Brewster Buffalo - WW2's "Worst" Aircraft Wasn't All Bad | Aircraft History #7

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 17 ноя 2024

Комментарии • 531

  • @myrskylintu1
    @myrskylintu1 2 года назад +407

    When talking about Finnish Brewsters, you have to put them in the context of the time. In 1940 Finland had Fokker DXXI and Morane 406's, and couple Fiats. Soviets had I-16 Rata and Hurricane I's. In this context Brewster was not bad at all. Pilots considered it better than Hurricane I, and good against the I-16 Rata. Morane 406 had only 840hp or so, and Fokker DXXI was outclassed. First aircraft Finns received that was equal to Brewster, was Curtiss 75 Hawk. It was not better than Brewster, but as good. Only in 1943 when we got Bf-109's, Brewster was clearly blown away.

    • @paulsnell534
      @paulsnell534 2 года назад +90

      I find Finland's involvement in WW2 quite fascinating and one of the most amazing things about Finland in WW2 is how they got the absolute maximum out of what was almost completely obsolete equipment. If there ever was a contender for punching the highest above their weight in WW2 Finland would be right up there.

    • @myview5840
      @myview5840 2 года назад +35

      @@paulsnell534 the phrase, A bad workman always blames his tools. Springs to mind!

    • @EneTheGene
      @EneTheGene 2 года назад +12

      Important to note that the brewsters didn't arrive in time for the winter war.

    • @sozzle600
      @sozzle600 2 года назад +2

      Con men.

    • @bostonrailfan2427
      @bostonrailfan2427 2 года назад +2

      same going up against Japanese fighters, they were holding until outclassed by the newer planes entering service

  • @edl617
    @edl617 2 года назад +249

    The Finnish Air Force produced 36 Buffalo aces. The top three were Capt. Hans Wind, with 39 Buffalo air victories. WO Eino Ilmari Juutilainen, with 34 and Capt. Jorma Karhunen, with 25.5.

    • @marcussoininen2084
      @marcussoininen2084 2 года назад +41

      @JZ's Best Friend Outdated tactics and poor training too, the Russians I mean.

    • @chuckschillingvideos
      @chuckschillingvideos 2 года назад +9

      @JZ's Best Friend No, the conclusion is that the Russian pilots and tactics were inferior (as they tend to be).

    • @theJDSaiyan
      @theJDSaiyan 2 года назад +2

      @@chuckschillingvideos did you know that in MIG alley, Americans were facing Russians in disguise

    • @Axterix13
      @Axterix13 2 года назад +6

      ​@JZ's BFF Nah. Some planes definitely are outdated, but for others, much of it comes down to tactics and needs.
      The P-39, for example, was loved by the Russians, but not by the Americans. This is, in part, because the Russians used it at low altitudes, while the US had more need for high altitude fighters. Meanwhile, the P-40, with overall worse performance, is generally considered a decent plane, mostly due to the Flying Tigers, who used tactics that minimized its drawbacks while utilizing its stronger points, and the iconic nose paint. Likewise, the Wildcat gets a bit of a bad rep due to early losses against Zeros, but even by the Midway, with the Thach Weave being used, already held its own just fine.

    • @harri9885
      @harri9885 2 года назад

      The version of the Brewster Finland got from the US was demilitarized and known as Brewster B239. They were later retrofitted with Finnish made Väisälä holographic sights and russian looted 12,7mm guns.

  • @somerandomguy___
    @somerandomguy___ 3 года назад +173

    Wow, this plane is a very good example of being the right plane in the wrong place

  • @Surrlibrumm
    @Surrlibrumm 2 года назад +104

    Best fighter plane in respect of the kill ratio in WWII is and was the Brewster 239 in finnish hands.
    Kill ratio over the whole war ... 33 : 1, ....
    kill ratio in 1941 (fighting the planes it was designed to fight with) 62 : 1.
    The F2A "Buffalo" was a complete different airplane. The Brewster 239 was the plane Brewster designed and had excellent handling characteristics. In fact so well, that the Finns called them "Taivaan Helmi" ("Sky Pearls" in english).
    The american Brewster F2A was an airplane that was buildt, after a "comitee of experts" insistet of several "improvements" which made it a sluggish pig.

    • @bradfordeaton6558
      @bradfordeaton6558 2 года назад +7

      That happened to the P-39 too.

    • @ippivonlarha9900
      @ippivonlarha9900 2 года назад +6

      That was just lovely.

    • @FyodorUshakovSuka
      @FyodorUshakovSuka 2 года назад +9

      @@bradfordeaton6558 Yep, but Brewster had to fight also against western P63's P51's P40's P47's Spitfires, Hawker Hurricanes + New Good Soviet stuff... Buffalo was heard opponent to the enemy as a Buffalo can be protecting it's heard. So it fullfilled his task with honours. Thank you.

    • @kanister60l39
      @kanister60l39 2 года назад +6

      "sky pearl".... first time hearing that most used name whas mabe "kalja tynnyri" ("beer barrel") or "pylly valtteri" ("bum walter")

    • @auggie803
      @auggie803 2 года назад +1

      -I wish they would convert this aircraft over to a civilian brand(if they haven't already done so).

  • @Rincypoopoo
    @Rincypoopoo 2 года назад +43

    There is a book. "Wings Over Burma" that tells the story of the Buffalo in the east. Written by an RAF mechanic it is a fascinating read.

  • @captainsalty9022
    @captainsalty9022 2 года назад +39

    The Smithsonian Air an Space Museum has a copy of the Brewster Pilot Operating Handbook which was issued to my father in 1941.

    • @BUILD.THERE.
      @BUILD.THERE. 2 года назад +2

      That’s really awesome. I loved going there as a child and just the other week I finally got to take my 5 year old son there. He loved it just as much as I did!

  • @spudgunn8695
    @spudgunn8695 9 месяцев назад +3

    Amazing how many of the "Worst aircraft" of WW2 were actually quite successful in different combat zones or different roles. I mean, even the Bolton-Paul Defiant was pretty successful as a night fighter!

  • @enscroggs
    @enscroggs 2 года назад +20

    The Buffalo's landing gear was a clever yet inadequate design that seems to have been unique to that aircraft and influenced no subsequent designs except as a negative example. The primary element was an aluminum monocoque outboard strut actuated by an inner strut composed of a mild steel tube attached to a hydraulic piston which extended and retracted the gear. That same hydraulic system also acted as the shock absorber, a job it did very poorly for carrier landings. As Brewster's design intent was to reduce the weight and complexity of the landing gear, the outer strut was also engineered toward that end. The monocoque strut was designed to retract neatly into its recess in the lower surface of the wing, creating an aerodynamically clean installation without landing gear doors of any kind. Unfortunately due to the inadequate suspension, less than perfect landing tended to distort the shape of the monocoque to the point that the gear could not retract.

  • @elennapointer701
    @elennapointer701 2 года назад +28

    I'm actually quite fond of this tubby little guy - especially the export version the Finns got (the B.239) that they liked so much, they built their own version of it.

  • @whatthedeuce47d68
    @whatthedeuce47d68 2 года назад +33

    Thanks for another great post.
    I've always been impressed by the Finnish forces holding out against the Russians in an almost mythical David vs Goliath type struggle which likely brings home the comment that the buffalo in the hands of properly trained pilots was a lot more potent weapon.

  • @dovidell
    @dovidell 2 года назад +60

    I watched a video about the Fairy Battle yesterday , and my opinion is that the " battle" was far worse , as was the Douglas TBD-1 Devastator

    • @brettpeacock9116
      @brettpeacock9116 2 года назад +8

      Or the SB2-U Vindicator...which the US rejected as unfit for ANY combat and the Brits used solely as a trainer The French, desperate as they were, rejected it too. Vaught's next project was the F4U-1 Corsair, which was "marginally!" better!

    • @bassetdad437
      @bassetdad437 2 года назад +6

      The Battle was intended as a bomber. RAF tradition to name bombers after towns and cities eg Halifax, Stirling and Lancaster. Battle was the town named as the site of the Battle of Hastings.

    • @dovidell
      @dovidell 2 года назад +3

      @@bassetdad437 you could name a fighter OR bomber "Southend " ( Britain's newest city , and site of the worlds longest pleasure pier ) but if it didn't do the job , you might as well name it bog-roll

    • @LUVEMDPOWER
      @LUVEMDPOWER 2 года назад +4

      The Devastator was my first thought when I saw the title. It certainly was devastating . . . . . . . to the crews that flew them.

    • @PeteCourtier
      @PeteCourtier 2 года назад +1

      I reckon the Me-210 or the He-177. Both turds😮

  • @coreyandnathanielchartier3749
    @coreyandnathanielchartier3749 2 года назад +9

    Another excellent video. Note, to be fair, nearly every Allied fighter that ran up against the Zero in the early days of the war suffered for the experience, until our pilots learned how to combat it's agility and amazing climb rate. Also, the Marine pilots at Midway (or the Dutch or Commonwealth flyers) were not only flying inferior planes, they were swamped by sheer numbers of Japanese aircraft.

    • @emjackson2289
      @emjackson2289 10 месяцев назад

      Really makes one wonder what might have happened had the USMC had access to say early-Mk Spitfires for example. Light, manoeuvrable, armoured, essentially interceptors. As opposed to the curious case where they needed to have Navy aircraft but without the benefit of naval deployment to carriers etc.

  • @Niinsa62
    @Niinsa62 2 года назад +108

    I saw somewhere that one of the Finnish Brewsters might have the most kills of any aircraft in history. That individual aircraft was used by several of the Finnish aces when scoring their kills, and the combined total was impressive. Must have been the best plane in that squadron if all the best pilots there wanted it as their ride.

    • @aceroadholder2185
      @aceroadholder2185 2 года назад +12

      Something like 44 victories I believe.

    • @jessfrankel5212
      @jessfrankel5212 2 года назад +11

      In the early 1940's, the Finns were fighting the Russians (who were still siding with the Nazis), and the Russians had yet to develop their Yak fighters and were using inexperienced pilots with lousy ground crews. The Finns stripped down the Buffalos and were pretty good pilots. They also used a different flying formation than the Russians did. Up against the better-built German planes, they didn't fair very well.
      ETA: while the Buffalo would have been a pretty decent fighter in the mid-1930's, it was largely obsolete by the early 1940's in the Pacific. Up against the Zeros, they had no chance. When the F4F came around, it did much better against the Japanese fighters and the Thatch Weave formation helped to provide additional protection against the faster and more agile Zero.

    • @kallekonttinen1738
      @kallekonttinen1738 2 года назад +17

      @@jessfrankel5212 Buffalo didn't arrive in time to partisipate Winter War. It arrived after that war. Buffalo partisipated 1941 fighting when Finns joined Barbarossa. So it did battle only when Finns were allied to Nazi-Germany.. 1941-44.

    • @mkl21bis
      @mkl21bis 2 года назад +6

      @@aceroadholder2185 460 kills, not 44.

    • @WarblesOnALot
      @WarblesOnALot 2 года назад +17

      @@mkl21bis
      G'day,
      The 460 is for ALL Buffaloes in Finnish Service.
      The 44 kills is for ONE Brewster Buffalo, a single Airframe...; it is THE single highest scoring Airframe in the history of Warfare on Planet Earth.
      Meanwhile, if you add in the kills racked up by other Air Forces (a Kiwi by the name of Fisken made Ace and scored 6 Kills as a RAF Buffalo Jockey over Singapore, and a few other RAF & RAAF Pilots achieved some kills against the Japanese - not so much the USN/USMarines...) the Buffalo may have shot down more Enemy Aircraft than rolled off it's own Production Line...! (460 + 80 = 540 Kills/ 530 produced).
      The only other Aircraft which ever did that was the Fokker E-1 in the War of One.
      Backtrack me to my "Personal Aeroplanology" Playlist, thereinat to view,
      "World's Worst Fighter Aircraft ; The 1941 RAAF Brewster Buffalo !"
      and then dig into the Comments Thread under that, to learn a few things about Buffalo.
      Such is life,
      Have a good one...
      Stay safe.
      ;-p
      Ciao !

  • @Franky46Boy
    @Franky46Boy Год назад +3

    Main problem with aircraft like the Brewster Buffalo and Curtiss Hawk 75 was that the pilots were not well prepared and not trained in air combat.
    Dutch pilots had to learn the hard way how to combat Hayabusa 'Oscars' and Navy Zeros. And the time to learn was extremely short...
    Finnish pilots had much more time to adapt to Russian 'tactics'.

  • @MaxwellAerialPhotography
    @MaxwellAerialPhotography Год назад +11

    Brewster making the leap from parts manufacturer to producing a full plane for the military kinda reminds of the story of Accuracy International and the 3 guys in a shed incident.

  • @tenburywellsmartin7576
    @tenburywellsmartin7576 2 года назад +24

    9:35 is a Wildcat,which in fact was a very capable aircraft..!

    • @neoandroid4203
      @neoandroid4203 2 года назад +2

      isn't there a wildcat at 6:15 as well?

    • @morgandude2
      @morgandude2 2 года назад +2

      ....and at 9:32.

    • @limprooster3253
      @limprooster3253 2 года назад +1

      @@neoandroid4203Yep. Easiest way to tell is the Buffalo canopy extends past the pilots seat, where a wildcat canopy ends directly behind the pilot. I imagine visibility out of the buffalo was amazing but I'm sure wildcat pilots appreciated the armor

  • @old_guard2431
    @old_guard2431 2 года назад +5

    Yet another in the "The Worst Aircraft Were Not So Bad After All" series. Most reviewers do not give the Finnish experience justice. Your short but fair and comprehensive reviews are excellent.

  • @scottparis6355
    @scottparis6355 2 года назад +20

    The Buffalo was ahead of its time when it was introduced in 1937. But it was one of (maybe) a dozen fighters from several countries whose time was up by the time the US entered the war four years later.
    Counting those, like the Boulton Paul Defiant, the Fairey Battle, and several from France and the Netherlands, it was hardly the "Worst fighter of World War II." They were all just too old.

    • @Simon_Nonymous
      @Simon_Nonymous 2 года назад +3

      Indeed - technology moved very quickly in the 30s and 40s

    • @limprooster3253
      @limprooster3253 2 года назад +4

      Exactly. At that point and time almost every plane was obsolete within 5 years. The Zero was the cream of the crop as far as carrier fighters go but by 1944 it was quickly becoming the throwaway plane of choice for kamikaze missions. I'm not saying that the Brewster was anywhere near that level, but I think this is just a case of the Brewster not being used while it was effective, and being pressed into service after it had already become obsolescent

    • @emjackson2289
      @emjackson2289 10 месяцев назад +1

      @@limprooster3253 just think, arguably, the best Japanese fighter of the war, the N1K1 was a Ki61 with a radial engine bolted to it (conversely, one of the worst fighters ever was the Avia S199 with a radial engine bolted onto an Me109).

  • @jakeb6703
    @jakeb6703 2 года назад +5

    10:19 what a fascinating camo, looks like the dazzle ship camo
    update for those similarly curious: apparently McClelland Barclay was given license to go wild on a few buffalos for camo testing before retiring the idea
    McClelland Barclay's No. 1 Dazzle Paint scheme is what is pictured

  • @kbjerke
    @kbjerke Год назад +4

    One of the Buffalo's designers was David Thurston, who went on to design the Lake Amphibian, as well as the Thurston Teal amphibian, which I had some experience servicing and restoring. Even had the honour of speaking with him on a couple of occasions before he passed away.

  • @svgproductions72
    @svgproductions72 2 года назад +7

    Good work, I made a two part video covering all the specifics earlier this year on all the Buffalo variants. Before working on the video I always thought the Buffalo was a terrible plane, but finding out about it’s history for Finland surprised me.

  • @overworlder
    @overworlder 2 года назад +11

    There were two RAAF squadrons (25 & 85) of Buffalos stationed at Perth WA until late ‘43 for local air defence. As the fighting moved away north the 25th got Vultee Vengeance dive bombers and then B-24s, and the 85th Boomerangs then Spitfires MkVs.

  • @AhnkoCheeOutdoors
    @AhnkoCheeOutdoors 2 года назад +10

    That's not an F2A3 @ 6:06, that's a Grumman Wildcat.

  • @patrickradcliffe3837
    @patrickradcliffe3837 2 года назад +20

    I would give that title to Bolton Paul Defiant. The Buffalo really never had margin for growth and performance suffered being overloaded from added equipment. Greg Boyington said about the Buffalo if kept lightly loaded it was more maneuverable then the Zero.

    • @jamesricker3997
      @jamesricker3997 2 года назад +5

      The Roc was worse
      A British carrier turret fighter with worse performance

    • @patrickradcliffe3837
      @patrickradcliffe3837 2 года назад

      @@jamesricker3997 the Roc was just a Skua with a turret it was a existing design that took from Defiant.

    • @aasphaltmueller5178
      @aasphaltmueller5178 2 года назад +3

      the aircraft itself was not that bad - it served on as a nightfighter and later on as a trainer and target-tug. . The concept itself was wrong and then the pilots were not allowed to use the tactics they considered appropriate to get something out of the aircraft

    • @freddieclark
      @freddieclark 2 года назад +2

      The defiant was only ever used by 2 squadrons in the daylight role. However it equipped (successfully) 13 squadrons in the night fighter role. It was never really intended to go up against enemy fighter aircraft.

    • @andrewteekell4324
      @andrewteekell4324 2 года назад +1

      Look up Italy's Breda Ba.88 - It makes the Defiant and the Roc look like the Spitfire!

  • @real_fjcalabrese
    @real_fjcalabrese 2 года назад +11

    A major takeaway is don't mess with Finland.

  • @timerover4633
    @timerover4633 2 года назад +2

    For a very good book on the Finnish use of the Brewster, get a copy of Fighter Over Finland by Eino Luukkanen. He flew the Fokker D21, the Brewster, and the Me-109G.

  • @F40PH-2CAT
    @F40PH-2CAT 2 года назад +5

    The Brewster Buccaneer, OTOH was a giant piece of crap in every aspect.
    My grandmother worked for Brewster in 1943/44. She was subpoenaed by Congress to testify when Brewster was under investigation, though was never called.

  • @mpetersen6
    @mpetersen6 2 года назад +5

    The worst US built production aircraft of WWII is a toss up between the Brewster Buccaneer or the Curtis Seamew. The Buffalo suffered as noted here by the overloading of the airframe.

    • @jacksons1010
      @jacksons1010 2 года назад +1

      Agree! The dreadful Brewster SB2A had a lot to do with the Buffalo falling into low regard as well. Brewster was BAD.

  • @conservativemike3768
    @conservativemike3768 2 года назад +12

    It was a lovely little plane that just needed a bit of sensible re-engineering and TLC.

  • @pimpompoom93726
    @pimpompoom93726 2 года назад +10

    A major problem was all the labor problems Brewster Company had, they contributed significantly to souring the US Navy on the design. This was combined with bad management decisions and lawsuits for misusing government funding and there you have it. With less Navy support, design development suffered and the aircraft always employed inferior engines when compared to the Grumman F4F Wildcat-who got preferential consideration. Buffalo was not a bad aircraft, but airplane technology was changing rapidly at that time and a company without deep pockets to fund continued development were at a disadvantage. Brewster were not up to the task of producing cutting-edge aircraft designs anymore and quickly faded away-the bad design Brewster Buccaneer bomber/scout was the final nail in their coffin. Though they did make some Corsairs under license during the War.

    • @BobSmith-dk8nw
      @BobSmith-dk8nw 2 года назад

      Yes. Brewster was probably the main problem with the Buffalo
      .

    • @plumcrazyhemicuda
      @plumcrazyhemicuda 2 года назад

      Right, but the F3A Corsair was outright rejected by the British, then the US took them "For training purposes only with very limited aerobatics" because the wings would straight up fall off if you tried hard maneuvers with them.

  • @RatPfink66
    @RatPfink66 2 года назад +2

    6:05 a/c pictured is not a Buffalo, but an F4F-4 with Fighting 41 from USS _Ranger._ That unit was one of the first to fly the Wildcat beginning in late 1940.

  • @perttisalminen6357
    @perttisalminen6357 2 года назад +10

    Great channel! Nice to see that "Finnish-part". That Lapland victories from "Stukas" are disputed. German's had no recorded losses in that day and there's also other uncertain issues. Case is interesting. Hannu Valtonen is reseached lots of the case. Buy the way: Merlin engined Fokker DXXI's climbing rate was better than Brewster. Actually only Messerschmitts beat that. I'm seen calculated table from this and interviewed some veterans.

  • @djbiscuit1818
    @djbiscuit1818 3 года назад +7

    Great video, but it looks like a wildcat snuck in at 6:05. As if the poor buffalo wasn't going through enough already!

    • @RexsHangar
      @RexsHangar  3 года назад +2

      Oh snap, I think you're right! Poor Buffalo 😅

    • @cabanford
      @cabanford 2 года назад

      Chuckle

    • @johnbockelie3899
      @johnbockelie3899 2 года назад

      Pilot: is this a plane ?, where do you put a quarter in the slot to ride it ?.

    • @K1W1fly
      @K1W1fly 2 года назад +1

      @@RexsHangar Also at 9:40...

  • @EldenLord00
    @EldenLord00 Год назад +3

    The Buffalo had 31:1 kill ration in ww2. I would say it definitely exceeded expectations

  • @Flapswgm
    @Flapswgm 2 года назад +1

    Excellent coverage of a vintage and not well known aircraft. Thanks so much.

  • @davidorrell6537
    @davidorrell6537 2 года назад +2

    Excellent production... best military aviation channel on RUclips... 👍

  • @robbierobinson8819
    @robbierobinson8819 Год назад +2

    Nice to hear about the Finnish use of the Buffalo.

  • @monicsperryn8497
    @monicsperryn8497 2 года назад +6

    The Buffalo performed well in Finland where conditions were cool and poorly in the Pacific area, where temperatures were higher

    • @danielcamacho1913
      @danielcamacho1913 11 месяцев назад

      Also, the Finnish planes weren't weighed down by the inflatable raft and its container that the US Navy used, or a radio. Radios were for *rich* air forces, and they weighed hundreds of pounds at the time.
      I also read somewhere that Brewster delivered a lot of Buffalos to the USN with used engines, and Finland got brand-new engines outperforming their specs.
      In the Pacific, Japanese naval pilots had been fighting since 1937 and had years of experience by the time they fought the US Navy, while in Finland *both* air forces started with no experience, though it seems likely the Finns had better training than the commies.

    • @timoterava7108
      @timoterava7108 13 дней назад

      The Finnish Brewsters had radios.
      The training of the Finnish pilots was superior to the soviet training. The same with the tactics.

  • @Sssaaatttuuurrrnnn
    @Sssaaatttuuurrrnnn 2 года назад +14

    Surprised to learn this. Years ago when I played War Thunder I had a Brewster Buffalo, and it was one of my favorite planes. Excellent turn rate and armament for its tier in Arcade. I wouldn't consider myself a fantastic pilot in that game but I found its performance good enough to bring it to uptiers.

  • @dananichols1816
    @dananichols1816 2 года назад +1

    Wonderful variety you are tapping into, Rex, press on! The Finnish history was great -- another facet of the Soviets getting a shocker of a shove back by such a smaller fella on their border (Stalin likely having previously executed most of his promising combat pilots, along with his entire veteran officer corps, before the Nazis turned on him). And, a solemn nod to the character and soul of the last Buffalo pilot to take off from Wake Island, giving his last lash at an enraged Japanese task force. That was like the vanguard note of what awaited almost all of the doomed crews of the Devastators, even then enroute to the grim opening rounds of those carrier air losses.
    Inclusion of the notes on Brewster's in-house turmoil, and the industry's collective chaos with predatory shysters, is great balance to your content... pile it on as you find it! If I may offer an excellent, further reference to the opening WWII engineering growing pains: Ian Toll's "War In The Pacific" trilogy does a fascinating, deep dive into several similar aircraft development stories -- most notably the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver (my uncle had been a tail-gunner on one); a host of no-go performance problems & generally despised by crew, the desperation of 'using what you got' during those opening years rammed that airframe down the fleets' complement anyway. Inclusion of all of the anecdotal and rest-of-the-background stuff adds to the sheer scope of what it took to get an airplane finally up and into the fight.

  • @Shipnerd194
    @Shipnerd194 Год назад

    Thank you for making this video - I love the buffalos and it's good to see someone shining this good light on them.

  • @eerotillanen8914
    @eerotillanen8914 2 года назад +4

    Finnish pilots also used a lot the boom-and-zoom tactics, where they did diving attacks to the Soviet formations below, shoot down their selected target and then climb up again taking advance of their momentum. If the enemy fighters tried to climb up they were shot down.

    • @watcherzero5256
      @watcherzero5256 2 года назад

      Soviets always flew very close to the ground.

  • @TerryDowne
    @TerryDowne 8 месяцев назад

    Years ago I read a book called "Most Secret" about the RAF testing establishment at Boscombe Down. Boscombe Down's report on the Buffalo was heavily negative. Test pilots found that the Buffalo was tiring to fly because it was difficult to trim in level flight. The engine tended to overheat readily and carbon monoxide leaked into the cockpit.

  • @garryferrington811
    @garryferrington811 2 года назад +4

    Very informative and well-researched. You make a good case.

  • @jjohnston326
    @jjohnston326 2 года назад +1

    I love the image at 3 minutes 55 seconds talking of the surplus aircraft going to Finland. Notice the prominent swastika on the fuselage.

  • @frankperkin124
    @frankperkin124 3 месяца назад +1

    The problem with the Buffalo was that it had to fly against the Japanese Zero using bad USN tactics. Once the Zero was understood, the USN started to do much better.

  • @danielbritton8588
    @danielbritton8588 Год назад

    The Buffalo was a 30's aircraft along with the P-26. They were like the Wildcat & the P-40. All obsolete at the outset of WW2. But, they still provided effective fighting platforms. However brief. I've never read about any accounts where the Peashooter was used in operations. Very few Buffalo accounts also.

  • @MackD-e1k
    @MackD-e1k 29 дней назад +1

    Had a kill/loss ratio of 33-1 when flying against the USSR for Finland.

  • @300guy
    @300guy 2 года назад +3

    It is interesting that because of the fact that the Finn's liked the aircraft so much, they built a wooden copy of it with an M62 engine from shot down Soviet I16's being a copy of the Cyclone in the original.

  • @rolsguitars
    @rolsguitars Год назад +1

    Boyington said he liked this plane and he could turn it in a barrel, it needed a little more power , he also said the engineers got thier hands on it and ruined it , he preferred it to the P40 that he called an absolute dog .
    Not saying he was right, but it was his opinion, I talked to him at an aces reunion in the late 70s ...

  • @charlestaylor253
    @charlestaylor253 Год назад +1

    The earliest models, (F2A1/A2), were actually quite decent fighters compared to most of their opponents in the early-war period. Especially in Finnish hands against earlier-gen Soviet aircraft such as the Tupolev SB series bombers, and fighters like the Polikarpov I-15 biplane and I-16 monoplane...

  • @robwalsh9843
    @robwalsh9843 Год назад +2

    The BB just needed the right job to do. In the Finnish air force they found it. It was much better for cold weather conditions.

  • @Eirik36
    @Eirik36 Год назад +2

    I feel like Brewster has a horrible track record. They couldn’t even outsource the Corsair properly

  • @lilbigmorgan
    @lilbigmorgan 3 года назад +2

    One of my favorite aircraft. Thanks for uploading.

  • @fredferd965
    @fredferd965 2 года назад +4

    The Buffalo was really a 1930's aircraft. For an honest evaluation, it should be evaluated against the P-36, the Russian I-16, the Macchi 200 (early one with the radial engine), and perhaps the Japanese "Claude."

    • @amerigo88
      @amerigo88 2 года назад +2

      Agreed. Also, it has a rather uncanny resemblance to the Polikarpov I-16. It's like the new-to-the-industry company cribbed from Polikarpov (and maybe the GeeBee racing plane) to quickly get into the Navy competition. They even shared the Wright R-1820 9-cylinder radial engine.
      Fortunately, the F4F Wildcat succeeded the disappointing Buffalo and served through to Tokyo Bay on the escort carriers.
      Like the P-39, the Buffalo couldn't compete once it was pushed to the limits of wartime development. I wonder how many bribes were provided by those crooked Brewster salespeople, a tactic more closely associated with Curtiss (see the Truman Committee investigations documents).

    • @fredferd965
      @fredferd965 2 года назад +1

      @@amerigo88 Very interesting comments! And I agree!! Perhaps I'm imagining it, but there seemed to be some sort of inertia-at-rest infecting some of the older companies. They had gone past the joys of their youth and settled uneasily into middle and old age. The Wright Engine company seems to be one example. Some of their forward thinking people left them and became Pratt and Whitney. There was nothing wrong with Wright engines, but I'd prefer P&W if I were flying. This same mind set, whatever it was, seemed to happen to Brewster and especially Curtiss. After the P-40 they were infamous for not being able to design. And the P-40 was just an up engined P-36 anyway (sort of). The C-46 was a good plane, but it had plumbing problems. And the Curtiss Electric propeller was a horror. I don't know what Curtiss was thinking towards the end, but it was not good. Don't get me started here.

    • @proofbox
      @proofbox Год назад

      To be fair the Japanese A5M series [ Claude ] was a open cockpit fixed gear type not really a apples to apples comparison .

  • @mikemcintosh9933
    @mikemcintosh9933 2 года назад +1

    Always learning more about WW II aircraft. Thanks!

  • @kyle857
    @kyle857 3 года назад +31

    Honestly, for its time it was a good plane. Technology just was advancing so fast in those days

    • @jacobjonm0511
      @jacobjonm0511 2 года назад

      It was good for 1941 Soviet planes and nothing beyond that.

    • @robbybee70
      @robbybee70 2 года назад +5

      that and honestly the Buffalo had uses but things were stretched pretty thin so it had to do more then it would really be good at, and they overmodified it for it's 3rd itteration,

    • @robbybee70
      @robbybee70 2 года назад +4

      @@jacobjonm0511 well for a mid 30's plane.....oh and the video itself clearly shows that it was a fine bomber hunter if other more adept dogfighters were available to keep the cover busy, the issue is that was rarely the case

  • @michaelsnyder3871
    @michaelsnyder3871 Год назад +1

    The Japanese held the initiative through August 1942. Air search/early warning radar, like the US Army's SCR-270 and SCR-271was a new technology and was fielded in small numbers before the Pacific War. For the most part, especially in the NEI, air defense was thus reliant on dispersed observer stations and sound detectors. This and the unanticipated range of their A6M2 fighter and G3M and G4M land-based bombers allowed the Japanese to repeatedly surprise the Allies, catching Allied interceptors on the ground, in the act of taking off or forming up over their airfields. There was also the attempts by Allied pilots to "dogfight" the more maneuverable Japanese fighters flown by experienced pilots, rather than adopt the tactics developed by Chenault and Thach of "boom and zoom" and team defensive tactics. The F2A/Buffalo wasn't the only Allied fighter that showed poorly early in the Pacific War. Hurricanes, CW-21s, Hawk 75s/P-36s, P-40s/Hawk 81s and F4Fs also racked up poor kill to loss ratios early in the war. Once early warning/air search radar and radio nets became common among Allied forces, even P-39s/P-400s could be successful using "boom and zoom" tactics because the Allied interceptors could get off and up to altitude before the Japanese fighters and bombers showed up.

  • @brettpeacock9116
    @brettpeacock9116 2 года назад +25

    The Finnish-flown Brewsters had a 33 to 1 kill ratio. Compare that to the USN Grumman F6F Hellcat, which managed to achieve a 19 to 1 ration, and the yanks never shut up about it. In fact the Finns lost more Brewsters to Accidents and maintenance issues than they did in combat.

    • @jessfrankel5212
      @jessfrankel5212 2 года назад +5

      The Finns used a different formation to confuse the Russians who were also using outdated aircraft and weren't such great pilots. That's the reason for the great ratio. Also, the Finns were better flyers and tended to strip down their aircraft to the bare essentials. That increased its speed somewhat. But while the Finns were successful against the Russians with the Buffalo, in different hands against more modern aircraft, like the Zero, it was cannon fodder.

    • @jkarra2334
      @jkarra2334 2 года назад +6

      @@jessfrankel5212 Finns flew buffaloes in continuation war up to end of. WW2 and they racked kills against newer russian and lend lease planes ...

    • @StevieWonder737
      @StevieWonder737 2 года назад

      It's worth noting that, particularly in the earlier years of the war, many of the Japanese and German aircaft (Stuka, etc) were fixed gear. The Buffalo was more than a match for them which inflated the kill ratio. Against Zeros and ME109s the Buffalo was nothing much more than target practice.

    • @Whitpusmc
      @Whitpusmc 2 года назад +5

      Hey it was our plane so I’m happy either way! Clearly the Finns used their heads and had some hard core pilots!

    • @martinpepperell8424
      @martinpepperell8424 2 года назад +3

      its seems the Finns could fly anything successfully against the Russians!

  • @MrEjidorie
    @MrEjidorie 2 года назад +1

    Though Brewster Buffalo were no match for Japanese Zero Fighters on the Pacific theater, they played an important role to defend Finland against Russian aggressors. I think Brewster Buffalo is underrated due to defeat on the Pacific theater.

  • @josephstevens9888
    @josephstevens9888 2 года назад +2

    I always liked the Brewster Buffalo... thanks for the overview!

  • @carmium
    @carmium 2 года назад +2

    Good presentation, but far too many Grumman Wildcat photos inserted while discussing Buffaloes.

  • @marinegunny826
    @marinegunny826 2 года назад +2

    Major Henderson flew one at the battle of Midway. The only thing he got out of it was having the airstrip on Guadalcanal named after him posthumously.😠

  • @mato5758
    @mato5758 3 года назад +5

    I've read that the Finnish Buffalos had the lower powered engines, and 30 cal instead of 50 cal guns.
    So they did well with with a lower spec plane.

    • @werre2
      @werre2 2 года назад +4

      finnish brewsters had 50cals or 13mm can't remember which
      and a domestic copy of the Revi gun sight

    • @werre2
      @werre2 2 года назад +3

      finnish brewsters also did have one plate of armor behind the pilot's seat

    • @JayGuitars1
      @JayGuitars1 2 года назад +3

      And I remember something about flipping an oil ring and getting less crankcase blow by. The Finns knew what they were doing.

    • @harrimela9266
      @harrimela9266 2 года назад +3

      At First Brewster had 3 Brownings 50cal and 1 30 cal mg that later was changed 50cal too

    • @romaliop
      @romaliop 2 года назад +3

      The lower engine power is misleading, since it was also considerably lighter. As much so, that in total the performance was better even with the lower power.

  • @jerridf322
    @jerridf322 2 года назад +4

    @6:08 This is a Wildcat, not a Buffalo, @9:30 again....WRONG PLANE

  • @chunkblaster
    @chunkblaster 2 года назад +5

    I think if Brewster had simply been a more experienced & slightly larger company it would've developed into a far superior aircraft

  • @timothyboles6457
    @timothyboles6457 2 месяца назад +1

    Someone made a comment about the Swastika, yes that was the Finnish national marking from the world war 1 era, up into the 2nd world War.
    If you notice, it's displayed flat, not on one of the tips like the German version.
    The Swastika is prominent in several cultures prior to Germany, but ruined by the Germans.

  • @EstorilEm
    @EstorilEm 2 года назад

    Wow at 13:30 it actually looked pretty damn good in that camo paint scheme with the yellow nose / tail stripe.

  • @stephennewton2223
    @stephennewton2223 2 месяца назад +1

    At Midway they were using tactics that were shortly shown to be suboptimal. If they had been able to use the Thach weave they probably would have been pretty fair performers. Still, not as good as the Wildcat.

  • @throttleblipsntwistedgrips1992
    @throttleblipsntwistedgrips1992 Год назад +1

    Fun fact: at 32:1, the Buffalo has a higher kill ratio than the A6M (12:1) and F6F (19:1) combined.

  • @michaelleslie2913
    @michaelleslie2913 2 года назад +1

    I read that the Buffalo had one of if the highest kill ratio during ww2 (although I may have misconstrued the info at the time )

  • @criticalmemetheory5404
    @criticalmemetheory5404 Год назад +1

    Talking about Buffalos but showing Wildcats isn’t ideal. Still a decent video on the much-maligned BB. 9:33

  • @johnedwards1685
    @johnedwards1685 2 года назад +1

    I think fighter aircraft in world war 2 performed much like racing cars in modern times. Their useful life as cutting edge weapons was sometimes just a couple of months before the opposition gained a lethal advantage. Even successful designs were frantically modified and up-engined until the later models were far removed from early marks. I remember reading in Alex Henshawe’s (Spitfire test pilot) book that the last Spitfire was so much heavier than the first, it was like a mk1 with an additional 37 passengers and all their luggage. The Spitfire for all its romance, was badly outperformed by the FW190 for a long time, and had to be continuously up-engined. The P38, a brilliant and innovative design by Kelly Johnson, was removed from the European theatre as a liability, yet went on to great success in the East, but struggled for years with lethal compressibility troubles in the dive.

  • @kirkmooneyham
    @kirkmooneyham 2 года назад +2

    At least two of the pictures which are shown while talking directly about the Buffalo were actually Wildcats.

  • @mytmousemalibu
    @mytmousemalibu Год назад

    Just a heads up, the plane featured at 6:07 - 6:21 is not a Buffalo, that looks like an early Grumman Wildcat.
    I really like the tubby little Buffalo, its definitely an underdog aircraft story and it has always appealed to me. I built one as a model kit as a kiddo. I still have it somewhere!

  • @alanrogers7090
    @alanrogers7090 2 года назад +1

    In a couple of the photos of Brewster "Buffaloes", the aircraft shown is actually Grumman F4F Wildcats. At least one in flight and another one crashed. In both instances, the narration is talking about Buffaloes. This can be disappointing to those, like me, who know the differences, and down right misleading to those that came here to learn about these aircraft, again, like me. I was watching another RUclips video about this aircraft, on Military Aviation History, and he had a chart that showed the weights of the different variants and how different countries had different equipment installed, adding, as you said, weight, to an already struggling engine. Engine upgrade, adds weight. Better radios, adds weight. Etc. Finland's variants, which did very well, by the way, were the lightest of all. Many Buffalo pilots there became Aces in that plane. Two sentences that were said in that video were, "The Buffalo had the misfortune to be the first of the new fighters. Once the US Navy bought it, the design was locked in place, and upgrades were not easily achieved." Thus, all the new customers, and the Navy, kept adding items, (and weight), without compensating with a better engine. All the fighters to follow had room to be upgraded built into their designs, like the Wildcat, which wnt through several variants before being replaced by the Grumman F6F Hellcat, itself a major upgrade of the basic Wildcat design with lessons learned from actual combat.

  • @Dr_Jebus
    @Dr_Jebus 3 года назад +5

    Out of interest, what would you consider to be the worst aircraft of the war?
    Also have to hand it to the pilots, downing bombers with a single .50 cal and single .30 cal

    • @RexsHangar
      @RexsHangar  3 года назад +6

      Possibly the Breda BA.88, but it did "technically" enter service before WW2.

  • @Charlesputnam-bn9zy
    @Charlesputnam-bn9zy 2 года назад +2

    Air Progress, an American aviation magazine in one 1965 issue
    had an article on the soviet Polikarpov I-16 fighter which fought
    in Spain, China & Mongolia against the nazis & Japanese,
    proving itself a true & tried combat plane, even against the best
    the Germans had in Spain, & even later in 1941.
    But I was astonished to read that, against the Finnish-manned
    American-made Buffalos, the I-16s were shot out of the sky
    whenever & wherever they appeared !

  • @tsegulin
    @tsegulin 8 месяцев назад

    Two minor notes:
    06:07
    Discussion of Buffalo with improved 2 speed supercharger over a pic of a Wildcat.
    09:37
    Discussion of Buffaloes in the Battle of Midway over a pic of a Wildcat.
    Good documentary on the Buffalo, which I had generally assumed was a total failure, although I expected that was just due to bad design. I guess the Finns would disagree.
    Thanks Rex.

  • @davidlee-ln9vh
    @davidlee-ln9vh 2 года назад +2

    A channel called Mark Seven has a long series on the Finnish Brewsters .

  • @TheDkeeler
    @TheDkeeler 2 года назад +2

    Any worst aircraft must have poor handling, poor performance, prone to continual breakdown and waste a huge amount of vital resources. The Buffalo wasn't like this. It certainly wasn't a problem for America. One of the biggest disasters for the Germans was the Heinkel he 177. Also the Breda ba.88 Lince was so useless it was used as an airfield decoy. The Blackburn Botha was a terrible aircraft and they wasted vital resources building 580 of them.

  • @timothyboles6457
    @timothyboles6457 2 месяца назад

    The Buffalo was similar in timing to the devastator in some ways. Not a bad airplane, but by the time WW2 came, so many airplanes totally outclassed it

  • @e.d.4824
    @e.d.4824 2 года назад +1

    ⚠️@ 6:20 & 9:40 : showing F4F Wildcats instead of Buffalos… Just saying. Nice to learn & see more about this nice little plane

  • @trekaddict
    @trekaddict Год назад +1

    Either the war came three years too early or the Buffalo three years too late.

  • @Straswa
    @Straswa 2 года назад

    Great vid Rex! I like the Buffalo's design.

  • @stephengardiner9867
    @stephengardiner9867 2 года назад

    When flown "by the book" with unrealistic pre-wwII dogfight tactics as drilled into the heads of American, British Dutch... you name it... pilots... (and particularly against well trained Japanese pilots) it didn't have a chance. Yet, the Finns showed that it, when flown intelligently, rather than "by the book",. it was quite good at doing its job. The F4F Wildcat was no great improvement over the Buffalo and suffered as well until the pilots learnt not to fight on the enemy's terms. Once this happened, the Wildcat became a damned good fighter and versions continued in service to the end of WWII. The Buffalo was somewhat lacking in firepower but the enemy (usually the Japanese) were "flying Ronsons" and almost guaranteed to flame when hit. While not a cutting edge machine, its failings were more based on deployment and tactics. I would love to see one restored.

  • @Caseytify
    @Caseytify 2 года назад +1

    Upon watching again, I see I failed to mention poor doctrine. Just about any American fighter would fare poorly when engaging the A6M in maneuver combat; ditto for British fighters.
    It wasn't until aviators learned to use US design strengths against Japanese weaknesses that the tables turned.
    Yes, the Brewster fared poorly, but so did Hurricanes & Spitfires when they used tactics successful against German fighters against the IJN. Don't try to dogfight a Zero. Alas, the features that ensured survival against the IJN, such as self-sealing tanks and armor also killed the speed of the Buffalo, preventing it from successfully using "zoom & boom" tactics.
    Basically the plane was obsolete by the end of 1941.

  • @TheDing1701
    @TheDing1701 2 года назад

    Great video! You've got a new subscriber, and I'm looking forward to binge-watching!

  • @reinokarvinen8845
    @reinokarvinen8845 6 месяцев назад +1

    one of the finnish ace pilots said it was a gentlemans plane compared to the german bf 109 killing machine

  • @OldThomMerton
    @OldThomMerton 2 года назад +2

    The Fairey Battle was an especially bad aircraft, certainly worse than the Buffalo. Properly equipped and they were able t keep up early in the war.

  • @lawLess-fs1qx
    @lawLess-fs1qx Месяц назад

    The Dutch discovered that emptying the wing tanks and half ammunition was the key to success. for the Buffalo and Hurricane. In that config they could turn inside the Ki43.

  • @LukeVilent
    @LukeVilent Год назад

    "Brewster Buffalo, you are without doubt the worst WWII fighter plane I've ever heard of!"
    "But... you have heard of me!"

  • @seeingeyegod
    @seeingeyegod 2 года назад +1

    that plane was really fun in the early tiers of War Thunder, very good turner. Pretty sure they gave you the Finnish version basically.

  • @JohnnySmithWhite-wd4ey
    @JohnnySmithWhite-wd4ey Месяц назад

    Brewster wound up being shutdown by the FBI during the war. By this time Brewster was supposed to build F3A Corsairs (Brewster's version of Vought's world beating fighter.bomber. They built only a hand full and their build quality was awful.

  • @SunnyIlha
    @SunnyIlha 2 года назад

    Pappy Boyington said it could turn inside a phone booth, until they loaded it down with too much armor amd other things, including 2 more guns and the ammunition.
    Boyington said you only needed two .50 guns, that's all, to destroy an aerial opponent. He said four .50s was already too many. That a good pilot only needed a pair of guns to do the job.
    He said you had to fly the guns, it was not just having guns.
    It's only drawback seems to be the landing gear (weak).

  • @Emdee5632
    @Emdee5632 3 месяца назад

    At 7:19 you mention Belgian aircraft, yet the (stock) footage shows Buffalos with Dutch roundels?

  • @maxpayne2574
    @maxpayne2574 5 месяцев назад +2

    The Finnish proved a smaller, less well armed force working together could win.

  • @tombogan03884
    @tombogan03884 10 месяцев назад

    With a lot of these designs the "original" version sucks.
    But it goes back to the drawing board, after a few repetitions you wind up with a good plane.
    It seems like the Buffalo never got that chance.
    The Navy seems to have said, "That's junk, buy the Grumman, we know them".

  • @Channel-os4uk
    @Channel-os4uk 2 года назад +1

    Claimed kills and confirmed kills can be two very different things..

  • @Raguleader
    @Raguleader Год назад

    The Buffalo wasn't alone in being a pre-war aircraft that saw itself outmatched at the onset of the war. The cutting edge of aeronautical design slashed quickly in those days.