If no Buffaloes, what fighter would go to Malaya?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Yeah, I think the RAF hated that one, which is one reason I had to make that joke. The other reason is, of course, because it sucks up air in several long threads I've browsed.

In seriousness, I doubt they could have saved Force Z, or prolonged the Malayan campaign myself.
 
Force Z intentionally sailed to within range of land based torpedo bombers (and forget about Phillips not knowing the range of the Bettys, Beauforts could have made the same strike), without organic air cover or telling the RAF where it was or where it was going. RAF Malaya could have had three hundred Spitfires, but there was no saving Force Z under those circumstances.
 
Last edited:

My understanding is that air cover was planned, but Phillips made the decision to go ahead with his raid even though he knew the plan was kaput. And with the Japanese sending battleships and cruisers to the contact locations, did the RAF have any counter? Even had the airstrike failed, the Japanese had 16x14" guns and 30x8" guns headed there, and three cruisers with Long Lance torpedoes.

In any event, -39s could not have changed history, due to range considerations, I think. The distance to the site of the sinkings may have been within their range if flying from northern fields but Kota Bharu got lost early and I think the other fields would have really taxed the 'Cobras' limited range. They may have had some use doing air defense over Singapore, or air support for the ground troops if the RAF had any way of coordinating with them.

But that's an awful lot of whatiffery for me to pack into one post and I doubt conditions would have been changed even if you replaced every Buffalo with even Martlets or Spits, much less P-39s.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Even had the airstrike failed, the Japanese had 16x14" guns and 30x8" guns headed there, and three cruisers with Long Lance torpedoes.
Click to expand...
Indeed, talk about playing to your enemy's strengths. With the lack of air cover, as soon as the fighting started Force Z should have been sent to Darwin or Ceylon to await HMS Indomitable, indeed HMS Repulse was heading for Darwin when Pearl Harbour was attacked.

The best British defence against IJN/A amphibious assaults in the Gulf of Thailand, Singapore and the Strait of Malacca is effectively-escorted maritime strike Beauforts, MTBs and most importantly, a sizeable flotilla of the RN's deadly Perisher-commanded submarines, indeed the T-class were tailor made for this mission. On the first point, there's nothing wrong with the Buffaloes, the RAF just needs more of them. P-39s will do nicely too.

Heck, an airgroup of 300-400 mixed fighter types made up of USA-castoff Buffaloes, P-39s, P-36s, early Allison-powered P-51s and P-66s will do fine over Malaya. The issue wasn't the aircraft, it was that 3-4 fighter squadrons were covering a territory larger than the UK. Here's our Malaya Fighter Command dream team - give Malaya 36-48 of each along with better airbase location and defense, and Japan is in trouble.




​
The above is a mix of Allison, P&W and CW powerplants, so there should be some tool and spares overlap.
 
Last edited:

Nope, the Japanese spy network reports on the air armada in Burma. The Japanese high command decides that is too tough to take-on. Transports make a left turn bypass Hawaii and attack the undefended west coast of America (all the American fighters are in Burma)
 
You also need an extra 300 or more pilots and the ground crews (Erks) for an additional 300 fighters.

One also wonders what 300 fighters (leaving the Buffaloes in Burma) would have done elsewhere. Like what 300 fighters (even 2nd rate ones) would have done during operation Crusader (Nov 18th- Dec 30th) in the Western desert.
British inflict heavy defeat on Rommel? Shorten the NA campaign by months?
 
Good point, I saw that the first of the 675 RAF P-39s were delivered in Sept 1941. I assumed this was more than a couple of units. If we skip shipping them first to Britain, the P-39 can be shipped direct US to Malaya in Sept 1941, with the first two squadrons likely operational by early November. Clearly on this time time my other four fighters will need to carry the load.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Good point, I saw that the first of the 675 RAF P-39s were delivered in Sept 1941
Click to expand...

About 212 of those RAF P-39s were shipped direct from US ports to Russia, others were shipped from England to Russia, some never uncrated. and the US took over 179 as P-400s after Dec 7th. 54 were lost at sea during delivery (to the UK or to Russia I don't know). British took delivery of about 80 P-39s total and some of them went to Russia.

British received 11 P-39s in Sept of 1941.

100 P-400s arrived in Australia Dec 23rd 1941 so there is some wiggle room on shipment but planes arriving in crates are not very useful right away
 
Indeed. I believe the Buffaloes arrived in Malaya in the spring of 1941, about the same time as Percival. We'd need our P-36s, P-51A, P-66 and additional Buffaloes to arrive around this time. That may be too soon for the P-51A.

Ideally I'd like to see a nacent fighter force at Malaya upon the opening of the naval base in 1938. This could be as little as two or three squadrons of Gladiators or Gauntlets. Per Wikipedia, as the Gladiators and Hurricanes entered service in Britain the Gauntlets were shipped to the Middle East to form three squadrons. Let's send three squadrons of Gauntlets (plus spares) to Malaya in 1938 with the intent to scale up this fighter force if things in Japan-China continue to worsen. Then in autumn 1940 at the end of the BoB, whatever is available (Hurricanes, Hawks and Vanguards, etc.) can be shipped out to requip these now experienced three squadrons, plus add an additional six to ten squadrons.
 
Last edited:
One question is "why aren't Buffaloes available?" My preferred answer would be that a different fighter won the competition for the USN's first monoplane fighter. Perhaps something from a company that a) knew how to design aircraft, in general, and carrier aircraft in particular and b) didn't have such poor management that they managed to be that rare defense contractor that went out of business DURING A WAR. On the other hand, both Northrop (XFT) and Vought (V-141) botched their initial monoplane fighters for the USN.

In any case, the RAF didn't need a carrier-based fighter in Malaysia (the RN needed one everywhere, but I digress....). Since the only available non-British manufacturers were in the US, the two that may have been exportable were the Curtiss-Wright CW-21/CW-21B (which had numerous problems, like no armor, no self-sealing tanks, and pretty light armament) and the P-43 (the XP-41 may have been exportable, had more than one been built).
 


Bear in mind that any increase in front-line fighter strength will require additional MU resources for the required depot-level maintenance. Even with just the Buffalos, 151 MU found itself overtasked, hence the creation of 152-154 MUs in 1941 in an attempt to increase depot capacity in the theatre, although 151 MU remained a choke point for deep airframe maintenance.
 
swampyankee said:
Since the only available non-British manufacturers were in the US, the two that may have been exportable were the Curtiss-Wright CW-21/CW-21B
Click to expand...
What of the P-36 and P-66?

The Brits had placed an order for three hundred Reggiane Re.2000 Falcos. But otherwise true, it's US aircraft or nothing for offshore options. My favourite fighter for Malaya/Burma is all the Hurricanes made in Canada. They could be crated and shipped by rail (or flown) from Fort William to Vancouver. IIRC, most of the Hurricanes made in Canada destined for Russia never made it past the U-Boats, so we might as well make use of them defending the empire.
 
Last edited:
According to this (in approximately the last quarter of the video), it really didn't matter what planes they chose to send, as long as numbers, pilots and the as always depressingly boring logistic situation wasn't changed.


As so often, he has some interesting points well presented.
 
For a general overview, it's not bad at all. He correctly identifies the major changes in weight that occurred through the life of the Buffalo, and the lack of concomitant engine power increases. That the Buffalo suffered due to overly-strict USN requirements that were subsequently relaxed for the F4F is an interesting perspective that I hadn't heard before.

His comments about the A6M are somewhat dubious. While there certainly was confusion between different Japanese fighter types (the Ki-43 wasn't recognized as a distinct design until, I believe, 1943!), it's also clear from the excellent "Bloody Shambles" volumes that Commonwealth Buffalos engaged Zeros over Singapore. It's also clear that the USMC fought them over Midway.

He also rather oversimplified the IJAAF's campaign plan in Malaya. Yes, the Ki-27 was the most numerous IJAAF fighter in the theatre but it was mostly used for defence of airfields and shipping routes for resupply. The Ki-43s were employed in what, today, we'd call Offensive Counter-Air (the Japanese called it "aerial exterminating action" which certainly sounds more aggressive!). Since the Japanese were attacking, they could pick the time and location of their engagement whereas the poor Buffalos had to try and defend everywhere...and do that without radar or ground control. The solution of standing patrols over Allied airfields was expensive in airframes and still meant that the Buffalos were often engaging from a tactical disadvantage. Plus, there was never more than one squadron's worth of Buffalos in Malaya compared to 50+ Ki-43s available to the IJAAF. Little wonder the Buffalo didn't succeed.

The video's observations about training and logistics are bang on the money. Swap out Buffalos for Spitfires and the outcome of Malaya/Singapore wouldn't have been any different. There were simply too few RAF fighters, flown by brave pilots who had too little experience, and without the critical support infrastructure (including radar and fighter control) that enabled such success in the Battle of Britain.
 
buffnut453 said:
Swap out Buffalos for Spitfires and the outcome of Malaya/Singapore wouldn't have been any different. There were simply too few RAF fighters....
Click to expand...
Exactly. You can't defend territory the size of the UK with sixty fighters of any type then in service. OTOH, give RAF Malaya Command the five hundred Buffalos (or equivalents) that they asked for, along with good logistics support and properly located and defended air bases and the Brewster is more than up to the task of defending Malaya.

There's nothing wrong with the Buffalo, or Hawk and Vanguard for that matter. You just need more of them. When Malaya had four active fighter squadrons in Dec 1941 the UK had over eighty fighter squadrons, most of which were doing little beyond Rhubarb raids as the Luftwaffe was fully invested in Barbarossa. Meanwhile Malaya, Malta and North Africa are crying out for fighter cover.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
A
Empire fighter program?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MiTasol
M
If German have access to high ocatane fuel, how does that impact the performance of their fighters?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
Engineman
E
A
What if the Germans had radar proximity fused AA shells?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
9K
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register