Warbird Information Exchange

i think the animal buffaloes of the old 19th century west got equal treatment to it's ww 2 flying name sake, massacred, 1 physically the other reputation wise. i've been doing indepth reading on the f2a & find a big disparity of success. the dutch, brits, & 1 u.s. pilot had some victories w/ the type, while the finns excelled with the type, many aces too. the brits had a handful of aces but not like the finns. did the engine perform better in cold climates than in the armpit humidity of asia?? the finns were up against a gauntlet of superior air power against the soviets & held their ground up to 1944 w/ the type. why did the brits prefer a coned prop spinner for their import types & the u.s. & finns chose not to use it. has the buffalo been much maligned?? does it deserve some long awaited praise?? the finns had to be as weak as the u.s. / brits as to resources in such differing harsh climates, lack of spare parts etc.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Didn't the Finns have a lighter version than the US and the Brits, with more power?

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Both the P-39 and the Buffalo seemed to have much better success in the cold northern climates, both had problems with overheating in the Pacific. German accounts indicate some of the Russian pilots were excellent, and some were very, very, poor. The Finns many have also learned to exploit what advantages the Buffalo had, and stayed out of the areas of advantage the opposing aircraft had. "Don't play the other guys game." P-40s did quite well in the Pacific theater once they learned to avoid low speed dogfighting, very few aircraft could maneuver with a Zero below 200 knots, very few could maneuver with a P-40 over 300 knots.

Both the P-39 and Buffalo were used at lower altitudes in Europe where they seem to have worked better. The pilots in the Pacific used a wider range of altitudes and early in the war faced consistently well trained Japanese pilots. As already stated, the Buffalos in Finish service faced Russian pilots of inconsistent quality, and by 1943 the P-39 Russian pilots were likely facing similar inconsistency.

_________________
Kevin McCartney

The Finns success is explained in part by superior training and tactics. Thier tactical formations were similar to the Germans but developed earlier without any input from Spain or other combat arenas which makes the accomplishment pretty impressive. From 1941 to 1943 the Finns faced aircraft that were either a generation or earlier i.e. biplanes and Polikapov I-16s or directly contemporary like Hurricanes and early P-40s. The Russian pilots and thier tactics were not of the same quality. By late 1943 the Finns knew the F2A was outdated. One story about the Finnish Brewsters is that they had terrible engine oil problems until a mechanic decided to turn the oil control ring on the pistons upside down. Problem solved.

One thing about the more successful Allied pilots from what I have read is that they all seemed to be very aggressive and confident. It may not have mattered what the flew they got the best out of it. Brit and American and Dutch aircraft were at least a thousand pounds heavier than the Finnish ones and without much increase in horsepower.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

'The Brits' was actually the RAF, RAAF and RNZAF, all part of the British Commonwealth and Empire, and the Dutch Netherlands East Indies. As well as most of the points above, the Buffaloes in Singapore etc were not combat ready, lacking fundamental parts and equipment. The other major factor was a degree of cultural arrogance which led to massively underestimating the Japanese, massively over-estimating their own capabilities, tactics, training and combat experience, and finally all that in a defensive role.

The Buffalo was not a great fighter, best described as barely adequate, but as John's just put the Finns knew how to get the absolute best out of it, and had a better version. In Malaya it was a lower performance version, with various equipment that made it heavier and slower, and less manoeuvrable. Guns that couldn't work or jammed, through mount and firing solenoid problems didn't help.

Additionally among 'the Brits' there was a great deal of friction, including an incompetent RAF Squadron Leader who was foisted onto an Australian unit with predictable performance issues, and the command structure was a disaster. There was no-early warning, and the Japanese were able to apply continual pressure and usually had the advantage of surprise, height, number, choosing the time and place of battle and the ability to keep up the pressure (had Pearl Harbour been under the same assault that allies in Malaya were, we would be asking hard questions of the reasons those defenders became overwhelmed. Never forget Napoleon's maxim of big battalions.) Any tactician will conclude that with all that against them, the aircraft type was almost irrelevant. For instance, had the defenders of Singapore and Malaya in 1941-2 been equipped with, say, Sea Furies or Bearcats, they would still have had a torrid time - the actual type of aircraft was actually the least of their problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F ... 8Malaya.29

How much of the Buffalo users problems can be sheeted home to Brewster isn't normally given as a major issue, but it is worth noting that Brewster was that unusual thing in the era, a corrupt and massively incompetent US aircraft builder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_A ... orporation

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com