Say NO to the Brewster Buffalo

[Simaril]

^
 |
 |
Dr. NO

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Simaril
^
 |
 |
Dr. NO

Bronk

[Hajo]

Bodhi

If memory serves correctly the Brewster was used by the RAF in the Burma Theater of operations about the same time that the Flying Tigers were serving in China.

[Bodhi]

Hajo,
I agree, there were probably more isolated units using them at the beginning.

Either way, production does not warrant it at this time IMHO.  Again, this is my opinion thats all.  

In truth, I'd rather the Brewster as opposed to the G.55 $.01 side show.

[Wurger]

I'd love to see the Buffalo make it -- in fact, if it does, I'll commit to fly it exclusively for an entire camp!  Anyone else in?  

[Ball]

[Squire]

I would rather see the P-39 or the Brewster to the "Italian Ta-152" < in terms of  #s, not performance.

There should be a standing rule in AH2, unless a minimum of 500 were built in WW2, and they saw action, they are not to be considered. Enough already with the paltry few over the planes that actually did 90 percent of the fighting.

MC200, MC202 and Fiat G50 were the workhorses of the Italian Air Force. We already have one in AH.

[Shifty]

What is the difference between the F2A, and the Brewster Model 239?

It seems the Finnish Model 239 Buffalo had a bit more success than the USN or RAF F2A Buffalos. Was it just the lack of the heavy gear needed to operate from CV's that made the 239 a better Brewster?

[SASMOX]

Originally posted by Ball

Wmaker says hello!

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by SASMOX


Wmaker says hello!

Sorta sad to see two American made fighters trying to kill each other.

[Ball]

Hi Wmaker

Originally posted by SirLoin
Sorta sad to see two American made fighters trying to kill each other.

You can cheer up, because that is a Hurricane

[Speed55]

Too late to say no, i already voted for it.

[Shifty]

Sorta sad to see you mistake a Hurricane for an American fighter. Of course being from Canada, I can see where both cultures may blend together for you.

[Zuum]

Originally posted by Shifty
What is the difference between the F2A, and the Brewster Model 239?

It seems the Finnish Model 239 Buffalo had a bit more success than the USN or RAF F2A Buffalos. Was it just the lack of the heavy gear needed to operate from CV's that made the 239 a better Brewster?

In the technical point of view, F2A and 239 were basically the same. 239 was just slightly modified.
The biggest difference between different reputations of Brewsters in USA and Finland was propably the training of pilots and the basic understanding of capabilities of that type.
US Pilots were mostly Navy pilots which excpected Brewsters to be some kind of an air superiority fighter...Brewster was´nt certainly that!
Finnish pilots were trained for "swarming" tactics, the only possible way to organize some kind of a defence against overwhelming enemy... In that job Brewster did an excellent career!!!
In skillful hands, Brewster was an brilliant tool giving really hard opponent to almost all russian fighters in the skies.
The kill/death/damage ratio of FAF against russians speaks for itself:aok

[tedrbr]

Does the 1939 Brewster Buffalo --- first monoplane fighter aircraft used by the United States Navy --- even NEED a thread to dis it in the online vote?