You know what is funny? The I-16 is nearly as agile as the Brewster. Very nearly as fast (2 or 3 mph slower), climbs better than the B-239 and is armed with a pair of cannons.... No whines about that one.
This all stems from the misguided view that the Brewster could not possibly be as capable as it is. This in turn is due to 60 years of brainwashing. 20 F2A-3s were chewed up at Midway, out numbered 2 to 1, attacked by better fighters with an altitude advantage. Not one of the Marines involved had ever flown a air combat sortie before that. They had no training on how to fight and defeat the Zero. Yet, they managed to get to the bombers and make several attacks before being pounced on by a mass mob of A6Ms. Most people forget that five F4F-3s were also in that group, and they did no better than the Brewsters. Those F2A-3s and F4Fs were credited shooting down 10 Japanese aircraft, with 1 probable and 3 damaged. In exchange, they lost 12 Brewsters and 2 Wildcats.
Not bad when you consider that they were fully engaged with Japanese bombers when attacked by a superior force, with altitude. We should also consider that these were the cream of Japanese naval fighter pilots. The bulk of the Brewster pilots lost were Marine reserve pilots, mostly 2nd Lt types with limited time in fighters.
People remember the comment of one surviving pilot, Captain Philip Renee White, who stated that "any commander sending pilots into combat in F2A's should consider them lost before they leave the ground." In his post-combat report, White estimated that the Zero had a top speed of 450 mph. Another pilot thought the Zero's rate of climb exceeded 5,000 fpm. Typical of inexperienced pilots in their first combat.
What they never read about was that the F4F was vilified in after action reports as well. Dan Ford has written, "the pilots knew that F2A was being phased out from active service and used as a trainer, which made their criticism fierce. However, the F4F was also criticized; one of the recommendations was that both F2A and F4F should be withdrawn from combat units and 'retained for use at training centers only'. Lt. Col. Ira L. Kimes claimed that F4F 'is hardly better in combat than is the F2A-3 type'". The fact is that there is little doubt that the results would have been the same had these Marines been flying F6Fs or F4Us.
Let's say we select 20 low-time AH2 pilots. We put them in B-239s. Their mission is to attack large formations of D3a and B5N bombers. Once engaged, they are attacked by really good air to air squad, say the Muppets in A6M2s. The Muppets are several thousand feet higher. Any doubt of the outcome? Would noobs blame the airplane? Probably. However, we should rightly believe that the tactical situation, greatly exacerbated by the quality of the enemy pilots created the result. Had the noobs been in Spit16s they still would have been slaughtered.
My regards,
Widewing
