Brewster

[Dantoo]

There is a lot of evidence that the Brewster was generally a capable aircraft against the Japanese.

There is a RAAF claim of an overall kill/death ratio of 2-1 in the Brewster's favour.  To dismiss it as a useless aircraft in that conflict, as some tend to do, without delving more deeply into its history tends to tarnish the aircraft and those that flew it somewhat unfairly.  It's an interesting and complicated story.

4 Pilots made Ace in the plane during that early conflict and there is a fair list of multiple victors.
The Brewster is documented as having been delivered from the factory with multiple faults requiring field fixes.  Underpowered engines on some planes noted.

There are some great books about, that are quite illuminating, but you don't have to go that far.

Lots of research done on the WB forums on the topic and it's a useful place to start:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm
and
http://www.warbirdforum.com/notable.htm

Some of which is repeated here for illustration - best to go to original site.

Notable Brewster Buffalo pilots in Southeast Asia, 1941-42

by Santiago A. Flores

The following is a listing, compiled from various sources, of notable Brewster Buffalo pilots who flew in combat in the early part of the Pacific war. I have chosen to list the individual claims of those pilots who claimed 4 victories. For those who claimed over 4 victories (to include shared victories), information can be found in Aces High and Aces High Vol.2, written by Christopher Shores and Clive Williams. All the victories claimed for P/O. G. B. Fisken are already noted in this web site.

Not all the individual claims for each pilot has been found and there are some discrepancies between the sources that I have consulted from type of aircraft claimed shot-down to the day of the claim. Any help or information would be most welcomed to make the listing as accurate as possible.

SGT. GEOFFREY BRYSON FISKEN 6 victories RNZAF 243,453 Squadron WIA Feb. 1, 1942 Later flew in No.15 RNZAF Squadron, claiming 5 more victories to become the top scoring Commonwealth pilot against the Japanese.

F/LT. MAURICE HENRY HOLDER 5 victories RAF 243 Squadron KIFA July 16, 1942 (2 and 3 shared destroyed, and 2 shared damaged) He returned to the UK, only to be killed in a training accident.

SGT. ALFRED WATTLE BENJAMIN CLARE 5 victories RAAF 453 Squadron

F/LT. RICHARD DOUGLAS VANDERFIELD 5 victories RAAF 453 Squadron (plus 1 shared probable)

SGT. MALCOLM NEVILLE READ 4 victories RAAF 453 Squadron KIA December 22, 1941 December 13, 1941 3 shared Ki-51's December 22, 1941 1 Rammed a KI-43

F/LT. DAVID JOHN COLIN PINCKNEY 4 victories RAF 67 Squadron KIA January 23, 1942 (Plus 3 claimed victories, 3 probables and 1 damaged with 603 squadron in Europe. His story is listed in this web site.)

SGT. BERT SAMUEL WIPITI 4 victories RNZAF 243, 453 Squadron KIA Northern Europe (3 and 1 shared victories) Known claims:
January 10, 1942 sh Ki-46
January 21, 1942 Ki-43
January 22, 1942 "Navy 96" Bomber
Later transferred over to 453 Squadron, served in the UK. Promoted to WO. Served in 458 Squadron flying Spifires, later reported KIA probably after 1943. He would claim two more shared kills in this unit:
September 16, 1943 sh. ME-109
October 3, 1943 sh. FW-190

SGT. C. V. (Vic) BARGH 4 victories RNZAF 67 Squadron 4v Know claims based on the book "Bloody Shambles":
December 23, 1941 KI-27 Probable Bomber Destroyed
December 25, 1941 Fighter Destroyed
January 24, 1942 Bomber Destroyed

SGT. VIVIAN ARTHUR COLLYER 4 victories RAAF 21/453 Squadron
December 13, 1941 3 sh. Ki-51
December 22, 1941 1 enemy aircraft

F/LT. JACK ROTSTON "CONGO" KINNINMONT 4 victories RAAF 21/453 Squadron Generally credited with 3 claims with the Buffalo, later served in 75,76 and 86 RAAF Squadrons. Known claims:
January 15, 1942 Bomber Probable
January 19, 1942 Recon Aircraft
January 19, 1942 KI-43
January 29, 1942 Bomber Damaged
January 31, 1942 Zero Damaged

F/O. NOEL C. SHARP 3 victories RNZAF 488/243/604 Squadrons Known claims:
January 12, 1942 Fighter Probable
January 13,1942 Fighter Ki-43
January 18, 1942 Fighter Type O
January 20, 1942 2 Bombers Damaged

F/ LT. TIMOTHY ASHMED VIGORS 3 victories RAF 243/453 Squadron WIA December 13, 1941
December 13, 1941 3 e/a fighters.
Note: These claims are not credited to him, the Japanese did not suffer any losses that day. Had served in No.222 squadron in Europe, with a score of 6 claimed destroyed, 1 unconfirmed destroyed, 6 probables, 3 and 2 shared damaged. Later promoted to Wing Commander .
NOTABLE DUTCH BREWSTER BUFFALO PILOTS, 1941-1942
In the case of the Brewster Pilots of the Dutch Netherlands East Indies Air Force it has been mentioned that the Dutch pilots claimed about 55 enemy aircraft destroyed for the lost of 30 aircraft in combat. But a complete listing of all their claims has not been published to the knowledge of the author to better document the claim victories of the following notable Dutch pilots.

KAPT. JACOB.P.VAN HELSDINGER 3 victories 2-VIG-V KIA March 7, 1942 Known Claims:
January 12, 1942 1 Ki-27

LT. AUGUST. G. DEIBEL 3 victories 2-VIG-V WIA January 12, 1942; WIA February 19, 1942 Known Claims:
January 12, 1942 2 Ki-27's
Later KIFA June 12, 1950 in the Netherlands.

LT. GERARDUS. M. BRUGGINK 2 victories 2-VIG-V Known Claims:
January 12, 1941 1 Ki-27

KAPT. ANDRIAS. A. M. VAN REST 2 victories 1-VIG-V

[321BAR]

Which against the F4F means you don't kill any many F4Fs as you have to saddle up for an extended time.  The F4F is plenty maneuverable to make the A6M2's shot difficult/

i've lost an elevator in the A6M5B and fought an F4F and dodged another A/C for a good 3 minutes then went into a rolling scissors and killed the F4F after another minute of that. The F4F isnt the most maneuverable aircraft to go up against the zeke with. I've shot down my share of them.

You can't magically make an extra 500lbs of aluminum on a larger airplane have that much more durability.  The light Japanese aircraft isn't that much lighter and we're not talking about a F6F or P-47 here.

i did somewhat go off subject with that but you took my statement incorrectly or i misstated myself. either or here. no magical 500lbs meant.

I'm also interested in whether you're accounting for the awful ballistics of the Zero's 20mm. I've flown both sides in early PTO scenarios, and even if I get a good tracking shot at convergence range with the 20mm the rounds still fall low and miss the target outright. (confirmed by just firing the 20mm). When I CAN get the 20mm in there is when I get the kills (and that's certainly consistent with Sakai's report. If the cannon aren't hitting, those 7.7s aren't going to do much more than tickle).

And for the record, I have no trouble putting F4Fs down with a bank of Brownings. If there's a fault I'm more inclined to believe it's the abysmal performance of the early Japanese cannon (combined with the F4F just being hard to hit) than any modeling of the F4F's durability.

The Type 99 is one of the best cannons in the game punch wise but i understand what you mean with the tracking. I set my convergence to coordinate with the two mgs as best as i could (a6m2 being 7.7s and 5b being 7.7 and 12.5 correct? i dont even know what the mg caliber for the 5b is and its my plane to fly) I have no trouble killing F4Fs with any weapon, it just takes the right hit.

[321BAR]

No need to try put words in my mouth. BAR mentioned on the constant whining and I just said like it is. There's no need to do anything based on whining, except have fun on the whiners' expense.

Oh so it accelerates to fast now I see.  

Well, have fun testing.

i've come back to this thread 7 times and i still cannot figure out which thread you are talking about with this statement about me? i give up. i do know i said it recently though...

[gyrene81]

There is a lot of evidence that the Brewster was generally a capable aircraft against the Japanese.

There is a RAAF claim of an overall kill/death ratio of 2-1 in the Brewster's favour.  To dismiss it as a useless aircraft in that conflict, as some tend to do, without delving more deeply into its history tends to tarnish the aircraft and those that flew it somewhat unfairly.  It's an interesting and complicated story.

4 Pilots made Ace in the plane during that early conflict and there is a fair list of multiple victors.
The Brewster is documented as having been delivered from the factory with multiple faults requiring field fixes.  Underpowered engines on some planes noted.

There are some great books about, that are quite illuminating, but you don't have to go that far.

Lots of research done on the WB forums on the topic and it's a useful place to start:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm
and
http://www.warbirdforum.com/notable.htm

Some of which is repeated here for illustration - best to go to original site.

You are correct in some ways, however if you closely examine the details of those aerial conflicts you will note that most of the "victories" those Brewster pilots had against the Japanese were against bombers as well as Ki-27s, A5Ms and few if any Ki-43s or A6Ms. There are many accounts of plane misidentification that occurred.

[E25280]

Here is the test . Test conducted at 1000 k alt auto level on . E6b used for recording speed . 1k alt was obtained throttled back until speed was 120 ias . Full throttle then applied .2 stop watches started by myself and wife as speed hit 150 mph. watches stopped at 250 mph . Test repeated 5 times . Differences in times below .5 seconds for both watches , each test . AC were augured after each test . Fuel level was 100% no ords and heavy gun package . Load out was slightly modified from original test ,to eliminate only complaint you had to tests . This is a brew vs a 190a8 . Buffalo out accelerated the a8 .

What were your results in seconds?

I've re-read your posts and I am still not sure why you are certain that the Brewster should not accelerate as fast as a 190A-8.  At 1000 feet, the A-8 has a faster top speed than the Spixteen or the 109F, but according to Gonzo's excellent site, both would out-accelerate the A-8 from 150 to 250 MPH.  And conversely, the F4U-1 would have a faster top speed at 1000 feet, but the A-8 would out-accelerate it from 150-250.  So besides the obvious difference in top speeds between the Brewster and the 190A-8, what are you basing your conclusion on?  Because after re-reading your posts, I still don't know why you think it must be so except that you think it must be so.

Unfortunately Gonzo's site hasn't been updated in years, so the Brewster and many other more recent additions aren't there, but it would be interesting to see if 1) your results for the 190A-8 match the site and 2) what your reasoning is in saying the A-8 should absolutely out accelerate the Brewster. 

[E25280]

You know what, scratch all of that.  I just tried to do some testing because I realized I was taking the claim that the Brewster out-accelerates the 190A-8 at face value.

At 1000 feet, starting at 150mph TAS according to E6B and holding it for 3 seconds at that speed on autolevel (at which point the A-8 was actually decending slightly), then firewalling the throttle and hitting stopwatch, the times I got to 250mph were as follows (two tests per, timing was in agreement):

Brewster: 41 seconds
190A-8 at mil power: 36 seconds
190A-8 at WEP:  28 seconds

I'm not even sure what the complaint is now.  What did I do wrong?

[Dantoo]

You are correct in some ways

Strange thing to say.  Nothing there is incorrect as far as I know.  You have contrary information?  Something there not factual?

if you closely examine the details of those aerial conflicts you will note that most of the "victories" those Brewster pilots had against the Japanese were against bombers as well as Ki-27s, A5Ms and few if any Ki-43s or A6Ms

If you examine the details of any/all large scale conflicts and individual pilot records you will see that most of them pan out against a number of different aircraft types. This doesn't diminish their accomplishments.  This is especially so here.  Do you think that the the strike/bomb aircraft shot down by the Commonwealth pilots were unescorted and somehow sitting ducks? 

The printed history illuminates that the Allied pilots were fully defensive, poorly supported, greatly outnumbered and received little or no warning of incoming raids.  They and their aircraft were on the losing side in that battle, but the records show that neither pilots nor aircraft were the "pushovers" of popular myth.  Both acquitted themselves well.

You might be involved in a long argument on the technical merits of the AH implementation of the Brewster.  I am not. I have simply posted a grab of facts so that anybody passing by and taking an interest might be spurred on to read through some of  the information readily available on that conflict. There is a lot of it but it rarely appears on the "must read" lists. 

If you want to know why the the Hurricanes sent there were ineffective then it's worth reading "Hurricane Over the Jungle" by Terence Kelly.  Their experiences reflect those of the Buffalo pilots.

Getting away from the technical merits of the planes involved and the quality of the pilots, it can simply
be a matter of how they are used that is the ultimate determinant of the historical scoreboard.  That's an issue that is hard to quantify.

[gyrene81]

There is a lot of evidence that the Brewster was generally a capable aircraft against the Japanese.

You were correct in some ways, meaning it was capable against older and slower aircraft, not against the newer A6M or Ki models. Regardless of how they met the enemy or pilot skill, when pitted against the A6M2 and Ki-43 the B-339E and F2A-3/B-439 lost every time except for 2 recorded instances, and none of those Brewster models were in the hands of the FAF.

[Wmaker]

"And clueless and ignorant individuals whining about something isn't really a good reason to add or remove planes from the planeset."  So I put words in your mouth ? That is a quote from you .


Here is the test . Test conducted at 1000 k alt auto level on . E6b used for recording speed . 1k alt was obtained throttled back until speed was 120 ias . Full throttle then applied .2 stop watches started by myself and wife as speed hit 150 mph. watches stopped at 250 mph . Test repeated 5 times . Differences in times below .5 seconds for both watches , each test . AC were augured after each test . Fuel level was 100% no ords and heavy gun package . Load out was slightly modified from original test ,to eliminate only complaint you had to tests . This is a brew vs a 190a8 . Buffalo out accelerated the a8 . Your only response . "My guess is that the power loadings agree nicely with real life figures." You go on and on abut proof yet you give a guess as evidence ? Except for your contention that the buff was this uber plane in comparison to other ww2 fighters . You contradict every other post you make sometimes you do it right in the same post . You don't insult/name/call . Next line anyone that asks a question is lazy thick headed ignorant . You want facts, you reply with a guess . Well guess what show me the facts that prove buff could out accelerate the a8 . Then post the facts proving me wrong that my contention that it did well only in Finnish hands is wrong . Show me where they were not eliminated by their enemy either to or almost to the last machine .

Oh so it accelerates to fast now I see.  Hehe!

Well, have fun testing.

In comparison yes it does . I posted on the other thread I am sure a towering intellect like you remembers  the redone test data. With double the horsepower and much much lower drag in the 190 . The brewster should not out accelerate the FW190A8 . Yours is the extraordinary claim not mine . You say it is correct that a 1936 design should out accelerate a 1943 wartime one . I say prove it . Please if you can't respond like an adult , save it for the people that have deluded you into thinking you are funny . No personal attack just prove your outlandish claim

My problem is ,that only in Finn hands ,against the Russians did it do any good at all . One version vs 1 enemy , It is a bad machine . Against anyone else in any other hands it was slaughtered .

"This is exactly what I mean by the clueless and ignorant." Once again a personal attack on something I know is basically right . The word slaughter may not have applied to the dutch , that is a matter of opinion though . Please show me anywhere else that it achieved anything like the Finnish K/D ratio . We both know you can't . Once again you suggest a claim about the plane that is inaccurate and against accepted history . Burden of proof is yours . Wish I could say I am looking forward to a reply on this . We both know it was not successful in any other hands than Finnish ones , against pilots of unequal quality . I wonder if you will suggest end of war German or Soviet pilot quality through out the war was anything other then unequal .



"I didn't call you names. I merely stated a fact. I maybe could have dropped it to you a bit more gently but it wouldn't really change the context in anyway."   "This is exactly what I mean by the clueless and ignorant." Both quotes of you . In reply to me . Both in direct contradiction of each other . I assume English is not your native tongue . Yet you write well and speak it so so . I have a hard time thinking you don't understand the definition of the words , for the context they were used in . Yet these two posts suggest you do . So please save the insults for your kids or who ever it is weaker then you that helped you to develop that attitude  .Someone has been dishonest with you . Your not funny at all . So please save it and just answer the questions . BTW a psych study done at a near by university about cyber bullying sheds some light on why you act the way you do online . A friend of my daughters who is doing graduate work on it really gave me a chuckle  when she analysed your posts in this forum. I should post the profile here , but it would just get skuzzyfied .  You make some powerful statements about how you are tired of the ignorant people and their claims . I have seen no one make claims . Just ask questions . Further I have seen you do little to nothing to answer the questions . Well I have more questions and observations to point out . I shall end it here though so as not to be accused of rambling . The two questions are easy to see lets see an answer .

<sigh>

First of all, the burden of proof is with you. I don't have to prove anything or explain anything to you. You made the claim. It is also your job to back it up. Second, an aircraft accelerates with the excess thrust that is at its disposal at any given moment. So when an aircraft is flying at "full throttle" and isn't flying at its top speed it is either climbing or accelerating. So if the climb rates are correct, so is the acceleration. I already stated it in that another thread. A-8s climb data is well known and AH A-8 hits one data set to the mark. Brewster's climb data I've seen is only for the 850hp continious power setting. I haven't personally extrapolated 1000hp figures but the ones Pyro has come up with look very plausible and agree ok with the slope of the 850hp data (see the other thread). If you think something is wrong with the acceleration/climb rate just extrapolate your own climb curve and compare it to the AH climb chart.

Read Tango's reply in the other thread. Also, Tango duplicated your tests and his results considerably differed from yours. Let's just say that I don't have to do the test myself to decide who to believe. Just because you think Brewster shouldn't accelerate the way it does compared to the A-8 doesn't make it wrong in anyway.

I have never stated that the Brewster was an "uber plane" or anything of the sort. The fact that you think it's one in AH is fairly amusing.

Regarding to the psyco analysis, I am much entertained. If you don't want to post the profile here, could you send it to me as a private message? Feel free to check my posting history here for "cyber bullying". At the same time search for "Brewster" from this BB for the past year. It just gets frustrating when people who have practically zero knowledge of the subject matter come here with attitude and their "hunches" and demand information that they should be seeking by themselves if they think something is wrong.

Here's a good example: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,272699.msg3411772.html#msg3411772

All in all this post of yours is so way off base and you don't have much logic to your claims. So I don't really see much point trying to get through to you. But please post that profile in a PM, I'd really like to see it.

[Wmaker]

most didn't know how to turn,

Hmm...I've heard that the soviets sometimes landed to the same airfield they took off from.

Or were they some of the "better ones"?

[Wmaker]

i've come back to this thread 7 times and i still cannot figure out which thread you are talking about with this statement about me? i give up. i do know i said it recently though...

.........

This will stop the constant whining that the B-239 is "overmodeled" and "flies better than zeros"...

[gyrene81]

Hmm...I've heard that the soviets sometimes landed to the same airfield they took off from.

Or were they some of the "better ones"?

Oh here we go...thank you for opening the flame door Wmaker 

What Krusty was talking about in English is that the early Soviet pilots with little experience did not know how to turn fight, even if they did know how to return to base.

[Wmaker]

Oh here we go...thank you for opening the flame door Wmaker  

What Krusty was talking about in English is that the early Soviet pilots with little experience did not know how to turn fight, even if they did know how to return to base.

"flame door"?

Anyway, I'm way past caring...again.

Regarding to the "Soviet skill level", it just isn't as black and white as Krusty puts it.


I recommend Luukkanen's Fighter Over Finland and Juutilainen's Double Fighter Knight for anyone who actually wants to have some idea what the Finns thought about their opponents.

[Wmaker]

I guess I suddenly felt compelled to explain myself a bit further...

My problem is ,that only in Finn hands ,against the Russians did it do any good at all . One version vs 1 enemy , It is a bad machine . Against anyone else in any other hands it was slaughtered .

Hlbly, it was the above quote which I mentioned to be good example of a clueless and ignorant comment about the Brewster. It is ignorant most definately. It clearly shows that you've read the populistic description/view of the plane and it's history and you just ran with it without anymore thinking or research. It shows that you aren't very well aware of the odds the plane faced in the Pacific/SE Asia and therefore you just assumed that it must have been such a bad aircraft because it did "poorly" (whatever that means).

Also, it is bad idea to judge a plane based on is operational record alone without taking a look at the technical/physics side of things. The operational record is actually totally irrelevant. The only way to have an accurate picture of a plane's performance is to look into its technical properties.

Now, when I hear the same baseless comment about 20th time, I've gotten to a point where I bluntly call it as I see it, clueless and ignorant.

It's funny, if someone said that to me, I'd be embarassed and would go back and studied the subject more to make sure it wouldn't happen again.

[palef]

F2A-2 didn't see combat and F2A-3 saw far too little combat to be a viable addition.

F2A-3 saw more than enough combat to be included, particularly in the defence of Singapore. I'd like to see it just because it made some Kiwis aces during a period of intense combat against a numerically and technically superior enemy who was also vastly better organised.

If you've read "Bloody Shambles" you'd know that the biggest problem facing RAAF and RNZAF pilots was their British commanders, and the US who supplied the F2As with "timed" DC-3 engines. In other words the engines were worn out when they were installed in the airframe.

As you've already pointed out one can't blame the aircraft for poor tactical and strategic decisions.