Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Its a case of what against what. Look at the figures the LW achieved in the early days of Barbarossa. Prior to WW2 starting the Soviet Union had more aircraft than the rest of the world combined.

I'm not sure of your point. It may well be the difference in experience -- LW vs VVS, IJN aviators vs inexperienced. Why did the Buffalo turn in good numbers in Finland, and rather weak in others? What advantages were Finnish pilots using that USMC at Midway, or RAF in Malaya, weren't?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm afraid a lot of received wisdom about the Buffalo is derived from books that were released in the 1970s and simply trotted out the rather lazy assessment that they were shot down in droves.

This is really what I'm questioning, in my own thinking, here; and wanting what are obviously informed opinions on the matter.

 

[buffnut453]

This is really what I'm questioning, in my own thinking, here; and wanting what are obviously informed opinions on the matter.

jimmaas is the real expert on the Buffalo. I just jumped on his coat tails and focused on the Commonwealth use of the Buffalo. Over the years, I've written to or met a large number of former Buffalo pilots, and was also able to obtain records from surviving relatives of several deceased Buffalo pilots. I've probably mentioned it before but my avatar is a painting by Nick Trudgian I had commissioned as a present to myself when I retired from the RAF. It depicts the air battle over Kuala Lumpur on 22 Dec 1941 based on a type-written description provided by Harry Griffiths. Harry's Buffalo was serial W8231 "TD-G" and it had the name "Shirley" on the nose. Shirley was Harry's wife...and it was Shirley that typed up his letter to me. Those letters are among my most treasured possessions.

Then there's the hours I spent at the UK National Archives exploring Operations Record Books as well as other records that survived from Singapore, Malaya and Burma. Almost all my material is currently in storage...but I hope to get back to it within the next 6 months.

 

[pbehn]

I'm not sure of your point. It may well be the difference in experience -- LW vs VVS, IJN aviators vs inexperienced. Why did the Buffalo turn in good numbers in Finland, and rather weak in others? What advantages were Finnish pilots using that USMC at Midway, or RAF in Malaya, weren't?

Because compared to its opposition the Buffalo in Finland was an advanced aircraft. In the first three days of Barbarossa the Soviet Union lost 1,200 aircraft destroyed in the air and on the ground. During the Battle of Kursk, remembered as a tank battle the Soviets lost 3,000 aircraft in approximately 7 weeks.

 

[buffnut453]

Because compared to its opposition the Buffalo in Finland was an advanced aircraft. In the first three days of Barbarossa the Soviet Union lost 1,200 aircraft destroyed in the air and on the ground. During the Battle of Kursk, remembered as a tank battle the Soviets lost 3,000 aircraft in approximately 7 weeks.

Only at the beginning. The Brewster was still scoring kills against Hurricanes, P-40s, LaGG-3s, La-5s, and even several Spitfires, during its combat career (not to mention a couple of P-39s).

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because compared to its opposition the Buffalo in Finland was an advanced aircraft. In the first three days of Barbarossa the Soviet Union lost 1,200 aircraft destroyed in the air and on the ground. During the Battle of Kursk, remembered as a tank battle the Soviets lost 3,000 aircraft in approximately 7 weeks.

I'm not sure how the first three days of Barbarossa translates to the Winter War. And I doubt the Finns flew Buffaloes at Kursk. I'm asking a specific question: why did the Buffalo turn in such good numbers in Finland, while sucking hind-teat elsewhere?

 

[pbehn]

I'm not sure how the first three days of Barbarossa translates to the Winter War. And I doubt the Finns flew Buffaloes at Kursk. I'm asking a specific question: why did the Buffalo turn in such good numbers in Finland, while sucking hind-teat elsewhere?

You have a habit of doing this in discussion, so before you say you wont talk to me any more I will do the same. The Soviets not caring a damn about losses may have been a big factor in how many losses they had, was my point, its quite a simple one really. Unlike their opponents loses didnt matter, only winning.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

jimmaas is the real expert on the Buffalo. I just jumped on his coat tails and focused on the Commonwealth use of the Buffalo. Over the years, I've written to or met a large number of former Buffalo pilots, and was also able to obtain records from surviving relatives of several deceased Buffalo pilots. I've probably mentioned it before but my avatar is a painting by Nick Trudgian I had commissioned as a present to myself when I retired from the RAF. It depicts the air battle over Kuala Lumpur on 22 Dec 1941 based on a type-written description provided by Harry Griffiths. Harry's Buffalo was serial W8231 "TD-G" and it had the name "Shirley" on the nose. Shirley was Harry's wife...and it was Shirley that typed up his letter to me. Those letters are among my most treasured possessions.

Then there's the hours I spent at the UK National Archives exploring Operations Record Books as well as other records that survived from Singapore, Malaya and Burma. Almost all my material is currently in storage...but I hope to get back to it within the next 6 months.

I'm very open to learning from someone who knows better.

I'll go do some googling and stop bothering folks here. All replies have been appreciated.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You have a habit of doing this in discussion, so before you say you wont talk to me any more I will do the same. The Soviets not caring a damn about losses may have been a big factor in how many losses they had, was my point, its quite a simple one really.

Have your people contact my people. Maybe we can do lunch.

Not sure why you took this personal, and I'm not sure I care. <shrug>

 

[pbehn]

Have your people contact my people. Maybe we can do lunch.

Not sure why you took this personal, and I'm not sure I care. <shrug>

Because you have pulled the "I wont talk to you anymore" thing three times before with me and with several other posters that I have seen. I dont take it personal I just dont see where your line of argument leads to. You may not see how the Soviets losing 1,200 planes in three days and shrugging their shoulders and carrying on is significant but I and others do. As far as uncle Joe was concerned it was a few hundred pilots and he was losing soldiers by the million.

 

[GrauGeist]

At the Battle of Midway, one of the few times the USN's F2A engaged enemy forces, the Buffalo suffered due to inexperienced pilots who were trained in older methods of engagement as well as being up against a superior fighter piloted by seasoned combat veterans. Remember that Japan had been at war for over four years before the U.S. entered the conflict.
At Midway, all U.S. elements suffered greatly: USN, USMC and Army.
This was not because of inferior equipment or lack of sacrifice, it was due to inexperience and an outdated aerial combat model.
1942 saw the U.S. undertake a massive learning curve in how to counter IJN and IJA aircraft types and their tactics.

In the CBI, the Buffalo in Commonwealth service fared a little better due to tactics plus the IJN was still operating the A5M and the IJA was still operating the KI-27, which the Buffalo was capable of mastering.

In Finland, the Buffalo was capable of besting Soviet types due to their lack of experience and cohesive tactics. The Finnish pilots also had a high level of determination that enabled them to get the best out of any aircraft they flew, whether it be a MS.406, a Bf109 or anything In between.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because you have pulled the "I wont talk to you anymore" thing three times before with me and with several other posters that I have seen. I dont take it personal I just dont see where your line of argument leads to. You may not see how the Soviets losing 1,200 planes in three days and shrugging their shoulders and carrying on is significant but I and others do. As far as uncle Joe was concerned it was a few hundred pilots and he was losing soldiers by the million.

I was asking a question specifically about the Brewster. Do you have an answer to my question? I've yet to see it.

Just in case you've forgotten, in your little lather, my question is:

What were we Americans missing that the Finns, or even RAF, got somewhat right?

This is an honest question, please don't take it otherwise.

If you can answer that, great. And if you can't, stop trying to showboat. It's unseemly and should be beneath you.

Now -- your answer? What did the Finns or even the RAF in Malaya get right that we Americans got wrong?

Bueller? Bueller?

 

[Shortround6]

I'm ignorant, so forgive my dumb questions; I'm used to hearing about them being shot down in droves at Midway. What were we Americans missing that the Finns, or even RAF, got somewhat right

The Droves at Midway were actually TWO Marine Corp squadrons which had a few F4Fs thrown in. I am sure some of the other members know but I seem to remember 13 or fewer Buffaloes at Midway? Flown by mostly green pilots? It was all over in a few hours at best or perhaps well under an hour.

That was the full and total extent of their air to air combat in US service except for four F2A-3s shooting down a Japanese flying boat on March 10th 1942.

As mentioned earlier you had the RAF in Burma and the Dutch had received 72 Buffaloes at the time they went into action. How many were in service?
A later Dutch order was not completed in time.

What the Americans seemed to miss was don't send green pilots up against veterans and don't get bounced from above.

F2A had been out of production for several months at the time of Midway so pulling the survivors from combat areas didn't affect things much.

 

[pbehn]

I was asking a question specifically about the Brewster. Do you have an answer to my question? I've yet to see it.

Just in case you've forgotten, in your little lather, my question is:



If you can answer that, great. And if you can't, stop trying to showboat. It's unseemly and should be beneath you.

Now -- your answer? What did the Finns or even the RAF in Malaya get right that we Americans got wrong?

Bueller? Bueller?

I did, you just read what you want to and ignore what doesnt fit. tally up all the kills made by Buffalos and all the losses in the air in that whole war and tell me why Uncle Joe would care at all. The Finns had skilled pilots, what they got right was they were fighting the Russians. There were only 500 Buffaloes made about a tenth went to Finland, the various loss and kill ratios are from a small squadron sized sample. It should have been better than the Spitfire and Hurricane, it was a later aircraft.

 

[BiffF15]

Hate those Janitrols!

I did my ATP in a Piper Seminole in 1996. It had a Janitrol heater…

 

[wuzak]

This must be an overnight record - 6 more pages!

 

[wuzak]

I think the problem for the Buffalo is that no long lost performance tests have been discovered and posted at WWII Aircraft Performance and so its reputation hasn't been restored.

 

[ThomasP]

re the Stewart Warner gasoline heaters, and when/what AC used them

In the maintenance manuals the actual heaters under discussion are called Stewart Warner Hermetic Combustion heaters - from here on indicated by the acronym SWHC followed by the Model number and BTU output if available. The heaters themselves used a fuel-air mixture connection ported from the supercharger.

USAAF P-39C thru D-1 and UK P-400 used 1(?)x SWHC Model ? ? BTU unit. (I could not find the model number so I do not know any details.)
NOTE that the Soviet P-39 manuals mention the Stewart Warner heaters also, along with another type of combustion heater, plus electric heaters (in effect space heaters) adapted for the P-39.

USAAF A-36A-1 Apache/Mustang, P-51A-1&A-5 Mustang, and UK Mustang Mk I&IA, used 2x SWHC Model ? 10,000 BTU unit (with integral blower), 1x in each wing (just outboard of the guns) for heating of wing guns only. The gun heating system was switched to electric heaters starting with the P-51A-2/A-10 series and continued through all subsequent models. An air duct/tube system using warm air from behind the engine was used in all models from the first production airframe.

USAAF A-20C thru G-10 used 1x SWHC Model 791-D 40,000 BTU unit for cabin heating. 1x 8500 BTU unit was used to heat the guns in gun nose models.
USAAF A-20G-20 on used 2x SWHC Model 791-D 40,000 BTU units to heat the cabin, and electric heaters to heat the guns.
(UK Boston AC used the same heaters as the equivalent USAAF airframes.)

USAAF B-25C/D (early- to mid-war) equipped for cold weather used 2x units, 1x SWHC Model 790-C 80,000 BTU and 1x Model 791-D 40,000 BTU.
USAAF B-25H-5 and B-25J (late-war) equipped for cold weather used 3x SWHC Model 906-A 50,000 BTU units. (7" dia x 17.5" L)
(UK Mitchell AC used the same heaters as the equivalent USAAF airframes.)

USAAF B-24C thru H, PB4Yx, and UK Liberator II thru VI, used 6x SWHC Model 789-F and/or -G units (all of 8,500 BTU output with integral blowers). (NOTE: Some late models of B-24 had a ducted air system, which used the engine heat for warming the cabin and de-icing.)

Early production USN and RAF PBY-5A used 1x SWHC Model 792-A 80,000 BTU unit with its own dedicated 1.4 HP motor. It was used for heating the cabin, and could be used for warming up an engine before start if necessary. Late production PBY-5A used a Skyheat Combustion Heater Model SGE-1 90,000 BTU unit with its own dedicated 2 HP motor. The Skyheat unit was retrofitted to most surviving USN airframes. A 1x SWHC Model 901-A 100,000 BTU unit was used on most airframes as a dedicated de-icing heater for the tail empennage.
USN and RAF PBY-5 used 1x SWHC Model 782-N 80,000 BTU unit with its own dedicated 1.4 HP motor. It was used for heating the cabin, and could be used for warming up a cold engine before start if necessary. Some PBY-5 used the SWHC heater for the empennage.
NOTE that some PBY-5 and -5A were not fitted with the combustion heater systems, depending n the customer's order and intended area of operations.

I have found non-specific data for Stewart-Warner heaters used in aircraft up through the B-36 bomber, along with another type with the name including the word Norman.

NOTE that the above is what I found with a few hours searching.

Model 792-G 20,000 BTU unit weighed 27 lbs for the heater unit alone.

Model 940 20,000 BTU unit (immediate post-war, used by Piper) weighed 21 lbs for the heater unit alone.

The draw-thru blower motor weighed an additional 5 lbs according to the weight and loading charts. There would be 1x blower motor per heater. You would have to add the ducting and wiring/control box to get the overall installation weight.

 

[buffnut453]

In the CBI, the Buffalo in Commonwealth service fared a little better due to tactics plus the IJN was still operating the A5M and the IJA was still operating the KI-27, which the Buffalo was capable of mastering.

Not quite. There were only a few A5Ms in French Indochina used as hacks by the IJN's 22nd Air Flotilla. There's no record of the Commonwealth Buffalos ever engaging the A5M in combat. The primary IJN fighter in theatre was the A6M (although, granted, not very many of them) and they were mainly used against the Singapore defences.

The Ki-27 was the most numerous IJA fighter over Malaya, Singapore and Burma but it was primarily used to defend airfields and resupply routes. The IJA's main fighter during the entire campaign was the Ki-43 of which they had two Sentais (note a Sentai is equivalent to a wing not a squadron). The Ki-43 was used in "aerial exterminating action" which today we'd call Offensive Counter Air. It was the Ki-43 that did all the damage against the Buffalos during the advance down the Malaya peninsula.

The Japanese planned their campaign very well. Taking Thailand first enabled them to use their Ki-43s to support operations in south into Malaya and west into Burma simultaneously, while cutting the ability of the RAF to move resources between those countries.

 

[buffnut453]

There were only 500 Buffaloes made about a tenth went to Finland, the various loss and kill ratios are from a small squadron sized sample. It should have been better than the Spitfire and Hurricane, it was a later aircraft.

Well...a wee bit more than a squadron-sized sample. Plus the Buffalo was in combat for a very long time: first kill was 25 June 1941 and the last was 3 October 1944. That's a pretty impressive record and testament to the skill not only of the Finnish pilots but also the maintenance crews who kept such a small force flying and combat-capable for so long.

Yes, the Buffalo flew later than either the Spitfire or Hurricane...but not by much. It was still a mid-ish 30s design and, like its contemporaries, suffered from lack of combat experience feeding into the design. It's key shortfall was lack of growth capacity. It was a small airframe and its design meant it was inherently limited from the very beginning.

Probably the best thing the Buffalo did for the US was spur development of the F4F as a monoplane (the XF4F-1 which the Brewster beat in competition was a biplane). It was still the first modern (with enclosed cockpit, retractable undercarriage, flaps etc), single-seat fighter to enter navy service anywhere in the world.