Brewster Buffalo

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The Brewster was despised by the RAF too.  I read a bit from the pilot of one a couple of days ago, the undercarriage lights didn't work and the wheels kept dropping down, the only way he could tell they were up was by looking at the daylight between the gaps in the panels on the wings.  It seemed there were numerous other Brewsters in the same flight who had the same trouble.

The brewsters did have problems also in Finland but some smart engineering went into solving them. For example the replacement engines that were fit in had a very poor reliability history. This was fixed by reversing the first piston rings enabling a better lubrication in the engine and resulted in an excellently reliable construction.

[Squire]

There is really a lot of tilted misconceptions of the Brewster. For starters, im not about to claim it was some wonder fighter that was misunderstood, it certainly was average at best, and thats all it ever was, on its best day, for an early war fighter.

However...

The stuff about undercarriage lights ect, well, thats a stright maintenance issue, undoubtably as a result of the very poor conditions they were flown in Singapore. Both Ira Kepford (USN ace) and Joe Foss (USMC ace) stated they thought the F2A-3 version and the F4F were close enough in performance that the differences were small. They wanted both types replaced by newer and better fighters.

The whole business with the Brewster in US service came down to a single dogfight on June 4th 1942 at Midway. The 15 Buffalo and 7 Wildcats were launched late vs an IJN strike of 108 a/c. They were faced with 4-1 odds as well as this was the first combat of almost all the USMC pilots in the war. They fought as well as could be expected, and actually impressed the Japanese. It would have made no difference if all the fighters were F4Fs in that fight, none whatsovever.

The Brewster in Dutch and RAF/RAAF service in the East Indies is a circumstance where the air force is faced with the land ans sea forces being defeated and forced to withdraw, it was not the fault of the Brewster that they were in such poor circumstances. The presence of F4Fs or P-40s or Hurricanes would not have prevented that campaign from being the disaster it was. Nor would they have altered the Singapore campaign.

Its ironic that the P-40 at Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines is not blamed for the Allied defeats there, or the F4F blamed for the fall of Wake island, but somehow it seems many want to blame the poor Brewster for all the ills of the Allied forces in those early weeks and months of the Pacific war in other places. Its more to do with our human need for symbols. We dont like defeats, and anything associated with a deafeat gets all the harsh mythology that goes with it, and the opposite for the good times, where victories come, we over glamorize anything associated with winning, the P-51, the Spitfire, the Hellcat, ect. Its the same for ships, tanks, guns, and anything else we associate with a particular battle.

So take what they say about it with a grain of salt, and understand the context of the very difficult circumstances it fought in before beleiving all the over hyped smears and half truths. Was it a great fighter? no, but it wasn't as bad as many make it out to be through the crud colored glasses of Allied retreat in those early days of the war.

As for Finnish service, the Finns had the benefit of being able to operate it for almost three long years from airfields that were not over run, and were able to fight a long war of attirition over home territory against poorer Sovier pilots and tactics in many cases. I take nothing away from their accomplishments, they did a splendid job, but the circumstances were very different.

[Masherbrum]

Rich, it's nice to see someone gets it.  Please forward this to Masherbum.

Neither one of you know much about Finnish History.   Sadly, only two people in this thread "Don't get it" and they're named in the above quote.

[stephen]

Never read a book that stated the early war woes of the american forces where the blame of the Brewster...., However i've read multiple accounts from pilots stating it was a piece of junk... (including one by Jimmy Thatch) surprisingly the f4f was well liked as far as I can recall, though out-classed.

Ill have to pour over a couple books.

[A8TOOL]

Hi TOOL,

Were the links I posted helpful?

For this question I'll quote Widewing thought's on it. I think he summed it up pretty well.



Here's Pyro's view on the inclusion of Brewster during the plane vote two years ago:

Yes

Yes

And again Yes, I see exactly how this came to be.

Thanks very much for all your help Wmaker,

Salute Finns  

[Masherbrum]

Ditto, like I've said again and again, I knew before hand this was going to happen. That's why I thought "Finland in WWII" should be discussed elsewhere.

Wmaker, you tried.    

[Masherbrum]

See Rule #4

Stick to the Thread Subject or revert to PM's or post in the O'Club. 

[DrDea]

See Rule #6

[caldera]

I like it. Looks like the Wildcat's fatter older brother. How many rounds per gun does it carry?

[Wmaker]

How many rounds per gun does it carry?

For the 4x.50s: 200 rpg for the fuselage weapons and 400 rpg for the wing guns. With 3x.50s the .30 in place of the .50 has 600 rounds.

[E25280]

I'd just like to offer this up as a salute . . .

[Masherbrum]

Please lose the agenda and discuss the plane.I for one am tired of hearing the childish s*** on these threads.

Explain that to Moray and Rich, they missed the boat.   

[Hajo]

I myself can't wait to fly it...and yes....in the MA also.

[Masherbrum]

I myself can't wait to fly it...and yes....in the MA also.

Exactly.   

[Demetrious]

I am entirely mystified as to why the Brewster Buffalo is getting so much hate from people. Of all the early-war US fighters, the Buffalo is arguably the best. It's got good manuverability (in fact, it was praised for this by Pappy Boyington,) equally on-par with, say, the P-40 or the like, but has one thing that neither the P-40, F4F, or P-39 had- a  power/weight ratio and climb rate worth a hoot. Heck, I'd say it's fairly unique in that regard; an early-war American fighter that doesn't climb and accelerate like a lead brick? You don't say.

I wasn't paying attention to the forums when they introduced the P-39 (busy with school at that time, IIRC,) but I'd be equally as mystified if it received similarly harsh words. Considering that the P-40 has been favored by some good sticks who have shown what it can do, the P-39, which is arguably a hotter ship, should have been welcomed with at least some warmth. P-39 has similar manuverability and acceleration to the P-40, but is rather faster and has a cannon- why hate on that?

All in all, though, the addition of more varied and capable early-war fighters is going to make the Early and Mid-war arenas much more fun to fly in, because there will be more unique aircraft available in them. A relief of congestion in the Late War arena could be great fun- less furballs, more 1v1 or 2v2 opportunities. I look forward to it.

EDIT: And let's not forget that these aircraft have quirks of their own. The P-40 is, of all of them, a very stable and easy airplane to fly (even if it DOES have some quirky low-speed handling characteristics,) the P-39 is a right naughty girl at low airspeeds (read: HOPE YOU LIKE STALL HORNS), and the Buffalo... torque. Oh, dear god, torque. Until it's released in AH the only other sim I know of that's modeled the Buffalo is IL-2, and even though AH's flight model isn't quite as exacting as IL-2 in that regard, if it's any indication, managing torque in that bird is going to be, ah, interesting.

My point is, the early-war aircraft are now being expanded into a vertible "stable" of their own, rather then being the odd children out amongst a horde of late-war uberplanes. More planes to fly with more planes to fly them against, and all of this in machines that make you work for your kills because you don't have nearly as much spare energy to fling around.

Perhaps I'm an optimistic fool, but I'm excited. <3