Worst aircraft of WW2?
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
I think part of the problem in evaluating the Buffalo is that it changed so much from the first models to the last. And that many of these different models were in combat all within 2 years.
The Early models (the F2A-1 and the B239) were much lighter than the later ones and might have actually been able to maneuver with a Zero. However that Ugly weight problem rears it's it's head and reality starts to intrude. At 5040lbs Gross weight for an early model Buffalo you are not only missing the armour and what ever crude form of fuel tank protection that could be put on the tanks (although there was a CO2 purge system.) you are also without the wing .50cal guns. Leaving the Plane armed with just a single .50 with a 200 rounds and a single .30 with 500 rounds. It also measn filling the tanks with only 110gals of fuel. While this might represent combat weight after burning off fuel you would have to give the same consideration to it's opponents. Maybe the Finns with their shorter flight distances never filled the tanks all the way?
Adding the two wing .50cal guns increases the weight by about 263lbs including ammo. you now have a 5300lb fighter against the Zero and what is the Zeros weight with 2/3 fuel on board?
Structual weights climbed as did engine and propeller weights. The Dutch, British and Belgian planes had power plant weights (engine, accessoreis, propeller, controls, oil systems,etc) around 300lbs heavier than the First planes. Switching to a full .50cal armament with increased ammo capacity sky rocketed the armament weight. From around 240lbs for the original two gun armament to 547lbs for the four .50s with full ammo load for another 300lbs.
Leaving out armour and self sealing ful tansk might have helped a bit but (as would flying with half ammo) but with the wing somehow picking up an extra 100lbs on it's own whatever later model Buffalo is chosen is going to be over 800lbs heavier than the early versions even without protection. Granted the Buffalo picked up 150-250hp but the extra weight almost exactly cancels out the extra power and the wing loading goes up by about 17%. Heavily loaded F2A-3s are even worse.
Does this mean the Buffalo is the worst airplane of WW II? No, far from it. But it was a dead end design and was recongnized as such. No amount of wishing or hoping or what if'ing are going to transform it into a first rate fighter (or even middle of the pack) at the end of 1941, begining of 1942.
The Early models (the F2A-1 and the B239) were much lighter than the later ones and might have actually been able to maneuver with a Zero. However that Ugly weight problem rears it's it's head and reality starts to intrude. At 5040lbs Gross weight for an early model Buffalo you are not only missing the armour and what ever crude form of fuel tank protection that could be put on the tanks (although there was a CO2 purge system.) you are also without the wing .50cal guns. Leaving the Plane armed with just a single .50 with a 200 rounds and a single .30 with 500 rounds. It also measn filling the tanks with only 110gals of fuel. While this might represent combat weight after burning off fuel you would have to give the same consideration to it's opponents. Maybe the Finns with their shorter flight distances never filled the tanks all the way?
Adding the two wing .50cal guns increases the weight by about 263lbs including ammo. you now have a 5300lb fighter against the Zero and what is the Zeros weight with 2/3 fuel on board?
Structual weights climbed as did engine and propeller weights. The Dutch, British and Belgian planes had power plant weights (engine, accessoreis, propeller, controls, oil systems,etc) around 300lbs heavier than the First planes. Switching to a full .50cal armament with increased ammo capacity sky rocketed the armament weight. From around 240lbs for the original two gun armament to 547lbs for the four .50s with full ammo load for another 300lbs.
Leaving out armour and self sealing ful tansk might have helped a bit but (as would flying with half ammo) but with the wing somehow picking up an extra 100lbs on it's own whatever later model Buffalo is chosen is going to be over 800lbs heavier than the early versions even without protection. Granted the Buffalo picked up 150-250hp but the extra weight almost exactly cancels out the extra power and the wing loading goes up by about 17%. Heavily loaded F2A-3s are even worse.
Does this mean the Buffalo is the worst airplane of WW II? No, far from it. But it was a dead end design and was recongnized as such. No amount of wishing or hoping or what if'ing are going to transform it into a first rate fighter (or even middle of the pack) at the end of 1941, begining of 1942.
Hello Shortround
FAF B-239s were armed in summer 41 with 3 .5 hmgs and one .300 mg and alsohad back and head armour for the pilot but no self-sealing. So IMHO B-239 was not a top class fighter but middle class yes, Finns thought that it definitely was better than Hurricane at low and middle altitudes which were the height bands that were important when fighting against Soviets.
Juha
FAF B-239s were armed in summer 41 with 3 .5 hmgs and one .300 mg and alsohad back and head armour for the pilot but no self-sealing. So IMHO B-239 was not a top class fighter but middle class yes, Finns thought that it definitely was better than Hurricane at low and middle altitudes which were the height bands that were important when fighting against Soviets.
Juha
Shortround6
Major General
THe weight charts in the book "America's Hundred Thousand" show Gross weights for a 2 gun fighter with 110gal, a 2 gun bomber with 110gals, a 2 gun fighter with 160gal, and a 4 gun fighter with 110 gal. THese are more than likely American "factory" weights and do not actual show Finnish service weights. THe Gross weights (dropping decimals) are 5014, 5276, 5314 and 5276. Some source claim that the American F2A-1 grossed 5040 and lump the 239 in with it and then don't add in the weight of the extra wing guns.
Considering most of the planes the Finns fought against did not have the manueverability of the Japanese aircraft a little more weight in the form of back protection for the pilot probably didn't hurt things much
The comparison with the Hurricane makes sense if you consider the engines. Since I doubt that the Finns had much access to 100 octane fuel that means the Merlin is limited to 880hp at sea level rising to 1030hp at just over 16,000ft. The figures for the Cyclone in the 239 seem to be 950hp for take off, 1000hp military power at sea level and a military rating of 800hp at 16,000ft. Normal ratings (max continous power) are given as 850hp at 6000ft and 750hp at 15,200. Given that the Hurricanes were over 1000lbs heavier I can see why the Brewster might have been a bit more spritely at the lower altitudes
Considering most of the planes the Finns fought against did not have the manueverability of the Japanese aircraft a little more weight in the form of back protection for the pilot probably didn't hurt things much
The comparison with the Hurricane makes sense if you consider the engines. Since I doubt that the Finns had much access to 100 octane fuel that means the Merlin is limited to 880hp at sea level rising to 1030hp at just over 16,000ft. The figures for the Cyclone in the 239 seem to be 950hp for take off, 1000hp military power at sea level and a military rating of 800hp at 16,000ft. Normal ratings (max continous power) are given as 850hp at 6000ft and 750hp at 15,200. Given that the Hurricanes were over 1000lbs heavier I can see why the Brewster might have been a bit more spritely at the lower altitudes
hello Shortround
Quote:"Considering most of the planes the Finns fought against did not have the manueverability of the Japanese aircraft a little more weight in the form of back protection for the pilot probably didn't hurt things much"
Yes, but some had, for ex I-153 was very maneuverable a/c and climbed well.
Juha
Quote:"Considering most of the planes the Finns fought against did not have the manueverability of the Japanese aircraft a little more weight in the form of back protection for the pilot probably didn't hurt things much"
Yes, but some had, for ex I-153 was very maneuverable a/c and climbed well.
Juha
I don't think either point is historically accurate.
1. The naval services concluded the Buffalo was not suitable for combat after its one and only outing in US colors v enemy fighters, the disastrous performance in hands of VMF-221 based at Midway v Japanese carrier based Zeroes (13 F2A-3 and 2 F4F-3's lost v 2 Zeroes and a few attack a/c actually lost, and the F4F's apparently downed the Zeroes). I posted the results of this combat in detail from the Japanese records and US accounts, I think way back in this thread.
Those were among the only F2A's remaining with front line units by that time anyway, but the US definitely did decide it was a lousy fighter after that incident, not suitable for combat. This wasn't a comparison to the F6F but to the F4F, which wasn't considered wholly satisfactory v the Zero, but the F2A not suitable for combat at all. We can debate their view, but that was the view of the USN and USMC at the time. Various pilots had liked the F2A as peacetime a/c prewar, but nobody wanted to fly one in combat after that Midway incident.
2. The addition of pilot and fuel tank protection to US naval a/c was a high level decision based on lessons learned in European combat prior to US entry into WWII, 'water under the bridge' by the time USN a/c actually entered combat in the Pacific. It took time to enact the decision, so in a few early operations F4F's entered combat still lacking fuel tank bladders and with no or homemade cockpit armor, but a single combat by VMF-211 at Wake was the only case where F4F's lacking (and not weighed down by) protection ever met Zeroes (3 Type 97's Carrier Attack Planes downed by 2 F4F's, 1 F4F downed pilot KIA and the other badly shot up by Zeroes).
More lightly protected and nimble Allies types failed against Zeroes in 1942. A/c like the Dutch CW-21 for example, high power to weight ratio lightly built no protection, could outclimb the Zero, and generally a reasonable opponent on paper to play to the same strengths; but didn't turn in positive actual results in the general circumstances prevailing. JNAF fighter units equipped with Zeroes had virtually uniform success v Allied fighters until they met USN F4F units from mid 1942, against whom they were only about equal; late in 1942 some USAAF P-39/40 units achieved close to even results v Zeroes in relatively few combats (a few Zeroes in New Guinea, most were in the Solomons facing mainly USN/USMC a/c), but the USAAF's record for all 1942 v the Zero was much less than 1:1. Allied fighter units mainly faced Zeroes in early-mid 1942 in Buffalo, Hurricane and minor types were all consistently unsucessful. In real history, there is no alternative model of a 1942 fighter consistently matching the Zero except 'weighed down' versions of the F4F. Some of the other types might have been able to do it in different circumstances but none actually did in the real circumstances.
Joe
Shortround6
Major General
I think you have something.
Brewster was winding up US Navy's last order for F2A-3s when Pearl Harbor happened. Facing a very real shortage of aircraft the US Navy placed NO follow up orders for F2A's in the weeks or Months after Pearl Harbor. This time period is a number of Months before any US Buffalos saw combat.
Brewster was winding up US Navy's last order for F2A-3s when Pearl Harbor happened. Facing a very real shortage of aircraft the US Navy placed NO follow up orders for F2A's in the weeks or Months after Pearl Harbor. This time period is a number of Months before any US Buffalos saw combat.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
From the horse's mouth...
http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221.htm
"The F2A-3 is not a combat airplane. It is inferior to the planes we were fighting in every respect. The F2A-3 has about the same speed as an Aichi 99 Dive Bomber. The Japanese Zero Fighter can run circles around the F2A-3. I estimated the top speed of a Zero Fighter, form what I saw, at better than 450 mile per hour.
It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots out for combat in a F2A-3 should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground."
Captain Philip Renee White
VMF-221
http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221.htm
"The F2A-3 is not a combat airplane. It is inferior to the planes we were fighting in every respect. The F2A-3 has about the same speed as an Aichi 99 Dive Bomber. The Japanese Zero Fighter can run circles around the F2A-3. I estimated the top speed of a Zero Fighter, form what I saw, at better than 450 mile per hour.
It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots out for combat in a F2A-3 should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground."
Captain Philip Renee White
VMF-221
Since mr. White says that Zero as fast as P-51B/C/D, I'd say that his credibility is undermined a lot. No offense.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Remember - this is from the mouth of a very young marine officer in his first combat while getting shot at, so I think its safe to say we all know he exaggerated a bit.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
This was brought up earlier
Buffalo wing being installed - interesting!
http://www.warbirdforum.com/straits.htm
Buffalo wing being installed - interesting!
http://www.warbirdforum.com/straits.htm
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"Bingham-Wallis defends the Buffalo
[The following letter appeared in the August 1984 issue of Aircraft Modelworld, a British magazine. Peter Bingham-Wallis was one of a handful of British officers in RAF 67 Squadron; most of the squadron were sergeant-pilots from New Zealand. A tip of the virtual hat to Tom Cervo for sending it along. -- Dan Ford]
Buffalo comments
I bought a copy of your May [1984?] issue recently. On pages 79 and 80 there is a description by Mr Bruce Robertson of the Brewster Buffalo in service in the Far East. As a former "A" flight (67 Sqn) Commander in the period that he covers, I feel that I must make some comments over his descriptions of the Buffalo in service. I was also fortunate in the summer of 1942 to have some four former members of the 243 Sqn [Buffalo] posted to the 67 Sqn when we were at Alipore, Calcutta. Of these four, two were the famous Bert Sam Wipiti and Charlie Kronk.
Over the past 30 years I have suffered from reading articles condemning this particular aircraft out-of-hand. However, I realise that there will be shortly published a book, very thoroughly researched by Chris Shores covering the air war in the Far East from December 1941 to June 1942 in which it will be seen that the facts are very different as to what has been stated to date. [ Bloody Shambles, published in two volumes in 1992 and 1993]
In the meantime, as some help to Mr Robertson in the future, 67 Sqn arrived in Burma in October 1941. Six aircraft had already been assembled and flown by 60 Sqn which left that month with their Blenheim bombers for Malaya, leaving two aircraft with one crew. Twenty-four further Buffalo arrived and were assembled with the exception of three which were still in crates when the hanger they were in was destroyed. Only eight Buffalo were actually shot down during the campaign in Burma, killing the following pilots - Sgts Cutfield, Hewitt, Finn, McPherson; F/Offs Brewer, Lambert, Wiggiesworth; Flt Lt Pinckney, DFC.
Six returned to India (one of which was damaged in a landing accident at Dum Dum and used for spares). (Two went for a short time to 146 Sqn. The other three then remained with 67 Sqn - two of which were flown to Risalpur (NWFP) where they were flown by ex-67 Sqn pilots on rest at the gunnery flight.) Two were destroyed on the evacuation at Zayatkwin by our own staff. They were at the time being serviced, but the evacuation did not allow time for them to be put in an air-worthy condition.
Two newly assembled awaiting air test were destroyed on the ground. One crashed into a lake at Zaigon with engine failure and another crashed north of Pegu with engine failure, due to enemy action. Yet another with undercarriage failure crashed at Mergui and was used for spares. Five were destroyed in blast pens in Mingaladon during Jap air raids. One was destroyed during servicing by stupidly trying to weld bullet damage in the tank without first ensuring that the inflammable vapour had been expelled.
This gives a total of 30 aircraft. The Sqn over these few weeks of the Burma Campaign were awarded - 2 x DFC to Flt Lt Pinckney and Sqn Ldr J. Brandt, 1 x DFM to Sgt G. A. Williams. The Sqn had destroyed during this period 27 Japanese aircraft.
The official documents from both the Japanese and British sources show that both air forces in that first Burma Campaign each lost approx. 185 aircraft (our losses were coupled with those of the AVG).
P. M. BINGHAM-WALLIS, Frinton-on-Sea, Essex."
[The following letter appeared in the August 1984 issue of Aircraft Modelworld, a British magazine. Peter Bingham-Wallis was one of a handful of British officers in RAF 67 Squadron; most of the squadron were sergeant-pilots from New Zealand. A tip of the virtual hat to Tom Cervo for sending it along. -- Dan Ford]
Buffalo comments
I bought a copy of your May [1984?] issue recently. On pages 79 and 80 there is a description by Mr Bruce Robertson of the Brewster Buffalo in service in the Far East. As a former "A" flight (67 Sqn) Commander in the period that he covers, I feel that I must make some comments over his descriptions of the Buffalo in service. I was also fortunate in the summer of 1942 to have some four former members of the 243 Sqn [Buffalo] posted to the 67 Sqn when we were at Alipore, Calcutta. Of these four, two were the famous Bert Sam Wipiti and Charlie Kronk.
Over the past 30 years I have suffered from reading articles condemning this particular aircraft out-of-hand. However, I realise that there will be shortly published a book, very thoroughly researched by Chris Shores covering the air war in the Far East from December 1941 to June 1942 in which it will be seen that the facts are very different as to what has been stated to date. [ Bloody Shambles, published in two volumes in 1992 and 1993]
In the meantime, as some help to Mr Robertson in the future, 67 Sqn arrived in Burma in October 1941. Six aircraft had already been assembled and flown by 60 Sqn which left that month with their Blenheim bombers for Malaya, leaving two aircraft with one crew. Twenty-four further Buffalo arrived and were assembled with the exception of three which were still in crates when the hanger they were in was destroyed. Only eight Buffalo were actually shot down during the campaign in Burma, killing the following pilots - Sgts Cutfield, Hewitt, Finn, McPherson; F/Offs Brewer, Lambert, Wiggiesworth; Flt Lt Pinckney, DFC.
Six returned to India (one of which was damaged in a landing accident at Dum Dum and used for spares). (Two went for a short time to 146 Sqn. The other three then remained with 67 Sqn - two of which were flown to Risalpur (NWFP) where they were flown by ex-67 Sqn pilots on rest at the gunnery flight.) Two were destroyed on the evacuation at Zayatkwin by our own staff. They were at the time being serviced, but the evacuation did not allow time for them to be put in an air-worthy condition.
Two newly assembled awaiting air test were destroyed on the ground. One crashed into a lake at Zaigon with engine failure and another crashed north of Pegu with engine failure, due to enemy action. Yet another with undercarriage failure crashed at Mergui and was used for spares. Five were destroyed in blast pens in Mingaladon during Jap air raids. One was destroyed during servicing by stupidly trying to weld bullet damage in the tank without first ensuring that the inflammable vapour had been expelled.
This gives a total of 30 aircraft. The Sqn over these few weeks of the Burma Campaign were awarded - 2 x DFC to Flt Lt Pinckney and Sqn Ldr J. Brandt, 1 x DFM to Sgt G. A. Williams. The Sqn had destroyed during this period 27 Japanese aircraft.
The official documents from both the Japanese and British sources show that both air forces in that first Burma Campaign each lost approx. 185 aircraft (our losses were coupled with those of the AVG).
P. M. BINGHAM-WALLIS, Frinton-on-Sea, Essex."
That makes sense.
That also means his assessment of the planes from an above post are not accurate and should not be taken seriously, to say it mildly. Again, no offense.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I would take his assessment of the Buffalo with a bit more validity since he did fly in it and get shot at while flying it.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
I'm going to take some time and digest this a little more, but I'll leave you all with this.
...remember that all the accounts listed so far all deal with the worst version of the Buffalo that was ever produced, the "-3".
No one liked that plane, but originally (i.e., B-239), it was a good design.
...I really need to find that article I have on the Buff.
Shortround,
The gross weight figure I remember for the F2A-1 was around what you're quoting, but that's armed with 1-30 cal gun and 3-50 cal guns.
Your quote of one 30 and one 50 as armourment is news to me...HOWEVER, that is the armourment of the F3F.
I wonder if you haven't stumbled across a heretofore unknown typo.
Elvis
...remember that all the accounts listed so far all deal with the worst version of the Buffalo that was ever produced, the "-3".
No one liked that plane, but originally (i.e., B-239), it was a good design.
...I really need to find that article I have on the Buff.
Shortround,
The gross weight figure I remember for the F2A-1 was around what you're quoting, but that's armed with 1-30 cal gun and 3-50 cal guns.
Your quote of one 30 and one 50 as armourment is news to me...HOWEVER, that is the armourment of the F3F.
I wonder if you haven't stumbled across a heretofore unknown typo.
Elvis
Hi, FLYBOY,
I reckon it that he was, as a green pilot, shoot by Zero (correct me if I'm wrong about that). He states that Zero is able to do 450mph (=720 km/h).
He also states that his plane (I'll name it Buffalo, since it's easier to me) is not capable to catch Val dive bomber.
So, we should either trust both of his assessments ( of both Buffalo and Zero), or to discard both of them.
I choose to discard them.
I reckon it that he was, as a green pilot, shoot by Zero (correct me if I'm wrong about that). He states that Zero is able to do 450mph (=720 km/h).
He also states that his plane (I'll name it Buffalo, since it's easier to me) is not capable to catch Val dive bomber.
So, we should either trust both of his assessments ( of both Buffalo and Zero), or to discard both of them.
I choose to discard them.
Gordon Firebaugh, promoted to lieutenant j.g. and flying a Grumman Wildcat, was shot down at Guadalcanal. "I've often thought that . . . I'd [have] been better off in a Brewster," he said. "I think it would have matched the Zero. The [Wildcat] was heavier and didn't have the turning radius."
bottom line: you can always fiend a quote suitable for your ideas.
bottom line: you can always fiend a quote suitable for your ideas.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Hi, FLYBOY,
I reckon it that he was, as a green pilot, shoot by Zero (correct me if I'm wrong about that). He states that Zero is able to do 450mph (=720 km/h).
He also states that his plane (I'll name it Buffalo, since it's easier to me) is not capable to catch Val dive bomber.
So, we should either trust both of his assessments ( of both Buffalo and Zero), or to discard both of them.
I choose to discard them.
Your choice, remember he was the one in combat during a chaotic and confusing battle that saw his entire squadron decimated. Bottom line is his aircraft was severely out performed and he was lucky to escape with his life, that's the real heart of this story. I think we know his story was exaggerated but in the end history adjusts for this pilot's "exaggerations."
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think both were part of the equasion. Green pilots + poor aircraft = slaughter.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
