F-35

[GScholz]

I wrote nothing of the sort. Please quote me.  

Well, Morfiend?

[Vraciu]

You didn't correct anything. You looked wikipedia as you really don't know anything about the subject to begin with. I corrected myself. Your initial claim which said Brewster was removed from combat tells everybody that you're entirely clueless regarding topic at hand.

Wikipedia isn't where I got the right number of Finn losses.   Nice try.

You keep claiming Finns overclaimed with out a source.

I have a source.  Just like I had a source to correct your claim of two losses when it was four.

(I said it is POSSIBLE they overclaimed depending on if you trust some Soviet sources or not.)

You were wrong.  I called you out on it.   And you still whine that I don't know anything.  

[ACE]

Can you post your sources?  I want to read them.

[Vraciu]

Can you post your sources?  I want to read them.

Wmaker already mentioned one of them, and it isn't Wikipedia.  Although there is a bibliography on every wiki article topic.  Never hurts to check out those sources. 

[ACE]

Wikipedia? 

[Changeup]

I'm not sure what you guys are arguing Karnak and Changeup? Clearly the Brewster was in service as late as 1944. Clearly it successfully engaged advanced Soviet aircraft (no doubt because of tactical reasons and pilot skill). Clearly Vraciu here is full of "you know what".

I am not arguing.  I'm watching the discussion and noticing a lot of conveniently, cryptic sources, cherry picked statistical stacking and ego-based argument.  What I chose to do was correct each of those with facts as they appear.

[Wmaker]

You were wrong.  I called you out on it.   And you still whine that I don't know anything.  

You don't and here's the proof:

Once they started facing real airplanes they got their butts kicked and withdrew the Buffalo from front-line service.

...anyone with half a clue wouldn't be saying the above considering the performance and service history of the Brewster in Finnish Air Force.

Regarding your comment, basically the complete opposite is true.

[Vraciu]

You don't and here's the proof:

...anyone with half a clue wouldn't be saying the above considering the performance and service history of the Brewster in Finnish Air Force.


Regarding your comment, basically the complete opposite is true.

1:1 kill ratio against "advanced types" in your subset.

During the summer of '44 Brewsters scored 17 kills while losing 2 aircraft in combat themselves (source: LeR 3 by Keskinen & Stenman).

(MUNCH)

The book in the shelf won't do much if you don't/can't read it or can't comprehend what you are reading.

Oh the irony.

Some sources say 17 victories for four losses as a second-line fighter.

You can admit you were wrong and I was right any time, "expert".

[Wmaker]

Oh dear,

Well, I've posted facts to this thread. 17 kills including four La-5s and two Yak-9s and three Pe-2s (which required some planing and thinking ahead to successfully intercept as they tended to be faster than Brewster) versus four losses in combat while being significantly outnumbered most of the time while flying planes that started to be worn out.

The fact that I posted one wrong number which I then corrected (and explained why it got there) doesn't make your drivel any more true, Vraciu.

I'm sure everyone can draw their own conclusions from the facts provided. My personal conclusion is that sometime, somewhere someone didn't pull out in time.

[Vraciu]

significantly outnumbered most of the time while flying planes that started to be worn out.

The fact that I posted one wrong number which I then corrected (and explained why it got there) doesn't make your drivel any more true, Vraciu.

After being called out on it by me.   Keep running your keyboard.

My personal conclusion is that sometime, somewhere someone didn't pull out in time.

Wow.  Insulting your own father in public.  Classy.
 
 
 

[morfiend]

I don't think so, old friend. As Yamamoto said he would run wild for six months to a year. This was only made possible by the total inadequacies of the allied units in the Pacific at the time. America really didn't have a first rate fighter at this time. P-39, P-40, F2F, F4F... The most modern fighter America had in service were the earliest versions of the P-38, the E model. However, it was much worse for the British Commonwealth...

Fighting a life and death struggle with Germany in Europe and North Africa had the British stretched to the limits. They had stripped their Far-East colonies of men and machines to fight the Germans. What was left was a ragtag force of antiquated bi-planes and imported second rate machines. The most modern aircraft fielded by the British in South-East Asia was probably the Bristol Blenheim.


(Image removed from quote.)


The British fought gallantly however, and perhaps most gallant were the aircrew of No. 36 and 100 squadrons, who were fated to have to fight the Japanese with obsolete Vickers Vildebeests that dated their ancestry back to 1928. No. 36 was the first to go into action attacking a Japanese cruiser on December 8, the first day of the war (Singapore is on the other side of the International Date Line).

   For your reading pleasure!     My mistake for putting in 1942....   But then I'm not afraid to say I've made a mistake.....


   

 PS: In the 109 discussion I wrote higher alt when I meant boost!

[GScholz]

I'm glad you're not my secretary!

 

[morfiend]

I'm glad you're not my secretary!

 

   Sorry not my line of work,besides I've been retired for years!

   Maybe when you mature a little you'll understand.




   

[Wmaker]

A bit more about the plane types Brewsters shot down for those who have genuine interest regarding the subject:

This list should cover all kills claimed by LLv24 and LLv26 (those are the only squadrons that operated the type):http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm

As Brewsters scored a total of 476 kills I don't feel like going through the whole list but some quick and dirty approx. figures (using browser's search function) here:

Rough numbers of types shot down:

88 I-153/I-15bis
53 MiGs
50 I-16s
47 Yak-series (added Spitfires here as they were usually misidentified Yaks)
44 Hurricanes
43 LaGG-3s
34 La-5s
25 Pe-2s
5 P-40s

I'll let everybody draw their own conclusions based on that list. But as can be seen that should debunk the "Brewsters only shot down I-15s and I-16s-myth".

[Butcher]

A bit more about the plane types Brewsters shot down for those who have genuine interest regarding the subject:

This list should cover all kills claimed by LLv24 and LLv26 (those are the only squadrons that operated the type):http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm

As Brewsters scored a total of 476 kills I don't feel like going through the whole list but some quick and dirty approx. figures (using browser's search function) here:

Rough numbers of types shot down:

88 I-153/I-15bis
53 MiGs
50 I-16s
47 Yak-series (added Spitfires here as they were usually misidentified Yaks)
44 Hurricanes
43 LaGG-3s
34 La-5s
25 Pe-2s
5 P-40s

I'll let everybody draw their own conclusions based on that list. But as can be seen that should debunk the "Brewsters only shot down I-15s and I-16s-myth".

Is there any reference material to prove the claims? I mean I know Russia is a bit of a tick about it, especially since JG 51 has credited over 8,000 kill claims to its unit alone, I just wonder about the numbers? Its true the Finns were flying on defense the entire war, they could engage and disengage any time they wanted, ambush and retreat pretty much was the only tactic needed - which makes sense, but still 34 La-5's for how many Brewsters? I figured the russians would of came with a new game tactic in 1944 to even up the numbers, but it just seems like they never could see or get the Finns in the air.

Not saying I don't believe the Finns, I can vouch for JG51's kill claims, 8,000 seem amazing for just one squadron! I think good leadership and a bit of luck helped the Finns, its just the Finns never lost planes - the Germans were losing planes left and right even from the start of Barbarossa, a crash here and crash there.

The Losses is the only thing that makes me wonder the integerity of the claims?