not aces, a tremendous amount of courage.

 

[Kevin J]

There was a mock combat between a Hurricane and a Buffalo somewhere in the Far East theater if someone can find it. I'm looking now. Seems like the Buffalo actually did ok against the Hurricane

It certainly should, it could break off combat at will, by diving, was manoeuvrable, and speeds should be close because the Hurricane would have had the draggy volkes filter.

 

[Schweik]

I think the "animosity" between AVG pilots and the Brits (or NZ or whoever they actually were) was over pretty quickly as soon as the actual fighting started. There was initially some friction between the two groups as the AVG personnel, who were definitely going through some culture shock in Burma, were put off by the Colonial pretentions of the British contingent with their club and so on, whereas the Brits (et al) were irritated by the boorish, drunken antics of some of the AVG men, many of whom had pretty humble (and more working class) backgrounds and a few were quite loutish alcoholics.

However most of them, even some of the (self confessed) louts like Greg Boyington had very nice things about British expats or Colonials or whatever you call them who put them up in their estates. So I don't think it ran that deep.

The only disagreement of substance was over Chennaults 'dive and zoom' tactics which IIRC RAF commanders threatened to issue courts martial to any pilot 'running from the enemy'. This was a common reaction by both American and Commonwealth pilots leading up to the war (Morehead mentions feeling this way in his memoir), but one which evaporated very quickly once the action started. By the time they were engaged with the Japanese aircraft I think there was a strong sense of common purpose in the face of the enemy. It's just that RAF planes were being shot down at a more rapid pace.

As for the Buffalo pilots 'selling kills' to the AVG that is ludicrous. Victory claim standards were pretty strict for AVG as there was a substantial cash payout for every confirmed kill. 67 Squadron was fighting for their life at that time I doubt they had time to think of profit. At any rate, the attrition which affected both units certainly seemed disproportionately bad for the F2As and Hurricanes.

My impression about the NZ pilots is that they had more training than a lot of the other Allied pilots, in terms of total flight hours. Training on type for fighter planes tended to lag.

Four Aces isn't much for all those aircraft. How does it stack up to the Sea Hurricane or the Fulmar?

I understand by the way during the time of pre-battle rivalry they did stage a mock dogfight between a Buffalo and a Tomahawk over Mingaladoon.

 

[buffnut453]

I think the "animosity" between AVG pilots and the Brits (or NZ or whoever they actually were) was over pretty quickly as soon as the actual fighting started. There was initially some friction between the two groups as the AVG personnel, who were definitely going through some culture shock in Burma, were put off by the Colonial pretentions of the British contingent with their club and so on, whereas the Brits (et al) were irritated by the boorish, drunken antics of some of the AVG men, many of whom had pretty humble (and more working class) backgrounds and a few were quite loutish alcoholics.

Most of the Commonwealth personnel also had pretty humble backgrounds. Many of the Kiwis grew up on farms. I suspect there were more "Colonial pretensions" from the local British expats (and perhaps a few of the non-flying officers) than from the 67 Sqn aircrew and groundcrew. I've also met very few RAF personnel, of any era, who didn't like a beer as much as the next man...and frequently they like many more than the next man.

However most of them, even some of the (self confessed) louts like Greg Boyington had very nice things about British expats or Colonials or whatever you call them who put them up in their estates. So I don't think it ran that deep.

Boyington also had nice things to say about the Buffalo, at least the F2A-2...but definitely not the F2A-3.

As for the Buffalo pilots 'selling kills' to the AVG that is ludicrous. Victory claim standards were pretty strict for AVG as there was a substantial cash payout for every confirmed kill. 67 Squadron was fighting for their life at that time I doubt they had time to think of profit.

You can dismiss the idea of 67 Sqn selling claims to the AVG as ludicrous if you like....but the claim was made by a well-known 67 Sqn pilot. No compelling evidence has been provided in either direction but it would be foolish to dismiss it out of hand....unless, of course, those loutish AVG pilots were all paragons of truthful virtue and those prim and propper Commonwealth pilots were virulent liars.

Four Aces isn't much for all those aircraft. How does it stack up to the Sea Hurricane or the Fulmar?

You clearly didn't read what I wrote....or you're choosing to ignore specific details and just look at top-level numbers. There were only ever 48 front-line Buffalos at any stage in Malaya and Singapore and, as noted previously, only 12 in Malaya during all of December (there were no engagements over Singapore during that period). Given that most of the Buffalo pilots were not trained as fighter pilots (many came from flying boat or bomber squadrons, or straight from flying schools), it's not too surprising that so few became aces.

 

[ssnider]

A couple of quotes from q 1995 interview with Flt Sgt Vic Bargh

I can tell you, it was funny, really. There were four of us, and another chap and I shot down two each of these bombers [24 Jan 1942], and when we got back we walked over to the American Volunteer Group chappies, and we said to them, look, there are four aeroplanes here; we can tell you exactly where they are. The last one was at a place called Pegu, which was not very far from Mingaladon, really. I said, well, you chappies are getting five hundred dollars paid by the Chinese. You can have 'em. You can say they're yours. It don't worry us. They put in a report saying they'd shot them down. It was one of those things that happened.

Willie and I tried them out, the Hurricane versus the Buffalo. The Buffalo wasn't so bad.