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

Hi,
I think that this is a point that is often not fully appreciated when discussing the Malaya/Singapore theatre. As I understand it there were only a total of 150 Buffalos purchased by the UK for use, with 1/2 of them intended to be a "reserve/replacement" pool. That leaves 75 planes for 5 squadrons, or about 15 per squadron. Of those squadrons in theatre, I believe that 488 Squadron (NZ) was only stood up on September and did not see combat until 12 Jan 1942.

When you consider the size of the theatre in questions, and the need to provide a defense to Singapore itself (which I believe was attacked by air on the 1st day of battle), it really becomes apparent just how limited a defense the units in theatre could put up.

Similarly, if I am understanding correctly the operational strength of 67 squadron, which operated the Buffalo in Burma, was only about 16 aircraft as well.

As such, the total defense that any plane type in these conditions could provide in the circumstances was likely to be fairly low.

Regards

Pat

buffnut453 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Please be clear - I am not referring to my own feelings on any of that, I was referring to what I read in memoirs and operational histories of the AVG. The British (etc.) pilots had a country club or something which was the origin of some of the friction, which as I said was seemingly heavily exaggerated in some post-war accounts.

You can claim it 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.

Click to expand...

First of all, I'd like to be clear: I didn't call anyone a paragon of virtue, I didn't call anyone prim and propper (sic) and I didn't call anyone "liars", virulent or otherwise. I described the alleged conflict between the two groups of allied pilots in as neutral and objective terms as I could do. As far as I know with regard to this purported claim you were referring to a rumor, based on an alleged statement by one person (so I guess it would be liar singular anyway since you are only referring to one person, right?). Do you have other evidence of that? What is the source of the statement, was in recorded?

I stated my opinion that Chennault wouldn't be paying out bonuses for spurious claims and that 67 squadron, who was fighting for their lives and under mortal peril even more dire than that faced by the AVG pilots, did not seem to me to be likely to be wagering or engaging in any kind of fraud or malfeasance. Barring any further evidence that they were I'd say maybe we should just agree to disagree on that?

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.

Click to expand...

I read it. AVG had similar numbers of aircraft on hand and had what, 19 aces? Admittedly they had several advantages, but I think other units flying other aircraft in places like Midway, the Solomons, New Guinea and so on also did pretty well comparatively. Buffalo didn't do so well in the Pacific or CBI, the only question is whether that was due exclusively to circumstances or if there were also design problems.

PFVA63 said:

Hi,
I think that this is a point that is often not fully appreciated when discussing the Malaya/Singapore theatre. As I understand it there were only a total of 150 Buffalos purchased by the UK for use, with 1/2 of them intended to be a "reserve/replacement" pool. That leaves 75 planes for 5 squadrons, or about 15 per squadron. Of those squadrons in theatre, I believe that 488 Squadron (NZ) was only stood up on September and did not see combat until 12 Jan 1942.

When you consider the size of the theatre in questions, and the need to provide a defense to Singapore itself (which I believe was attacked by air on the 1st day of battle), it really becomes apparent just how limited a defense the units in theatre could put up.

Similarly, if I am understanding correctly the operational strength of 67 squadron, which operated the Buffalo in Burma, was only about 16 aircraft as well.

As such, the total defense that any plane type in these conditions could provide in the circumstances was likely to be fairly low.

Regards

Pat

Click to expand...

Some 32 Buffalos were sent to Mingaladon and taken over by 67 Sqn. Intent was to equip the Sqn and provide some fallback reserves, probably due to the distance to theatre deep maintenance facilities in Singapore. It's also possible that the 32 airframes were originally destined for the British Volunteer Group (one sqn of Buffalos and another of Blenheims) that was overtaken by the Japanese assault. Initial equipment for the Buffalo unit was taken from operational airframes but it's possible the airframes in Mingaladon would have been used as combat spares.

Aircraft allocations to fighter sqns was normally 12 IE (Initial Equipment) and 2 IR (Immediate Reserves). The Buffalo sqns had much larger IR pools due, in part, because there simply wasn't enough room in Singapore to park all the spare airframes out of the total of 147 that were sent there. Of course, increasing the IR strength doesn't expand the operational front line because each sqn still only had a standard allocation of pilots. A pilot can't fly 2 aircraft at once.

Schweik said:

First of all, I'd like to be clear: I didn't call anyone a paragon of virtue, I didn't call anyone prim and propper (sic) and I didn't call anyone "liars", virulent or otherwise.

Click to expand...

I know...I was using a little hyperbole.

Schweik said:

As far as I know with regard to this purported claim you were referring to a rumor, based on an alleged statement by one person (so I guess it would be liar singular anyway since you are only referring to one person, right?). Do you have other evidence of that? What is the source of the statement, was in recorded?

Click to expand...

And this is why I used the hyperbole. AVG pilots write accounts but a NZ pilot who makes a statement in an interview is a liar. Yes, it was recorded. PFVA63 at post #41 provided details.

Schweik said:

I stated my opinion that Chennault wouldn't be paying out bonuses for spurious claims and that 67 squadron, who was fighting for their lives and under mortal peril even more dire than that faced by the AVG pilots, did not seem to me to be likely to be wagering or engaging in any kind of fraud or malfeasance. Barring any further evidence that they were I'd say maybe we should just agree to disagree on that?

Click to expand...

It's not a question of agreeing to disagree, simply of accepting that statements have been said on both sides. We can both believe what we want to believe but it's nothing more than that...belief. The only people who know for sure aren't around to confirm one way or another. For the record, it wasn't Chennault paying the bonuses but, rather, the Chinese government. Also, these weren't "spurious claims", they were genuine claims, just not made by the AVG.

Schweik said:

I read it. AVG had similar numbers of aircraft on hand and had what, 19 aces? Admittedly they had several advantages, but I think other units flying other aircraft in places like Midway, the Solomons, New Guinea and so on also did pretty well comparatively. Buffalo didn't do so well in the Pacific or CBI, the only question is whether that was due exclusively to circumstances or if there were also design problems.

It all comes down to the number and nature of engagements. If 75% of a fighter force isn't engaged for the majority of a timeframe, is that the fault of the airframe? Also, the AVG had a smaller range of tasks to accomplish compared to the Buffalo squadrons. Again, the details matter rather than bald numbers.

Click to expand...

Sometimes if you are struggling to win an argument, it's easier to make up things to debate against. I would just like to note - I never called anybody a liar, (or 'paragons of virtue') those are your words - take it up with yourself.

I stated my opinion on all the matters we disagree on regarding the dismal operational record of the F2A, no point in repeating myself (especially if my comments are going to be 'translated' into something else I didn't write).

Schweik said:

Sometimes if you are struggling to win an argument, it's easier to make up things to debate against. I would just like to note - I never called anybody a liar, (or 'paragons of virtue') those are your words - take it up with yourself.

I stated my opinion on all the matters we disagree on regarding the dismal operational record of the F2A, no point in repeating myself (especially if my comments are going to be 'translated' into something else I didn't write).

Click to expand...

But referring to a documented interview as "purported claim", "rumor" and "alleged statement" is being even-handed?

But I wasn't referring to any document.

I wasn't aware of that interview until it came out in today in this conversation, it's brand new information to me. This may come as a surprise but believe it or not, not everyone on earth has already read every interview ever conducted with everybody else who ever lived, or even seen every thread on this one board. I believe I asked upthread if there was a source for the assertion, right? And somebody seems to have provided one. If you had led with that maybe I'd have been more 'even-handed'.

But to me this notion of is not an issue or a "controversy", since given the context vis a vis the rest of the discussion - i.e. performance of the F2A units in Burma and Malaya, 4 victories one way or another wouldn't actually change the trajectory of the AVG or the 67 Squadron or of the aircraft they flew, would it. Four victories wouldn't make the difference between 19 Aces (just for the equivalent of one Fighter Group) and 4 Aces for the whole Theater. It just seems like kind of a distraction to the main issue - the subject of the OP, i.e. which aircraft would have been best for Malaya.

Having said all that, I acknowledge that based on what I already pointed out, I do find it highly unlikely that any claims were sold, or given away, or falsely filed. I've never seen any evidence of that - I've heard of many other things as relates to the AVG, and I wouldn't rule anything out categorically, but I've never heard of that particular claim. I would not call any fighter pilot, especially somebody who was actually there- a liar. But we have all routinely run into many cases where fighter pilots were mistaken, right? That's hardly an earth shattering revelation. Certainly it's a point of evidence. As far as I know there is no other claim nor any contradicting claim. I'd have to read more about the pilot (Flt Sgt Vic Bargh was it?) and the general circumstances to form a stronger opinion, but I do find it unlikely just based on my own understanding.

If it's true it's actually quite interesting. Yet another colorful story for that outfit.

Chennault was not paying anyone out of his own pocket but I believe he was in charge of verifying victories, yes it's well known where the money came from. The point is they weren't eager to shell out money for dubious or marginal claims, and in fact routinely withheld bonus payments for claims that couldn't be proved or that were disputed. If an RAF pilot knew of a wrecked enemy plane and wanted to sell or give it away, who knows? I certainly couldn't say for sure.

Anyway to get back to the OP as it relates to the F2A, I'd repeat Fiskens words, as he was probably the most qualified proponent of the aircraft:

"the Buffalo was not a suitable aircraft to fight the Japanese with"

Gentlemen,

Check Dan Ford's website at

Annals of the Brewster Buffalo

for more info on the Buffalo.

Eagledad

buffnut453 said:

Some 32 Buffalos were sent to Mingaladon and taken over by 67 Sqn. ....

Click to expand...

Hi,
Thanks for that info. It seems in line with the utilization of the Buffalo in the Malaya/Singapore theatre where reserves were more or less equal to the initial squadron strength (ie, 16 airframes in the squadron, with an additional 16 airframes available as reserves/replacements).

Pat

PFVA63 said:

Hi,
I think that this is a point that is often not fully appreciated when discussing the Malaya/Singapore theatre. As I understand it there were only a total of 150 Buffalos purchased by the UK for use, with 1/2 of them intended to be a "reserve/replacement" pool. That leaves 75 planes for 5 squadrons, or about 15 per squadron.

Click to expand...

It's a good point. Here's 12 Buffaloes over Malaya, representing nearly 20% of the colony's entire air defence.



Perhaps my opening question should have been, excluding Spitfires and Hurricanes, what RAF fighters to send to reinforce the Buffaloes? My top wish, Beaufighters. Let the Buffaloes mix it with the Oscars and Nates while the Beaufighters destroy the bombers.

But is the Beaufighter available in summer 1941? And how so we get, for example 200 Beaufighters to Malaya? If you fly them from Britain doesn't that use up a tremendous amount of engine life?

Admiral Beez said:

It's a good point. Here's 12 Buffaloes over Malaya, representing nearly 20% of the colony's entire air defence.

View attachment 559959

Perhaps my opening question should have been, excluding Spitfires and Hurricanes, what RAF fighters to send to reinforce the Buffaloes? My top wish, Beaufighters. Let the Buffaloes mix it with the Oscars and Nates while the Beaufighters destroy the bombers.

But is the Beaufighter available in summer 1941? And how so we get, for example 200 Beaufighters to Malaya? If you fly them from Britain doesn't that use up a tremendous amount of engine life?

Click to expand...

You need aircraft production in Australia up and running earlier. Boomerangs as well as Wirraways, Beaufighters as well as Beaufort's.

Kevin J said:

You need aircraft production in Australia up and running earlier. Boomerangs as well as Wirraways, Beaufighters as well as Beaufort's.

Click to expand...

True, CAC should have made Hurricanes like CC&F did from 1939 on.

Admiral Beez said:

It's a good point. Here's 12 Buffaloes over Malaya, representing nearly 20% of the colony's entire air defence.

View attachment 559959

Perhaps my opening question should have been, excluding Spitfires and Hurricanes, what RAF fighters to send to reinforce the Buffaloes? My top wish, Beaufighters. Let the Buffaloes mix it with the Oscars and Nates while the Beaufighters destroy the bombers.

But is the Beaufighter available in summer 1941? And how so we get, for example 200 Beaufighters to Malaya? If you fly them from Britain doesn't that use up a tremendous amount of engine life?

Click to expand...

Nice pic, albeit the censor has been at it, showing 243 Sqn aircraft. Note that the sections are flying in old-fashioned vic formations rather than in battle pair or finger-four. Perhaps says something of the mindset in the Far East at that time...hardly up on latest tactics and techniques.

Admiral Beez said:

True, CAC should have made Hurricanes like CC&F did from 1939 on.

Click to expand...

You need a radial engine for the tropics in the timescale we're looking at.

Regarding claims the giving of victories by NZ pilots to the AVG, seems like it's safe to say, maybe it happened............and maybe it didn't, and that's about as much as we'll ever know for sure.

Kevin J said:

You need a radial engine for the tropics in the timescale we're looking at.

Click to expand...

Who says?

tomo pauk said:

Who says?

Click to expand...

That's what the RAF wanted at the time. Remember that big bulky Volkes filter on the Hurricane. I doubt if the Hurricane I/II Trop in 1941/42 was better than a Buffalo I.

Kevin J said:

That's what the RAF wanted at the time.

Click to expand...

In 1941? Source?

Remember that big bulky Volkes filter on the Hurricane. I doubt if the Hurricane I/II Trop in 1941/42 was better than a Buffalo I.

Click to expand...

Hurricanes in 1941 were outfitted with protection both for pilot and fuel. let's install full protection on the Buffalo and see how it badly performs, as it historically did in the US service.

Admiral Beez said:

It's a good point. Here's 12 Buffaloes over Malaya, representing nearly 20% of the colony's entire air defence.

View attachment 559959

Perhaps my opening question should have been, excluding Spitfires and Hurricanes, what RAF fighters to send to reinforce the Buffaloes? My top wish, Beaufighters. Let the Buffaloes mix it with the Oscars and Nates while the Beaufighters destroy the bombers.

But is the Beaufighter available in summer 1941? And how so we get, for example 200 Beaufighters to Malaya? If you fly them from Britain doesn't that use up a tremendous amount of engine life?

Click to expand...

Great shot!