Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Howitzer on August 20, 2004, 12:05:32 AM
-
Since I've joined AH I've seen a lot of wishlists for new planes, and one plane that always makes the list is the Brewster. Now I was reading "Baa Baa Blacksheep" by Pappy Boyington (which is so poorly written it makes my eyes bleed, no offense to the man) and circa mid 1942 he describes the Brewster as a "dud in combat" and mentions that it is inferior to the a6m. I believe at the time, they were flying the P40B model, and it outperformed the Brewster in all areas according to Boyington.
I was curious to get some history as to why you guys would like this plane in the game. Seems like it is close to inferior to some of the early war planes that are rarely flown in the MA to date. This isn't meant to offend any Brewster supporters, just looking for the other side of the coin.
Thanks!
-
It blew.
Karaya
-
Reason for the Brewster is because of the Super Human finnish pilots tht flew then with not great but awesome success. Camo has a htread on it.
-
I love reading books about Finnish WW2 fighter/bomber stuff.:o
-
The aircraft of underdogs.
-
What Skull said. ;)
There is a thread (here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52235)) about the Brewster that has everything pretty much covered, you might want to take a look at it. It's a long thread (about 7 pages), with both sides of the coin presented..
-
Everything that the RAF did with the spit & the Hurri. The poor finns did with the Brewster.
They managed to be at war with both germany & russian in the period, which amazes me to no end.
I don't believe that any major sim has yet modeled it. Perhaps its time.
Then again I could get a perfectly useable Beufighter instead which would be usable in the arena.
-
"Why the Brewster?"
Because we don't want a Defiant! ;)
-
Historical scenarios aren't very historical when we have to substitue any given plane for another, because it is not yet modelled.
We need the Brewster if we are ever going to have an accurate as possible historical scenario based on Finland vs Russia and/or Germany.
I mean...look at the Kate (Japanese carrier torpedo plane). In the Midway scenario we had to use SBDs to "mimick" the Kate because it had not been introduced. The US pilots complained (and rightly so) that the Kate did not have a forward firing gun, whereas the SBD did. In this regard it affected the balance within the scenario....although in that one it didn't matter too much because the Americans kicked our hienies.
-
Originally posted by Curval
We need the Brewster if we are ever going to have an accurate as possible historical scenario based on Finland vs Russia and/or Germany.
Or Mayasia/Singapore/Dutch East Indies. The Brewster was the main frontline fighter there with the RAF, RAAF, RNAAF and the Dutch ML-KNIL and MLD. Also, dont forget VMF-221 at Midway. None are huge impacts on the war (like the Finns) but it would be a nice plane to have at any rate.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I mean...look at the Kate (Japanese carrier torpedo plane). In the Midway scenario we had to use SBDs to "mimick" the Kate because it had not been introduced.
Even worse: They used the TBF to Mimick the Kate and the Devastator...
I was shot down in my SBD by a "CAP" Kate lol.
-Sik
-
Sorry Sikboy is right...sort of:
It was the TBM. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
I don't believe that any major sim has yet modeled it. Perhaps its time.
It's modelled in Forgotten Battles. And if you fly on one of the Finnish servers, like Virtual Pilots, you'll see it being flown with extraordinary skill and living up to its reputation. Very difficult to take off and land due to stubby fuselage and lots of torque, slow, but turns like a bastage.
-
They have been asking for it for a long time, I think it is more if a big deal to the european time zone.
-
Because it is the most successful fighter in all of history with a K/D ratio of like 40:1. That would be the B239 Buffalo not the F2A Buffalo. It easily whips the A6M2 in a turnfight if it is modelled properly.
-
I'm not so sure I agree with that Storch, the RAF model B-339 wasnt all that much different from the B-239 (IE better than the F2A) and it got slaughtered by the A6M2 just like the F2A did. I think the pilot quality on both sides of the Finn conflicts had more to do with it than the plane performance.
-
I'm thinking it'd be similar to a F4F but could be wrong. It does have alot of "character" and I know I'd fly it some. It's fun to fly in IL2-FB.
-
Well I guess I asked because I would like to see something with a medium ENY... perhaps of 35 or something. Maybe a plane that could hold its own against late war fighters, but not something people are afraid to fly in combat. I just didn't see many folks flying it in the MA. Thanks for the posts and the links guys, good discussion!
-
Other than the 6 x .50's the F4F-4 is pretty close with the Export Brewster being a tad better in every performance catagory, but only having 2x .50 and 2x .30 guns. If there was a way to restrict the 6x .50 gun option the F4F-4 would be a great standin, but the lethality of the 6x .50's is too much.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Other than the 6 x .50's the F4F-4 is pretty close with the Export Brewster being a tad better in every performance catagory, but only having 2x .50 and 2x .30 guns. If there was a way to restrict the 6x .50 gun option the F4F-4 would be a great standin, but the lethality of the 6x .50's is too much.
FAF Brewster had first 3*.50cals and 1 .303cal. Later on with 4*.50cals.
-
Why the Brewster?....
Because one just arrived in USA, Pensacola Museum:
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/9434527.htm
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=30267
Why not in AH as well? ;) :D
-
One of my friends is the head paint tech at the restoration shop in the Naval Aviation Museum here in Pensacola.
-
I've been doing some reading on the F4F recently and one thing that caught my eye was some USN pilots prefering the Brewster F2A-1 to the F4F-3. They reckoned it was more maneuverable and more responsive to the controls than the Wildcat. The Buffalo had a fragile undercarriage though and a tendency to snap roll when pulling out of dives. This may have had much to do with the Navy's preference for the F4F.
The F4F-3 was in turn a better performing plane than our F4F-4. The 4 gained folding wings and an extra pair of guns which added a lot of weight with no extra power.
-
You are correct Greebo. The F4F-3 was quite a bit better performing than the F4F-4 and some were a little upset at the loss of performance, but Coral Sea showed the dire need for more numbers of VF planes on CV's and that made the extra weight of the folding wings worth it. I have also seen the mention of some prefering the F2A over the F4F. I think with the tactics and numbers used at Midway, a whole squad of F4F's wouldn't have done any better than the F2A's did and much of the myth of the F2A's total uselessness is a result of that one event. The CAF at Guadalcanal had vets from Midway (Marion Carl) and by that time had developed tactics better suited to fighting the A6M2's. Surely the F2A was not a world beater, but on the other hand was probably not as bad as conventional wisdom would lead you to believe.
-
It'd be fun. Like to see the 4 50's version. Think that'd be neutered enough for a 'slow' plane.
-
The Brewster to the Finns were like the ZEROs to the Japs.
-
Originally posted by Greebo
This may have had much to do with the Navy's preference for the F4F.
Man, I missed this the first time I read the post. The reason the F4F gained favor was not mainly from performance of the plane, but the long and eventually terminal problems Brewster had with fulfilling orders. Brewster was always behind in delivery and this led the Navy get cold feet and bring back the F4F project in large part due to their confidence in Grumman being able to deliver every plane they promised they could. Better to have 100% of your second choice plane than 60% of your first choice.
-
Still seems like it would be lunchmeat in the MA, but sounds great for scenarios and such.
-
Originally posted by Howitzer
Still seems like it would be lunchmeat in the MA, but sounds great for scenarios and such.
i would fear camo and his ubber finn perklie.
-
Here's an interesting statistic for you. I read somewhere the Brewster actually produced more aces per airframe than even the P-51 Mustang. I'm sure its owed all to the low production numbers and the phenomenal success the Finns had with it. But I think I also read somewhere the Dutch had better than a 1:1 kill ratio with it in Java/Sumatra before their forces were overwhelmed.
I'd like to see it in the game someday. I find the F4F plenty manueverable and sturdy as a brick house - the F2A would be even more manueverable but much less rugged and hard hitting with only 4x.50s. Not sure it had self-sealing fuel tanks?
Plus there are some awesome skinning opportunities with this plane. I'd like to see someone of Greebo's calibre go wild with early USN schemes, Dutch, Finnish, and RAF SE Asia patterns...
-
Originally posted by oboe
Here's an interesting statistic for you. I read somewhere the Brewster actually produced more aces per airframe than even the P-51 Mustang. I'm sure its owed all to the low production numbers and the phenomenal success the Finns had with it. But I think I also read somewhere the Dutch had better than a 1:1 kill ratio with it in Java/Sumatra before their forces were overwhelmed.
I'd like to see it in the game someday. I find the F4F plenty manueverable and sturdy as a brick house - the F2A would be even more manueverable but much less rugged and hard hitting with only 4x.50s. Not sure it had self-sealing fuel tanks?
Plus there are some awesome skinning opportunities with this plane. I'd like to see someone of Greebo's calibre go wild with early USN schemes, Dutch, Finnish, and RAF SE Asia patterns...
Some reports I read in a book on the Buffalo a while back had accounts by both Finn and Dutch pilots both of which did very well with it. The little plane was described as flying like a frightened angel and that it was nearly unhittable in the hands of a good pilot. I'll see if I can find that old book. I bought it through the Military Book Club back in the '70s.
-
A significant user of the Buffalo was the Finnish Air Force. Though unloved by the British, Australians, Americans, Belgians and Kiwis, 44 Buffaloes were flown by the Finnish LLv24 Squadron, and the aircraft was beloved and found to be very effective in the hands of its Finnish pilots. No fewer than 12 pilots became aces in Buffaloes, and the aircraft is remembered fondly by many. (Quoted from Warbird Alley)
12 Pilots became aces huh? Not bad for such an old design compared to what they were up against..I say LETS DO IT
-
Originally posted by storch
Some reports I read in a book on the Buffalo a while back had accounts by both Finn and Dutch pilots both of which did very well with it. The little plane was described as flying like a frightened angel and that it was nearly unhittable in the hands of a good pilot. I'll see if I can find that old book. I bought it through the Military Book Club back in the '70s.
Yet, we have the account of Erik Shilling in a mock dogfight with an RAF Buffalo:
Squadron Leader Brandt was flying the Brewster, and I believe he gained "Ace" status over England during the Battle of Britain. Brandt and I took off in formation, climbing to ten thousand feet
over Kyedaw. We were flying to the east as we came over the airport, crossing the runway at ninety degrees. When directly overhead, we made a 90 degree turn away from each other, which put us flying parallel to the runway. After a few seconds we turned back toward each other, coming down the centerline of the runway.
We met directly over the heads of those on the ground. The combat was on as our wing tips passed, each pulling his plane into as small a circle as our ships were capable of turning. Again, like many times before, I developed the circle into a 45 degree plane. Each time at the top of the turn, with the Brewster below, I would pull back hard on the stick, doing a one quarter turn spin cutting across the circle, gaining a little each time.
When I finally locked onto his tail, Brandt, in a desperate attempt to dislodge me, dropped his gear and flaps, hoping I would overrun him. I saw his flaps as they started down, so I pulled back on the stick instead of the power. I was able to conserve energy by gaining altitude and at the same time losing speed, I stayed behind him. When he finally decided what he was going to do next, I dove back down on his tail. There was no doubt in my mind that I won fair and square, with no mistakes on Brandt's part. I'm certain the P-40 was the better airplane.
I would not have thought the P-40B/C that the A.V.G. flew would be able to out turn a Buffalo, but there you have it. Pilot accounts are sometimes hard to reconcile, and many times are very contradictory.
-
But doesn't Schilling's account describe him doing a hi yo-yo, i.e. adding the vertical to gain the edge, versus the flat-turning Buffalo? It sounds like he had a special technique at the top too, "one quarter turn spin".
My guess is with Schilling's technique, he would've won had they even been in identical planes.
Another factor may be the documented case that the AVG's P-40s were anything but standard P-40B/Cs, having been assembled carefully from assorted parts that were hand-balanced/mated. I think these P-40s had quite a bit better power loading than a factory P-40. Widewing is an authority on that issue, if memory serves.
-
Originally posted by CurtissP-6EHawk
The Brewster to the Finns were like the ZEROs to the Japs.
Forgot to add, it should have Finnish markings.
-
Yup, the A.V.G. P-40's were special, and it sounds like Shilling did do a yo-yo. Still, if you compare an AH F4F-4 and the P-40B, there is no move you can do in the P-40B to beat an F4F-4 in any kind of turn fight. The assumption is that the RAF and especially the Finn Brewsters were better than the Navy's F2A (they were lighter), which by some pilots was thought to be better than the F4F-3, and the F4F-3 clearly had better performance than the F4F-4 in AH (same power, much more weight than F4F-3).
What this really illustrates to me is first hand pilot accounts, though interesting, are not too helpful in evaluating plane performance in general.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Yup, the A.V.G. P-40's were special, and it sounds like Shilling did do a yo-yo. Still, if you compare an AH F4F-4 and the P-40B, there is no move you can do in the P-40B to beat an F4F-4 in any kind of turn fight. The assumption is that the RAF and especially the Finn Brewsters were better than the Navy's F2A (they were lighter), which by some pilots was thought to be better than the F4F-3, and the F4F-3 clearly had better performance than the F4F-4 in AH (same power, much more weight than F4F-3).
What this really illustrates to me is first hand pilot accounts, though interesting, are not too helpful in evaluating plane performance in general.
An yet it is the creative spark in the individual that often determines outcome. The fact remains the Buffalo has a better K/D ratio than even the F-15 I believe. Pilot accounts rule especially the account of the winning pilot.
-
Originally posted by storch
An yet it is the creative spark in the individual that often determines outcome.
Thats exactly why they are not terribly useful to evaluate plane performance in more than the most general way as the key element is the human one.
-
Originally posted by storch
An yet it is the creative spark in the individual that often determines outcome. The fact remains the Buffalo has a better K/D ratio than even the F-15 I believe. Pilot accounts rule especially the account of the winning pilot.
But still my question is, in the MA do you really think this plane could stand up to a 51 whether it be a B or a D? Or a Dora/A5, N1k? The planes in the era where it existed aren't flown much in the MA, going to have to have great tecniques to shoot down the late war birds in one.
-
all you got to do in the brewster is have the dweeb pilot start to turn and he is toast. also not to mentions it's BnZ capabilities aren't bad.
-
b239 model is a heavy zeke that can dive without locking up. I'd fly it more than I fly the A6m for sure :)
f2a is a bloated overweight armored down pig. still more maneuverable than the f4f4 but not as good as the b239.
-
Originally posted by Howitzer
But still my question is, in the MA do you really think this plane could stand up to a 51 whether it be a B or a D? Or a Dora/A5, N1k? The planes in the era where it existed aren't flown much in the MA, going to have to have great tecniques to shoot down the late war birds in one.
Well in the MA it may be a tough call. I'm pretty sure that the Special events players and the CT players would welcome It's addition for those weeks when the play would be either Wake and Midway Islands, SE Asia or the Finn/Russo war. In view of the rolling plane sets and evolving war front concept we are experimenting with in the CT the current plane set gap becomes blaringly evident. It would certainly go a long way towards bringing back the Finnish Virtual Pilots which have left AH and are playing UbiSoft on Hyperlobby. HTC is very fortunate that it's customer base is passionate and vocal. There aren't many businesses where this combination exists. I wish my customers made my life easier by tell me exactly what they wanted as opposed to having to carefully watch the trends. We could use a Bf 109K. FW 190 A1 and an A3 as well as an JU88G with the gun package in the nose, Me 410 with Nose Cannon and Schrage Musik. A Fiat G55, Caproni Reggiane Re 2005 which interestingly enough flew both Axis and Allied simultaneously for a short time. An A6M3, Ki-43, Ki-45, Ki-83 Ki-84, Ki-100. We could stand a Gloster Gladiator, Spitfire MkVIII, a specific MkIX not the conglomoration we are currently flying. An F2A, F4F-3, F6F-3. P36, P39, P38J P40N, P47M, P51A, P51H, P63A. Yak3, Yak9, La3, La9. I know this represents a absolute mountain of work but If you aren't moving forward you are falling behind. Life is dynamic and nothing stands still. I'm almost certain this will probably never happen though.
-
Storch,
We have the Bf109K-4 in all but name. As I understand it the Bf109G-10 was added in it's place simply to give the 20mm option which the Bf109K-4 did not have.
The P-51H did not see service in WWII. So unless you think that can of worms should be opened...
We need and early P-38 (or two), the P-38J offers nothing in terms of scenarios or MA play that the P-38L does not already.
-
Originally posted by storch
Because it is the most successful fighter in all of history with a K/D ratio of like 40:1. That would be the B239 Buffalo not the F2A Buffalo. It easily whips the A6M2 in a turnfight if it is modelled properly.
First, the F-15 has a 80something - 0 combat record. Second people who say the Brewster Buffalo has the best kill/death ratio of all time only look at what the Finns did with it and ignore all the other combat units that had the Buffalo and did horribly with it.
If all the Buffalo's losses were counted from every country that used them we wouldnt be seeing a 39-1 k/d ratio. Only the Finns had any kind of success with the Buffalo. Like the Wildcat, the Buffalo was outclassed by its opponents and was eventually replaced by all airforces (including the Finns).
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Like the Wildcat, the Buffalo was outclassed by its opponents and was eventually replaced by all airforces (including the Finns).
Yes, the Finnish Air Force now has Hornets. ;)
But the Brewster Model 239 fighters were used by the Finnish Air Force until the war ended (peace with Soviet Union in september 1944, after that Finland fought the Lapland war against Germans). Last aerial victory of the Model 239's: October 3rd, 1944, 1Lt E. Teromaa flying BW-361 and SSgt O. Hietala flying BW-367 from HLeLv 26 shot down 2 German Ju 87s over Lonejärvi.
The last of the Brewsters in the Finnish Air Force were withdrawn from service in September 1948.