Hurricanes to Malaya, Buffalos to FAA

Hi all, Hurricanes to Malaya, Buffalos to FAA, how would that work for the Royal Navy. Given the large numbers of Hurricanes coming off production lines in Britain and Canada in 1941, and the realisation they are no longer able to face of the Germans, apart from sending loads to Russia, how about some get sent to Malaya/Singapore. With that done, can those 200 (I think this is 32 Belgian B-339, and a further 170 B-339 E ordered direct from the USA.

How well can the Buffalos do for the FAA, and where would they deploy them?

The Buffalos were ordered by the RAF specifically for theatres like the Far East where they were deemed unlikely to come across first line fighters. A quick off the shelf purchase from a US manufacturer who said they could deliver quickly. So the whole policy from late 1939 behind their acquisition needs to change.

The FAA needs carrier fighters. Not more land based fighters. So they either need ordered as a carrier version in the first place or rebuilt as such leading to even later delays in getting them into service. (Yes there is a photo of one on Eagle but it was an experiment using its landing gear to stop, not an arrester hook, and it wasn't repeated)

And the FAA placed an order for 100 F4F Martlets in mid 1940 which were delivered from March 1941 (10) and then preferred to wait 6 months for the folding wing version (90 from Oct 1941) with more following under LL contracts.

If there were Hurricanes going spare, which there weren't I suspect the FAA might have preferred those to Buffalos.

The Buffalo had problems operating off carrier decks.

There were problems with the landing gear bending when landing, which caused the struts not to fit correctly ( not fully retract) and the temporary solution was to file the edge to fit, which further weaken the struts.
Unfortunately, while there were some fixes incorporated in the gear from the early planes the rapid weight escalation of the latter Buffaloes meant the latter planes still had a problems.

Shortround6 said:

The Buffalo had problems operating off carrier decks.

There were problems with the landing gear bending when landing, which caused the struts not to fit correctly ( not fully retract) and the temporary solution was to file the edge to fit, which further weaken the struts.
Unfortunately, while there were some fixes incorporated in the gear from the early planes the rapid weight escalation of the latter Buffaloes meant the latter planes still had a problems.

Click to expand...

The problems were especially prevalent in the F2A-1 but were largely resolved in the -2 variant, only to re-emerge with the heavier -3. Given the extra weight of the British B339E variant, which was based on the -2, I suspect it would have behaved somewhere in between a -2 and -3, probably gusting closer to the latter. Also bear in mind that British Buffalos were de-navalized (no arrestor hooks, no floatation gear etc) which would have added to the weight...so perhaps it would have had deck landing performance like a -3.

Do we think the FAA may have looked at the Buffalo, and decided it was best well left alone, was the USN experience so bad? I think the US Marines were using them, but I'd guess purely as land based.

Fatboy Coxy said:

Hi all, Hurricanes to Malaya, Buffalos to FAA, how would that work for the Royal Navy.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid all you're going to get are replies telling you/us why your proposal would not, could not or should not have occurred. It's the nature of the house I'm afraid. To encourage your inquiry here is a photo from the Royal Navy's trials of the Buffalo.



I like the Buffalo for the FAA. It's the only monoplane fighter available to the FAA that can fit down HMS Hermes' lifts, for example until the folding Martlet enters FAA service.

And a claim here of a FAA Buffalo in the Western Desert.




"Gloster Sea Gladiator & Brewster Buffalo of 805 sqn FAA in Western Desert, June-July 1941". Though I assume it's just the former that's the FAA aircraft.

Getting Hurricanes from Canada to Malaya would be simple. The railhead at Fort William goes straight to Vancouver, from where they could be shipped to Singapore. The bigger issue is pilots. The next reply you should expect will be telling us why Hurricanes would make no difference in Malaya due to low aircraft numbers, inexperienced pilots, poor planning and execution of air bases, defence planning, etc. Much of this is accurate, but there you go.

EwenS said:

The FAA needs carrier fighters. Not more land based fighters.

Click to expand...

There are very few FAA fighters that were not versions of existing RAF lane based fighters. We have the Fairey Flycatcher, Fulmar and Firefly. Of course the Fulmar was loosely based on a RAF project, but was sufficiently modified to, IMO call the Fulmar a carrier fighter. After that every British carrier fighter was a land fighter until the Attacker. My point is there's nothing wrong with using a land based fighter for your carriers, as long as it's sufficiently modified, and not a POS to start off with, which I'd argue the Buffalo was not.

I'd rather be flying a FAA Buffalo over Norway in 1940 (if it was then available) than a Skua or Sea Gladiator.

805 Squadron, FAA did indeed fly Buffalos among other types in Greece and North Africa, before converting to Martlets in mid 1941. This was a land based unit.

On 17 June, 1941, Oberfeldwebel Hermann Foerster, 2./JG 27, shot down Buffalo AX813, piloted by Canadian FAA Lt. Lloyd Keith, who was providing air cover to a convoy near Sidi Barrani.

Of course the Fulmar was loosely based on a RAF project, but was sufficiently modified to, IMO call the Fulmar a carrier fighter.

Well, they did fit it a folding wing to it that the RAF project did not have.

EwenS said:

The Buffalos were ordered by the RAF specifically for theatres like the Far East where they were deemed unlikely to come across first line fighters. A quick off the shelf purchase from a US manufacturer who said they could deliver quickly. So the whole policy from late 1939 behind their acquisition needs to change.

The FAA needs carrier fighters. Not more land based fighters. So they either need ordered as a carrier version in the first place or rebuilt as such leading to even later delays in getting them into service. (Yes there is a photo of one on Eagle but it was an experiment using its landing gear to stop, not an arrester hook, and it wasn't repeated)

And the FAA placed an order for 100 F4F Martlets in mid 1940 which were delivered from March 1941 (10) and then preferred to wait 6 months for the folding wing version (90 from Oct 1941) with more following under LL contracts.

If there were Hurricanes going spare, which there weren't I suspect the FAA might have preferred those to Buffalos.

Click to expand...

For the F4F, 106 built during 1940. Another 324 built in 1941.

It wasn't that the FAA preferred to wait 6 months for the folding wing versions, it was how Grumman and the US government divided up the production that was going on.
Grumman built the 323-324 Wildcats in 1941, of which the US Navy got 107 F4F-3s and 5 F4F-4s. The rest of production was for the British.

So far not having a lot of luck with Canadian Hurricanes.
Accounts are all over the place. There seems to have been one or more built very early in 1940 but then accounts scatter, with some saying a few doze showed up during the BoB and other accounts saying first production wasn't until Nov 1940.

One account says about 30 early aircraft were built using Merlin IIIs and fitted with cutdown Fairley Battle propellers.

Fewer than 1/3 of the Canadian Hurricanes were shipped in engines.

Admiral Beez said:

I'm afraid all you're going to get are replies telling you/us why your proposal would not, could not or should not have occurred. It's the nature of the house I'm afraid. To encourage your inquiry here is a photo from the Royal Navy's trials of the Buffalo.

View attachment 654741

I like the Buffalo for the FAA. It's the only monoplane fighter available to the FAA that can fit down HMS Hermes' lifts, for example until the folding Martlet enters FAA service.

And a claim here of a FAA Buffalo in the Western Desert.

View attachment 654742

Британские "Буффало"

Тот факт, что во время Второй мировой американские истребители, поставлявшиеся по ленд-лизу, составляли весьма существенную часть британской палубной авиации, в общем-то широко известен. Считается, что Корсар лайми вообще научили садиться на палубу. Ну, а…

sergiovillaggio.livejournal.com

"Gloster Sea Gladiator & Brewster Buffalo of 805 sqn FAA in Western Desert, June-July 1941". Though I assume it's just the former that's the FAA aircraft.

Getting Hurricanes from Canada to Malaya would be simple. The railhead at Fort William goes straight to Vancouver, from where they could be shipped to Singapore. The bigger issue is pilots. The next reply you should expect will be telling us why Hurricanes would make no difference in Malaya due to low aircraft numbers, inexperienced pilots, poor planning and execution of air bases, defence planning, etc. Much of this is accurate, but there you go.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Buffalos received by the UK could have been converted back to be carrier-capable. Obtaining conversion kits from Brewster for correctly-designed arrestor gear, coupled with catapult hooks and floatation gear probably wasn't beyond the bounds of possibility. The FAA Buffalos were rather different birds than those procured directly for the RAF, lacking arrmour protection and having different engines. However, none of that was insurmountable. Since all but 3 of the RAF Buffalos went straight to Singapore, getting the RAF Buffalos to the FAA would require a decision in the autumn of 1940...and probably a contract change to get Brewsters to re-navalize the airframes which, inevitably, would have delayed delivery.

It should be noted, though, that the lack of wing folding on the Buffalo would still present problems for the FAA. Very few of the early Martlets used by the FAA operated from carriers precisely because of the lack of wing folding. By the time the ex-RAF Buffalos would be available in the summer of 1941, the FAA was already getting numbers of Martlets with folding wings, so it's rather moot whether the Buffalo would have added to the FAA' strength. Replacing Fulmars might be an option but I suspect fitting onto aircraft lifts might still be a problem for some carriers.

The photo of the Sea Gladiator does, indeed, show a FAA Buffalo of 805 Sqn; the Sqn badge of pyramids and palm trees is visible on the fuselage. The photo was probably taken in North Africa. As noted above, all except 3 of the RAF-ordered Buffalos went direct from the US to Singapore. The first 3 airframes (W8131-W8133) went to A&AEE for flight trials, and hence would not have unit markings. Thus, if you see photos of British Buffalos anywhere except the Far East or India, they'll be ex-Belgian B339Bs that the FAA took over There is one exception to that rule, an ex-FAA machine that ended up in India but it was a solitary airframe and not part of a formed unit.

As to replacing Buffalos with Hurricanes in Malaya/Singapore, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference unless there were other substantial structural changes to the RAF in the Far East, most notably completing the installation of radar sites and establishing a functioning ground control capability. When one examines the chain of events during the first 3 weeks after the initial Japanese attacks, it's hard to see how any other aircraft could have changed the outcome for the RAF. Also bear in mind that moving Hurricanes to northern Malaya would have added to the logistical challenge because it would be the only RAF aircraft in the region with a liquid-cooled engine, requiring additional glycol supplies. Now, that wasn't an impossible task but it would add to the logistical challenges.

buffnut453 said:

As to replacing Buffalos with Hurricanes in Malaya/Singapore, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference unless there were other substantial structural changes to the RAF in the Far East, most notably completing the installation of radar sites and establishing a functioning ground control capability.

Click to expand...

I'd like to think Britain's decision to send one of its still first rate fighters to Malaya would be part of a greater investment in the territory's defence. Nothing revolutionary, but install radar connected to a coordinated chain defence system, close half the airfields (you still only have about 200 aircraft, so many airfields are unnecessary), focus on a few larger, now monsoon-resistant air bases with good ground and AA defence. Ideally located on railways and roads for good logistics. Lastly, have spares, mechanics and aircrew available.

If you had 100-200 aircraft and troops and artillery and..........

See what equipment and troops were lost in Greece and Syria and in the East African campaign in addition to the North African dessert.


Red is the basic Italian borders and pink is the greatest extent.

If you want to send "stuff" from England to Singapore from Sept 1940 to Nov 1941 there was a bunch of places that were all calling for help along the way and people were actually shooting at each other. East Africa doesn't "end" until Nov 1941.

Some of that shading is very optimistic. The Italian incursion into Egypt clung pretty much to the coast road. The entire North African campaign didn't stray too far from the coast.

Shortround6 said:

If you had 100200 aircraft and troops and artillery and..........

See what equipment and troops were lost in Greece and Syria and in the East African campaign in addition to the North African dessert.

View attachment 654753
Red is the basic Italian borders and pink is the greatest extent.

If you want to send "stuff" from England to Singapore from Sept 1940 to Nov 1941 there was a bunch of places that were all calling for help along the way and people were actually shooting at each other. East Africa doesn't "end" until Nov 1941.

Click to expand...

They had bigger, or more accurately closer, fish to fry. Harder to maintain Malaya when the Empire's aorta, the Suez, was being threatened from both ends.

Admiral Beez said:

I'd like to think Britain's decision to send one of its still first rate fighters to Malaya would be part of a greater investment in the territory's defence. Nothing revolutionary, but install radar connected to a coordinated chain defence system, close half the airfields (you still only have about 200 aircraft, so many airfields are unnecessary), focus on a few larger, now monsoon-resistant air bases with good ground and AA defence. Ideally located on railways and roads for good logistics. Lastly, have spares, mechanics and aircrew available.

Click to expand...

The Hurricane wasn't a first-rate fighter come the spring of 1941. Britain was on a path to strengthen defences in Malaya/Singapore, which included deploying radar sites.. The target was to have more robust defences, including squadrons of P-40s and a full integrated air defence network by the spring of 1942...they just didn't make it in time.

Yes, you can close airfields in Malaya but, even as it was, AHQFE had problems finding places to store the spare airframes that they had available. That's part of the reason why the Buffalo squadrons, in particular, had more aircraft than was normal for a fighter squadron.

Getting ANYTHING more to Malaya by the summer of 1941 means a decision in late-1940, at which point everyone in the UK expected a resumption of the Luftwaffe blitzkrieg in the spring/summer of 1941. The threat being faced in the Far East was also unclear at that timeframe. I think about the best that could possibly be expected would be the dispatch of, perhaps, a few squadrons of Hurricanes in the late-spring of 1941. That probably wouldn't have denuded Fighter Command too much. However, as SR6 points out, there were a lot of other places that also needed those Hurricane squadrons....places that were actually in a shooting war.

Maybe the British could have squeezed a few more squadrons out of the UK (and a few more batteries of artillery and a few more AA guns) but would they have gone straight to Singapore (do not pass go, do not collect $200) or would they have gone somewhere in the med-east first as Gloster Gauntlet's, Vickers Vincent's, Vickers Valentia's, Vickers Wellesley's
and other odds and sods got shipped out to Singapore?

Shortround6 said:

Of course the Fulmar was loosely based on a RAF project, but was sufficiently modified to, IMO call the Fulmar a carrier fighter.

Well, they did fit it a folding wing to it that the RAF project did not have.

Click to expand...

A folding wing doesn't necessarily make a land plane a good carrier plane. The early Seafires IIIs are a good example. But anyway, the Buffalo was a carrier plane first, so the FAA should be alright.

Shortround6 said:

Maybe the British could have squeezed a few more squadrons out of the UK (and a few more batteries of artillery and a few more AA guns) but would they have gone straight to Singapore (do not pass go, do not collect $200) or would they have gone somewhere in the med-east first as Gloster Gauntlet's, Vickers Vincent's, Vickers Valentia's, Vickers Wellesley's
and other odds and sods got shipped out to Singapore?

Click to expand...

If shipped out of Vancouver the Hurricanes are less likely to be diverted to the MTO and ETO. Otherwise I can see them being taken for local needs enroute well before any/most got to Singapore.