Brewster Buffalo Myths Debunked
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 авг 2021
- Trying to explain some reasons why the Brewster Buffalo suffered at Midway.
Please like and Subscribe to my Channel!
Please shop at www.warbirdbunker.com
Thank You!!!!
#brewsterbuffalo #brewster buffalo #f2abuffalo #f2a buffalo #battleofmidway
It had one of the highest ever kill/loss ratios with the Finns against the Russians. Although admittedly the Finns were an exceptional lot and the Soviet pilots were indifferently trained and their leadership had been culled by Joe Stalin
While certainly a capable aircraft the majority of those kills were in the early war against less capable Soviet aircraft. To get the most out of limited equipment the operators have to really understand those limitations and in the early war the operators of early allied aircraft just did not understand those limitations or, more importantly, the capabilities of their Japanese counterparts.
Those Buffalos were much lighter than version used in Pacific theater. And Russian pilots weren't close to Imperial Japanese ones.
The Finns fought against a lot of I-15s and I-16s, as well as the medium bombers and obsolete bombers. That’s a contrast to the Australian, UK, and US pilots that went up against the experienced Japanese pilots in the A6Ms and Japanese Army aircraft that were more modern at the beginning of the war.
@@pahunter3 And such obsolete planes like Lagg 5 and Jak 3 and P-40 and IL-2 and Pe 2.
That is mostly a Finnish nationalist propaganda. Remember too, that the Soviets were using even older aircraft and many didn’t even have radios.
In Australia, the Buffalo was derided as nothing better than a death trap. It was truly hated.
We had truly horrible fighter tactics at the start of WWII.Had we listend to Claire Chennault and heeded his observations of air combat in China the Buffalo might have fared much better.IMHO
I agree
Our military has a long, proud tradition of ignoring and/or punishing those in the ranks who go against established beliefs. Men like Mitchell, Chennault, and Boyd were not appreciated by their superiors and our capabilities suffered for it.
Agree John Moore
@@adirondacker007 well said mate!
Cannot agree more. The Buffalo was not stellar but it was tough and could have put up a better showing had the Navy or Marines (and the British and the Dutch) utilized its strengths and threw out the dogfight manual.
Out of the 21 Buffaloes & 7 Wildcats, VMF 221 launched 18 serviceable Buffaloes & 4 serviceable Wildcats. 2 Wildcats had to abort and land, one couldn't fire his guns and the other with engine failure, crash landing on return. This left 20 fighters outnumbered 4 to 1 by the Japanese attackers.
7 Val dive bombers & 2 Zeroes were shot down (all by Buffaloes), for the loss of 9 Buffaloes & 2 Wildcats. The surviving 9 Buffaloes landed, were rearmed and ready for the anticipated next attack wave, that never came.
Great comment Andy Reid!
Another point is that the Buffalo shot down 470 aircraft during the war and only about 500 Buffalos were made. Compare that to the Hawker Hurricane. More than 14,000 made and only 1200 kills.
Remember, though, that many of those Hurricanes were used as fighter-bombers. North Africa, even over France after 1940.
It would be interesting to compare production vs shoot downs during 1940.
The author makes a good point about the inexperience of the Midway fliers.
Very good point. Application and skill have to be considered.
Ace Juutalainen described his Buffalo as a "gentleman's aircraft" with an electric heater and monogrammed flask in a bracket next to pilot's seat. Finns managed to wring max performance out of their Buffalos by ditching excess weight. Juutalainen in a Buffalo managed to fight off 2 Russian P-40's during the Continuation War in a unique example of Yank bird vs. Yank.
Ilmari Juutilainen (not Juutalainen) 🙂
@@jounisuninen Okai!
They were fighting in an entirely different version than the US pilots were, the Finns had the early version that didn't have the added weight from add on's, Greg Boyington said of that plane "It could turn inside a phone booth", so the Finns were flying that version against early outdated Russian planes with their early notoriously horribly trained pilots.
I don’t always blame the plane either. So many of the early war planes were built for the wrong mission. The brass had their idea of what a war would look like during the thirties and requested planes with specifications to fight that idea of war. When war actually happened the battle was nothing like they expected and thus the planes built for the expected battle performed poorly in the actual battle.
Exactly what happened to the Boulton Paul defiant. A great idea at the time, but rendered obsolete by the fall of France and improvements in fighter tactics and accuracy of fire.
Great vid AviationBuff, I agree. The Brewster Buffalo was an interesting aircraft and doesn't necessarily deserve it's bad reputation.
In terms of worst operational aircraft of WW2 I would suggest the Blackburn Roc and Blackburn Botha are deserving of the title.
yeah the Brits were flying bi-planes as front line aircraft
@@nowthenzen The biplanes they were flying were pretty good. Consider the Sword Fish, Walrus and Seafox. All effective types.
Fairey Barracuda !
I have noticed the F2A has been getting a lot of 'reconsideration' videos lately. I guess interest moves in waves.
Well hello there.
Yep, after Bismark
Much like the Boulton Paul Defiant. It too had an undeserved reputation as being a failure as a daylight fighter, when in truth it was perfectly capable of holding it's own against a Bf-109, if flown correctly. The real problem was mismanagement and incompetence it the senior levels of command.
The only saving grace of the Defiant against the 109 was that the 109 pilot would mistake for a Hurrican and get a rude surprise from the rear facing turret. After that german pilots evicerated the Defiant due to it's lack of maneuverability.
Did not the Finns make excelent use of the Buffalo against the Red Air Force in the Winter War?
it did indeed. they had the lighter weight version of Brewster.
Finns did not get Brewters in Winter War
Not the worst aircraft of WWII, but far from being able to deal with the Japanese. If I remember correctly, the Buffalo was quite a decent aircraft until armor & self sealing fuel tanks were added. But, you know, those are required additions for survival in combat in general, aren't they? Losses at Midway were mainly due to inexperienced US pilots facing the top experienced pilots of the IJN,& a total failure of tactics. The Wildcat went on to become a substantial weapon in the PTO until the end of the war, doing quite well over Guadalcanal. Don't think the Buffalo could be improved much, but several Finnish pilots did quite well against the Russians before the Russians upped their air capabilities. Additionally, many US aircraft producers designed aircraft that far exceeded what the military specs called for, the Buffalo failed in that respect, thereby it's demise.IMHO
Thr Buffalo was tailor suited for the specifications laid out but as far as upgrade potential, the Buffalo had reached its end. So lesson learn there is don't strictly follow all of the specs.
The Japanese fighters didn't have armor plating or self sealing fuel tanks. These things were traded off for better range and maneuverability.
The big loses at Midway were Torpedo Bombers that were caught without fighter cover and were extremely vulnerable during their runs, they were required to fly low and slow maintaining a straight line while lining up a ship to release their torpedo, that's the perfect victim for a fighter.
That's what the "horrible losses" were at Midway, not fighters.
Nothing is free. Planes like the Buffalo and the Zero found massive performance boosts in compact design, which was great until you start adding to it and try to find an engine that will compensate for the weight of newly developed (1940+) armor and tank liners that made mistakes survivable, AND FIT. The Japanese saw the performance degradation and scrapped the armor packages until there was an engine to compensate, depending on performance and skill for survival. America shoved their "upgrade" into production anyway, costing their plane almost every strength it had. Of course America also cranked out bigger planes that didnt give a shit about the addon weight
@@dukecraig2402 Check again. The fighters from Guadalcanal did not do well, the Brewster was no match for Zeros, & the Wildcat pilots were inexperienced/bad tactics against some of the IJN's best pilots. Your right about the bombers/torpedo planes, again inexperienced pilots/tactics. However, I thought we were talking about the Brewster aircraft, right?😁
In a nutshell the F2A in prototype form was not combat ready as it had no guns , armor plate of self sealing fuel tanks and was compared to the F3F series biplanes and a F4F prototype that was more or less a F3F with a wing removed . At the trials the F2A performed well but the Navy told Gruman to keep trying and improve F4F as they had more trust in Gruman to produce the quantity of planes needed . In service built to combat spec lost performance due to weight gain . Against a A6m2 Zero it was a target . To be fair in 1040 Britain sent Hurricanes and Spitfires to Singapore to defend their bases there , they also got shot to pieces by the Zero . To its credit in service in Finland it mowed down Policaprov I 16's with ease with a 33 to 1 kill ratio .
The Finnish B-239 Buffaloes also defeated LaGG-3, Yak, P-39, P-40, Hurricane, I-15 & I-153 fighters.
In the far east, the heavier & underpowered clapped out airliner engined B-339 E Buffaloes faced Ki-27 Claude & Ki-43 Oscar fighters, not A6M Zeroes.
Spitfires were NEVER sent to singapore. Thats a myth or lie, however you want to look at it.
Yet the A6M2 also didn't have armor and self-sealing tanks. Does that mean it wasn't combat ready?
The issue is damage avoidance vs damage absorption. The US Navy had listened to British descriptions of what an aircraft needs. But the British were looking for interceptors more than fighters. They wanted planes which could attack a formation of bombers. That means dealing with a lot of gun mounts. In a situation like that, taking damage is unavoidable. So a plane needs to be able to survive being hit. Damage absorption, in other words.
But for combat against other fighters, it's different. In a dogfight, it's possible to avoid taking damage in a higher performance aircraft. Loading a plane with armor may help it survive taking hits (though enemy fighters have far more firepower than bombers). But reducing its performance increases the chance of being hit in the first place. And that's what the US Navy did.
@@dontrotter1099 I believe your correct. American military was up against the Japanese almost exclusively. England was almost entirely invested in Europe against the Nazi's and didn't have the supply line for a Pacific war and America was their supply line throughout the war. England didn't have the industrial capacity or natural resources. The resources they did have in the Pacific were quickly aquired by Japan after Pearl Harbor. The first year and a half was more of a holding action for America in the Pacific with some spectacular wins. Japan was crippled at Midway with the loss of four carriers to our one. American just barely held on until the new carries and support fleets were manufactured. The pictures of the Pacific fleet sitting off Japan was awesome at the end of the war.The Japanese calculated if they had not brought the United States to the negotiating table by year two their chances of victory was not good. They were absolutely correct. Once the American War machine started humming they were done for. Japanese atrocities sealed their fate as far as an unconditional surrender. Japan was negotiating with Russia to avoid a total defeat with America. That was another reason for the use of the atom bombs. It was estimated two million Japanese would perish with a land invasion and over 300,000 possible American losses. America was war weary in 1945. The Russians and especially Stalin were no friends to the allies. It was Hitler's greatest mistake fighting a war on two fronts against the Russians in the west with an almost unlimited supply of human cannon fodder. I lost a great uncle and a grandfather that was scarred for life in a concentration camp. Audie Murphy, the most decorated GI in ww2 was asked what was the best day of the war. Without flinching he said the day it ended. He suffered from PTSD the rest of his life and I believe spent about two consecutive years on the front line. R&R back home was not an option. The movie "To hell and back" was good but did not do justice depicting the actions the common soldiers endured. I'll quit here. War is not something I idolize but WW2 is kind of personal having family and friends that served. I am fascinated with the fighter planes of any era. My stepfather received a silver star while in the Pacific one board a ship. He and a buddy tossed a live Jap bomb off the deck of his ship. It detonated when it hit the water. He said strangely enough it was one of the best times of his life. Merry Christmas.
@proofbox. Your statement "To be fair in 1940 Britain sent Hurricanes and Spitfires to Singapore to defend their bases there , they also got shot to pieces by the Zero."
Really? There were no Hurricanes or Spitfires sent to Singapore in 1940 nor were there in 1941 when the Japanese invaded the peninsula. Also the likelyhood of meeting a Zero over Malaya was less likely as they were a Naval aircraft and the Japanese army did not field them in the theater. It is now considered that some of the claimed Zeros in the theatre were more likely the Ki-43 (or Ki-27).
Air Chief Marshal Sir Robert Brooke-Popham Commander-in-Chief of British Far East Command responsible for overseeing the defence of Malaya, Singapore, Burma and Hong Kong repeatedly requested reinforcements for the airforce there as he recognised there were insufficient numbers to mount a defence. He had no fighters at all in 1939 and even by 1941 he had only 215 aircraft of which the fighters were Brewster Buffalos. They were totally outnumbered by the Japanese. Some Hurricanes were sent belatedly being received 13 January 1942. These were redirected from the desert and with sand filters fitted were 30 mph slower than a standard Hurricane. There were no Spitfires in theatre at all being retained for home defence. They came later in the Pacific war.
Brooke-Popham was accused publicly of being responsible for the loss of Singapore and the Government punished him for the loss even though he had asked for reinforcements continuously as his experience told him that his forces could not fight off a Japanese offensive. His requests were turned down or ignored. He wrote of ‘the feeling of being neglected’.
The New Zealander Bert Wipiti seconded to the RAF in Malaya scored 5 kills against the Japanese in his Buffalo without loss or injury (around the time of Pearl Harbor) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Wipiti. Clearly in the right hands a Buffalo at that stage of the war could hold its own.
Made in Queens N.Y..C assembled and flown in Newark, N.J. A matter of fact Brewster aircraft manufacturing facility still stands today in Sunnyside Queens and JetBlue Airlines Corp. headquarters is now in that facility of a manufacturing warehouse turned to office spaces.
That explains much. It was born and raised in NJ, but conceived in Queens. I've been to both places countless times while growing up. LOL😳
Brewster's plant was so poorly run and the workers so poorly trained that in April, 1942 the US Navy seized the plant, fired the chief officers and board of directors and appointed new ones including career Navy officers to run it. When the Navy canceled Brewster's contracts at the end of the war the company only last a few months before folding.
@@blackpowder4016 They built Corsairs out of the Warminster, PA plant.
I believe the Finns loved theirs? Perhaps certain parallels with the Airacobra, it could have been a far better aircraft if fitted with a Supercharger?
Lousy climb rate and under-gunned... other than that, comparable to other fighters of era. What most boils down to how quick things were changing.
Yeah, but no. Grumman was able to produce a better competitor to the Buffalo even with armor, self sealing and radio equipment on the Wildcat and was added to Buffalo ruining its performance. Brewster built a aircraft with ZERO room for growth. This was proven out when the Finn's flew them lightly loaded "limited fuel, Ammo, radio equipment and armor removed" Just like the Devastator it was a outdated design at the start of the war. Brewster had other issues thay need to be taken into account they could not maintain production quotas throughout the run of the Buffalo.
According to Martin Caidin - Rugged Ragged Warriors - The Flying Tigers were expecting to receive Buffaloes instead P-40s
During The Battle of Midway, also B 26 Marauder were used. And failed. As a land-based torpedo bombers! And they become the best middle bombers in european TDW. I agree with You. Finns showed, that lighter versions of this airplane were very succesful in combat. Also Dutch pilots reported, Buffalos with half of amunition and fuel were as good manouverable as Zeros and even Oscars! But in Dutch India failed everything about allies military so Buffalos couldn't show their potential. But they appear quite better than Hawks 75 and Hurricanes.
Another Myth. The Brewster was only a "Buffalo" in RAF service. In Finland was Model B-239. US Navy F2a 1 2 3.
Wrong. Buffalo was more of a nickname, regardless of the exact model.. but they were all Buffalo
Some variants were also named the B-339C and B-339D depending on whether a used or new Wright Cyclone engine was fitted (respectively)
Like many planes of its day, the Brewster Buffalo was modern when it was conceived and obsolete when it entered service
In all due fairness to Russian pilots- the I-16's flown during the Nomonhon and Khalkan Gol incidents did not suffer disproportionately against the Japanese Ki-27's. The I-16 was capable of tenacious dogfighting but the lack of an enclosed cockpit made it a beast to fly in winter- just to mention one drawback.
Thankyou for the excellent presentation
I think they would give hellcats and buffaloes to other minor nations of war , also a fun fact , I didnt knew buffaloes had 3 variants
Glad to see a video about this aircraft
There's a Brewster Bucaneer in the hangar at Warminster, PA on the old NAS Johnville side. They brought back from Australia to restore. No Buffalos left that I've heard of. Brewster was a Conestoga wagon maker when FDR told him he's going to build airplanes for Lend - Lease. Brewster invented flush riveting for aircraft skin which put him in a league really above Leroy Grumman and his shoe salesman. Warminster was the Philadelphia racetrack town of old like Indianapolis 500 track.
British and Dutch Buffalos suffered heavy losses to the Japanese too and Australia only used them for training and secondary duties.
You mean the Brewster Buffalo really ISN'T as bad as the F-35?
Military added equipment like radios were beastly heavy and took up way too much space for what they offered in utility.
Indeed. U.s. aircraft were packed with radios etc
And yet one reason the Russians liked the P-39s they were given was -- you guessed it -- good radios.
It WAS a crappy plane in the Pacific, because the lack of a supercharger and the warm humid air combined to severely limit the plane's engine/propeller and wing-lift performance. In Finland, where temperatures were much colder in the Arctic winter, the plane's performance was far better, and it was able to go toe to toe with the Soviet Air Force. So, the answer to if it was a crappy plane or not at least partly depended on where it was flown.
The Wildcat was a tougher, better built aircraft than the Buffalo. Furthermore, Brewster had chronic problems with quality control and their ability to fill the orders they were contracted for. An early example of a corrupt tender process.
You should read about what happened to the RAF and RAAF squadrons that defended both Singapore and northern Australia.
They were knocked down in droves in Indonesia. It wasn't capable of defeating the Zero. Russian aircraft were markedly inferior to the A6M at that time.
Looks like a polikarpov r16. Was it derived fom the Gee Bee?
I like the comparison to the Wildcat. I didn't know about the performance at Midway.
Building a 1/48 Midway Buffalo. Good vid on a misaligned plane.
Thank you watching! Look forward to your model building. Love the Brewster!
While I would agree that the Buffalo has generally been assigned an unfair reputation, and it was slightly better than it is typically portrayed, it was also outclassed and obsolete by 1941. Perhaps the main problem with the fighter was that the engine could not be further upgraded due to the airframe design. For those who point to the success of Swedish B-239’s as vindication of the aircraft it must be recalled that the export model had no armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks; this stripped down configuration allowed the Swedes an edge over the largely second line types that the USSR could spare for that front of the conflict. Unfortunately, the British and the Dutch had no similar success flying B-239 variants against Japan. Ultimately, the Buffalo was an innovative aircraft when first flown, but the design limitations ensured an early obsolescence.
Finnish - not Swedish! 😡
In part ...the name. Now what happened to the animal it was named after? I hear Buffalo I think slow as well.
Cool looking aircraft
I wonder if the Finn pilots flew them at midway the buffaloe would be out on top? I also built 1/72 scale of 6 different markings...US Marines, British, Finland, Dutch, Belgian and Japan. I often wonder if Marine pilots knew of the "Tatch weave" their survival rate would be much higher?
Ok facts i agree with you some the bureaucratic things absolutely the Bell p39 is another victim. The Brewster factory was bad.
Boyington said you knew when the Japanese were coming because the British pilots got in their Buffalo's and flew the opposite direction.
Would this be the same British pilots that fought ME109’s over Malta with three Gloster Gladiators?
@@starsailor49 I don't know, you'd have to ask Boyington. :-)
Wildcat was a beat dog out of the gate. The Finns flew Brewsters against the Russians with some success.
The USN stuck with the Wildcat because they had made a production commitment and had no better options in production. It had folding wings and eventually, the pilots learned how to use it to it's greatest effect. Something they would have done, if the Brewster had had the production commitment. While neither aircraft had a significant performance advantage over the other, the Wildcat got the benefit of the propaganda machine and the Buffalo got the butt. Meanwhile in Europe the Finns were doing very well in the lighter F2A-1 despite the 950 hp Wright R-1820-22 Cyclone.
pretty much thrashed by the Japanese in Malaya in 1942
And probably also a plane is as good as the pilot can fly it....but what the heck......if 49 pilots say its a shitty plane ....i cant fly with it....and there is 1 who can actually fly it.....then its determitted as bad plane.....
I don t agree with that....
Not one word about Finlands use of the Buffalo?
The video was about the u.s. -3s
@@Warhawknm Well, OK. Thats like talking about the US part of Apple pie...
The Brewster had longer service in Finland than in US. It performed better in Finland than in the US. The finns use of it prooved what it really was capable of.
A store not to be forgotten.
Thank you for a great channel!
Never heard of it
The RAF squadrons equipped with the type in Malaya and Singapore were shot out of the sky.
They enjoyed a 2 to 1 KD ratio against Japanese aircraft, despite being equipped with the B-339 E version that Brewster, in order to maximise profits, installed with clapped out poorly reconditioned (by Brewster) ex-DC-3 & DC-4 engines, sourced from TWA & other airlines.
Its armory is weak. The Wildcats had all 50 cals 4 or 6.
No that you are wrong on that. American pilots where actually even better trained than most British pilots especially naval aviators.
It was one of the worst, but it was just faced with newer technology
I was always rather fond of this aircraft especially in RAF colours. It definitely wasn’t the worst plane of WW2 by any means, I could name several single wing British aircraft that were much much worse 🇬🇧🏍
Shh, we don't talk about the Boulton Paul Defiant anymore.
Thats what I thought too. The F4F-3 Wildcat's empty weight is 4,907 pounds thats 15% heavier compared to Buffalo which is 4,732 pounds on empty weight while the max take-off weight is 7,423 pounds which is 20% heavier compared to Buffalo which is 7,159 pounds when max take-off weight. Both fighter has the same engine horsepower of 1,200 hp but the speed differs from one another, which is confusing.
Look at the difference in wing area. When the Wildcat was redesigned from its original prototype it received a much bigger wing. The problem with the Buffalo was that with each new iteration it was gaining a lot of weight on the same wing design meaning its wing loading was going up hence its maneuverability dropping off not mention the same basic landing gear. Internally it was carrying a lot of fuel by the time it got to the F2A-3 model it didn't use drop tanks liker the F4F.
Funny. I had hear the Buffalo's were bad. Seeing them as rc models? The models flown well! Seeing your video? Explains why they were poor performers. Except by the fins using them.
Wasn't there a Finnish Ace who flew the Buffalo?
There were 96 Finnish aces, and I think about half of them flew in the Brewster at some point (the Finns never called them Buffaloes). 37 were credited with at least 5 kills in the Brewster alone.
It may be that the F2A-3 was rubbish because of all the added requirements forced upon it, doesn't stop it being rubbish though.
hi the RAF and Dutch used it too agent the Japan's
That this aircraft was "the worst" is total bullshit'. It was easy meat for a Zero because of tactics, not performance and abilities. It was not a dogfighter but it proved quite effective when flown intelligently. Its replacement, the Wildcat really only became a contender when tactics were changed.
The Finns loved it over here was an obese pos I'm inclined to think it was ok but again was very successful in the hands of Finnish pilots in fact the highest scoring non German ace a Finn put it to good use
Maybe practice some of those big words before leaving them in your final cut... im not trying to bash you, word use and implementation was spot on! But when you stumble or choke pronouncing them you come off less intelligent then if you were to just use more smaller words. Great video!