MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

[Milosh]

Buffalo are not exactly wimpy, lumbering beasts.

Whether Cape Buffalo or Bison (NA Buffalo), they are not to be taken lightly.

 

[swampyankee]

I can't see the example

It's at National Geographic. Apparently, they've mucked up their site. Try this video: Rhino vs. Cape Buffalo

 

[Stig1207]

But the fact that Finnish fighter pilots liked Model 239 very much and that it was the most successful FiAF fighter during the early years of the Continuation War (1941-06-25 - 1944-09-04) says something on the plane.

Mostly says right place, right time and in the hands of the right pilots. The question is: would Finnish fighter pilots have liked the B.239 just as much if the quality of their opponents had been on the same level as say the early war Japanese pilots?

 

[Schweik]

Mostly says right place, right time and in the hands of the right pilots. The question is: would Finnish fighter pilots have liked the B.239 just as much if the quality of their opponents had been on the same level as say the early war Japanese pilots?

You have to be careful with assumptions. I know many people here would assume that Bf 109s would have done great in the Pacific, I have my doubts.

The B.239 was not just functional in the Finnish zone, it was their favorite aircraft and they used the B-239 successfully until 1944. They were credited with 496 kills for 19 losses. Two of their aces scored over 30 kills on the B.239 (Hans Wind and Eino Juutilainen).

Most of the other planes they did well with - the Hawk, G.50 and D.XXI, did at least reasonably well in other Theaters. The Hawk was the most successful Allied fighter in the Battle of France in terms of victories to loss ratios. The G.50 did well in Italian hands on the Russian Front and in North Africa at least initially. The D.XXI acquitted itself reasonably well when the Germans invaded Holland.

Its worth noting that the B.239 were used by the Finns against Germans in the Lapland War in 1944, they did not encounter German fighters but shot down 2 Ju 87s and 1 Ju 88.

They also used the following aircraft (They also used many others in descending order by number available, the main ones in the Continuation War from 1941-1944 in bold):

Bf 109G-6 - 109
Fokker D.XXI - 97
Morane M.S. 406 - 77
B.239 "Buffalo" - 44
Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2 - 48
VL Myrsky - 47
Curtiss Hawk 75 (various subtypes) - 37
Fiat G.50 - 35
Gloster Gladiator MK II - 30
Gloster Gauntlet Mk II - 24
Polikarpov I-153 - 21
Bristol Bulldog MK IVA - 17
Gloster Gamecock MK II - 16
Hurricane MK I - 12
Morane M.S. $10 - 10
Polikarpov I-16 - 6
Hurricane MK II - 3

S

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I don't think anyone here would think the 109 would have been great in the Pacific. Too limited in range, and not ideal for carrier operations.

Come on now, give a lil credit to the membership...

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I don't think anyone here would think the 109 would have been great in the Pacific. Too limited in range, and not ideal for carrier operations.

Come on now, give a lil credit to the membership...

No, but I bet it would have been better than the P-400 defending Port Moresby and Gaudalcanal. (If the pilots ever figured out how to takeoff and landing it!)
Cheers, Wes.

 

[Schweik]

I don't think anyone here would think the 109 would have been great in the Pacific. Too limited in range, and not ideal for carrier operations.

Come on now, give a lil credit to the membership...

I shall. I generally do, there is a wealth of technical knowledge here. But I have become wary of assuming what seem to be obvious or uncontroversial statements are just that, often they are aggressively challenged. Which is fine, it's often how you learn.

Brewster Buffalo in squadron service, Finnish Air Force

I found a bit more on the Finnish use of the B-239. This is just "some website" so take it with a grain of salt, it says it's derived from "Suomen Ilmavoimien historia 1: Brewster Model 239" by K. Keskinen, K. Stenman and K. Niska, ISBN 951-9035-16-8 or ISBN 952-5026-02-7," but this person points out that the B-239 was popular partly because it was effective in "Boom and Zoom" attacks against Russian Lufberry circles (of mostly I-153 and I-16) for which the 'Brewsters' were more suited due to heavier (.5 in) guns and good dive characteristics, and they mention when the better Russian fighters (La 5, Yak 1, Yak 9) came out the Soviets stopped using Lufberry circles, dogfights ensued, and the Finns did start having more of an even fight and more casualties.

Sounds a lot like what happened in North Africa from late 1942. Or on the Russian Front starting in early 1943.

Some quotes:

"There were several instances that when the Brewsters were sighted the Soviet planes retreated. In fact, for some time it seemed that all Soviet planes had completely disappeared, but the mystery was solved when two Soviet partisans with binoculars and a radio set were found near the main Brewster base. Thus the Soviets were so afraid of Brewsters that they didn't risk their planes at all when there was even a slight possibility of confronting Brewsters!"
...
"Soviet "Spanish Ring" was countered by the Finns by so called Pendulum tactic which was vertical; dive in from high, climb up and do the same thing again. In numerous prewar exercises it had been proved that this tactic would provide highest kill ratios. The Fokker D.XXI's used during the Winter War couldn't be used this way, since their climb, speed and diving qualities weren't good enough, but the Brewsters were the right planes for it. (This was one of the chief reasons for Brewster's popularity.)

Later on, more experienced and faster Soviet planes started using similar tactics against Brewsters and of course they were countered by starting a conventional dogfight. This tactic wasn't so succesful, and kill ratios, while always favouring Finns, started getting worse and heavy casualties were sometimes suffered."
...

"In 1943 the new Soviet fighter types began to appear, and combatting them was starting to get hard. Most of the battles were fought in spring and autumn. The biggest battle for Finnish Brewsters ever was in 21st of April 1943 over the Gulf Of Finland, when sixteen Brewsters combatted 35 Soviets. Four LaGG-3's, four LaG-5's and eleven Yak-1's were brought down against the loss of two Brewsters.

During the next winter even more modern fighter types, such as La-5's and Yak-9's appeared. Brewsters managed to shoot down only four of them. This was a clear sign of Brewsters age."

S

 

[Schweik]

A bit more perhaps of interest:

"Brewster tactics against individual plane models:
I-16, I-153: Especially suited for Pendulum tactic, use your speed advantagee, try to make the fight quite long, since both of them had very low endurance compared to a Brewster.

Hurricane Mk II: Straight from the Hans Wind, the top-scoring Brewster ace, while keeping a lecture to new fighter pilots: "Hurricane is the easiest enemy plane to shoot down. Under 3000 metres (9000ft) it's no match for us. It's slow and very clumsy and stiff. When you meet a Hurricane, immediately start a dogfight, then it can only depend on our good will. Aim to the front part of it, then it usually flares up" (This was taken from the "Lent{j{n n{k|kulma II")

SB-2, DB-3: Easy...You have both the speed and agility + a powerful armament. Usual tactic was to attack from the rear, kill or injure the rear gunner and then lit up the engines.

LaGG-3, MiG-1, MiG-3 and other fast Soviet fighters: Dogfight them in low altitude.

Pe-2, Douglas A-20 Boston: Dive in from high. They're faster than you, you can't catch them in a level flight.

Il-2: ("The Agricultural Aeroplane") There's a weak spot in the upper side of the wing's root. It usually ignites if you hit it. Another was to shoot at the cocpit from above.

Normally it was a policy to use only four planes on a patrol flight, but by the end of the 1943 larger formations of 8 to 16 planes, normally schwarms in multiple altitudes, had to be used."

Sadly they didn't mention anything about B-239 vs P-39 or P-40s which they did encounter (the Finns even captured a P-40).


The TL : DR is that the Buffalo, or at least the version they had, seems to be an airframe that was pretty adaptable and ultimately effective. Good tactics and training can explain their wild success rate against biplanes and open cockpit I-16s in the first year or two of the war, but the fact that the Buffalo was still effective in 1943 and 1944 speaks well of it to me.

I don't think the Germans were still using many Bf 109E or F in 1944 for example. The A6M2 was also getting long in the teeth by then.

S

 

[swampyankee]

Given how some aircraft that were successful in the ETO and MTO struggled against the Japanese, I think any claims that the Bf109 or FW190 would succeed are difficult to accept.

 

[tomo pauk]

Given how some aircraft that were successful in the ETO and MTO struggled against the Japanese, I think any claims that the Bf109 or FW190 would succeed are difficult to accept.

What would've been the reasoning for perspective lack of succes of the two German fighters? What era/year, what sub-types?

 

[swampyankee]

What would've been the reasoning for perspective lack of succes of the two German fighters? What era/year, what sub-types?

Why did the Spitfire V and P-39 seem to do better in the ETO?

 

[tomo pauk]

Why did the Spitfire V and P-39 seem to do better in the ETO?

I'm not sure that answers my question in any way - I was questioning the supposed lack of perspective succes for the two German types fighting in Asia/Pacific.

 

[swampyankee]

I'm not sure that answers my question in any way - I was questioning the supposed lack of perspective succes for the two German types fighting in Asia/Pacific.

The Spitfire, primarily against the Luftwaffe was successful, albeit not dominant, as was the P-39 in Soviet hands, also against the Luftwaffe. Neither had comparable success against the Japanese. That would tend to devalue any logic leading to a belief that German aircraft would fare better against the Japanese than would the Spitfire or P-39.

 

[Shortround6]

A lot depends on timing (read pilots) as most of the Japanese successes were against green pilots. Give the Australian and American pilots (or any of the Far East pilots) 109s or 190s in Dec 1941 and the spring/summer of 1942 and I doubt the results would be much different. Bring in several hundred experienced (but not necessarily experten) and the situation might very well change and that may be if the German pilots were flying the allied fighter types.
Experience and tactics count for quite a lot in actual combat.
Perhaps the US Army had experienced fighter pilots in small numbers. The US Navy did even if "green" to combat. But it takes training in gunnery and tactics, not just hours in the air. A educational story is the training that John Thach gave Butch O'Hare (O'Hare completed his flight "training" 19 months before he became an Ace), Much later O'Hare took Alex Vraciu as his wingman, Vraciu went on to become the Navy's 4th ranked ace.

But it takes time for even experienced pilots to get "green" pilots (even with 3-400 hours of training) up to combat speed and the Allies just didn't have that time in much of 1942 in the Pacific.

If it sounds like I am favoring any nation here that is not my intention. I believe that no nation produced better pilots (or worse ones) due to nationality.
Training and experience were major factors at any given time in any theater. Those could change in a matter of months as could relative strengths of the opposing forces.
However better planes do give an advantage as shown in the BoB. New Spitfire pilots lasted around a week longer than new Hurricane pilots (something like 3 weeks vs 2 weeks ?) which give the Spitfire pilot at least some edge in getting enough experience to last long.
I am not sure how many other Countries engaged in a battle with as many planes over a long enough period of time to draw a similar picture until much later. And then we get into discussions of falling standards on the opposing side.

 

[pbehn]

A point defence interceptor can never prove superiority, it can only ever make the opposition pi$$ed off to varying levels.

 

[Schweik]

Thought about this a bit and I think the German planes would have had some utility.

The Bf 109 would only be useful as an interceptor which would be a significant Operational / Strategic limitation but that could be pretty important in the Pacific, such as for defending airfields or ships. Excellent rate of climb, speed and heavy armament would help with that quite a bit. High dive speed would allow it to disengage from Zeroes and Ki-43s. The Ki-61 (when maintenance issues allowed) was considered a good fighter in the Pacific and it had essentially the same engine (slightly less robust version of the DB 601). We know the Bf 109 can hold it's own against Allied types the question is how well would it do against Japanese fighters.

The Ki61 is slower but much more maneuverable, maybe a bit better in climb and has nearly twice the range at ~680 miles (not clear though if that is with external tanks or not) and probably equivalent in dive.

I think Ki-61 vs. Bf 109 would be an interesting fight.

The Fw 190 would probably be useful too within it's relatively short range. It would have similar problems that P-40s and Spit Vs had in intercepting Japanese formations at 30,000 feet. But with boom and zoom tactics could no doubt contend with A6M and Ki 43 up to medium altitude. Probably do pretty well in CBI.

And I think Ju-87s would be pretty good at sinking ships, probably on par with SBD or D3A.

However the range would be the big problem obviously. The Germans lacked an effective long range fighter. Me 110s would probably suffer against IJA and IJN fighters much as they did against Spitfires, maybe worse. Due to the range limitation the IJA and in particular the IJN would be able to concentrate power where the enemy was weaker and leverage their advantages.


S

 

[tomo pauk]

The Spitfire, primarily against the Luftwaffe was successful, albeit not dominant, as was the P-39 in Soviet hands, also against the Luftwaffe. Neither had comparable success against the Japanese. That would tend to devalue any logic leading to a belief that German aircraft would fare better against the Japanese than would the Spitfire or P-39.

Spitfire V and P-39D, the 1st mark of respective fighters that battled Japanese, were of generaly lower performance than contemporary Bf 109 and Fw 190. Thus IMO the results of air combat between Mk.Vs and 39-Ds vs. Zeros cannot be directly applied for the results of what-if combat between the German fighters and Zeros. Both German fighters were roughly of same performance as it was the F4U, while being far smaller (thus a harder thing to spot and act 1st).

 

[Schweik]

Spitfire V and P-39D, the 1st mark of respective fighters that battled Japanese, were of generaly lower performance than contemporary Bf 109 and Fw 190. Thus IMO the results of air combat between Mk.Vs and 39-Ds vs. Zeros cannot be directly applied for the results of what-if combat between the German fighters and Zeros. Both German fighters were roughly of same performance as it was the F4U, while being far smaller (thus a harder thing to spot and act 1st).

The actual combat record of the Spit V against contemporaneous Bf 109s was pretty good, certainly at or very near parity based on the now published records we have comparing victories and losses on both sides. Performance of the Spit V was roughly equivalent to Bf 109F and early G models and it was much more maneuverable. By the time G-6 comes out it's certainly faster but at that point I think they had Spit VIII and IX (VIII being more important for Pacific). We know Spit V was inferior to the Fw 190A of course.

Per my last post, I suspect Fw 190s would be good against A6M and Ki 43 probably, if flown wisely, but may have had trouble with Ki 61.

P-39 actual combat history against German planes is a bit trickier to nail down unless you know better sources than I do. Combat there is at low altitude which was somewhat mirrored in the CBI where the focus of the Air War was largely on supporting ground forces, CAS etc. so the context was similar, but range was longer. I don't think there were many P-39s deployed there, they only claimed 5 victories as opposed to 288 in the Pacific where they were at a disadvantage due to Altitude.

S

 

[wuzak]

109F-1 and F-2 were of similar performance to the Spitfire V. The Bf 109F-4 and, especially, the Fw 190A clearly outclassed the V.

 

[wuzak]

The Fw 190 would probably be useful too within it's relatively short range. It would have similar problems that P-40s and Spit Vs had in intercepting Japanese formations at 30,000 feet. But with boom and zoom tactics could no doubt contend with A6M and Ki 43 up to medium altitude. Probably do pretty well in CBI.

I believe the P-40 had different problems intercepting Japanese fighters at 30,000ft than did the Spitfires.

The Fw 190A could probably haul an auxiliary fuel tanks and still have a performance advantage. Though, maybe not at 30,000ft.