Brewster also had many issues in general... and these issues led to issues with their Aircraft particularly in terms of quality control you only need to look at the Brewster variant of the Corsair produced under license as the F3A which were delivered late, and had poor quality wing fittings which caused the wings to fly off under combat conditions...
prob was good for that area of combat. kinda like how the russians loved the p39 and was great for there low- mid level combat but americans hated it. its easy to compare early war fighters to late war and say they sucked but they held the line in the early years and thats all we needed them too do.
The Finns loved it. Tough, rugged, and reliable in the extreme weather conditions up there. The best plane in the world does you no good if it can't operate in the combat arena's environment.
That moment when your climate actually works better for the aircraft because the cold weather kept the plane's engine cool unlike in the Pacific which made it overheat
@@jeffk464 In the winter war the I 16 slightly better than the Finnish fokker d 21. The I 153 was similar in capability to the fokker. In the continuation war, even early on, the soviets used migs and laggs against Finland. Sure, the polikarpov planes were weaker than the buffalo, but it did encounter equal planes from the get go. High soviet losses were likely more of a skill issue than an issue of equipment.
Few notes about the Finnish Brewster Buffalo... The Finns did install a reflector sight to it, armored seat rest, and upgraded the original armament of 3 x 50 cal + 1 x 30 cal to 4 x 50 cal. There is also a funny mention by Juutilainen (one of the Finnish aces) about Brewster that the fuselage of the Brewster was very roomy. Roomy enough that it was an unofficial practice to ferry mechanics, spare parts and similar in there. In one instance a pilot was flying while he had 2 other men, a dog and all of their luggage stuffed into the fuselage.
Yikes, that reminds me of a video I saw (now forgive me, I vaaaaguely remember this) of I believe German single seat fighters being used the same way. It seems to me they were being deployed into France and had a mechanic stuffed into the fuselage so the planes could be worked on once they landed at their forward air bases... anyway, a whole bunch got jumped and were shot down, so jot only did you lose a pilot and plane but the damn mechanic (who had an utterly horrific death presumably) as well... I seem to remember there being a directive specifically stating this practice was to cease immediately haha you'd have to put a gun to my head as a mechanic to get me into some fighters little "cargo" space, especially to go flying across remotely hostile skies =/
Yes, that involved the Luftwaffe units in southern France re their post D Day redeployment plans to contest the skies over Normandy. Given the hopeless task of transferring resources by either air or land without aerial superiority, the two options were not that far apart when calculating which was riskier.
I have read that the Finnish kill ratio record is exceptionally reliable, as the pilots' own counts were not taken for face value. As most of the fighting took place over Finnish territory, the basic count was verified on ground by locating the wrecks. Over water, an independent witness, mostly the wingman was the source of any kill report. The pilots on the other hand generally credited the ground crew (mechanics) for their achievements.
@@thethirdman225 I have read various Finnish memoirs, most written by Joppe Karhunen, a lead pilot who himself flew Brewster Buffalo. While I don’t recall all the names of his books, I do recall the one “Ujeltavat Potkurit” - Whistling Propellers - that told about the Fighter Squadron 24 getting the Brewster Buffaloes in 1941. They were way better than their previous Fokkers, although not as good as the BF109, which they got for the last few months of Finnish war in 1944. The biggest ace, Ilmari Juutilainen got about half of his kills with the Buffalo and then the other half in the hectic last months flying a BF109. By the way, the war time President Risto Ryti got a Russian/British peace commission pressed prison term for signing the contract with Germany for getting these BF109 planes, officially because he did sign the deal without an approval of the Parliament.
@@InssiAjaton *_"I have read various Finnish memoirs, most written by Joppe Karhunen, a lead pilot who himself flew Brewster Buffalo. While I don’t recall all the names of his books, I do recall the one “Ujeltavat Potkurit” - Whistling Propellers - that told about the Fighter Squadron 24 getting the Brewster Buffaloes in 1941."_* I would never trust a source like that at face value when it came to trying to reliably assessing a K/D ratio. Critical thinking is essential here and you need to balance those claims with losses. And that doesn't mean I suddenly believe Soviet figures either. I've never seen any which is actually a bad thing. My problem is Finnish nationalism. Finland fought a war against an invading army and while they ultimately lost, they acquitted themselves extremely well so they have plenty to be proud of. But when nationalism is involved, the story can be muddied by all kinds of myth and legend. However, as with most of these things, they rarely stand up to close inspection when detailed audit figures are available. I'm not sure they are for this case. It sort of reminds me of the claims made for the German army in the Soviet Union before the archives were opened. In the absence of any other information, most people simply didn't question what the Germans - particularly the German generals - claimed. *_"The biggest ace, Ilmari Juutilainen got about half of his kills with the Buffalo and then the other half in the hectic last months flying a BF109."_* My understanding is that he spent a lot more time in the Bf-109 and scored most of his victories in it too. *_"By the way, the war time President Risto Ryti got a Russian/British peace commission pressed prison term for signing the contract with Germany for getting these BF109 planes, officially because he did sign the deal without an approval of the Parliament."_* I'm not sure what the has to do with the subject but okay.
One thing to keep in mind regarding the Finns' success using the Brewster is the tactics used by the Finns. One part of Finnish tactics were designed to utilize the strengths of their planes, partly Finnish tactics were ahead of their times compared to the ones used by the Great Powers of the time. Check out how the Finns performed during the Winter War with their outdated Fokkers and other old models they had. And the Finnish pilots were highly trained, the core being veterans of the Winter War, turning young recruits into highly skilled fliers. In addition, the Finnish mechanics were skilled indeed, they even managed to solve the excess oil consumption of the engines on the Brewsters, something the Americans were unable to fix. And the Finns had Maj. Magnusson, the commander of LeLv24, a bright tactician and visionary, the brain behind Finnish tactics.
The Finnish pilots had way more flexible boundaries in tactics and so the good experiences were spread very fast around and taken into use. Also the mentality after getting upgrades from Former D.XXI to the way superior Brewster was met with the mentality "how can I best use the pros of this plane to hide the cons" and not just rigidly trying to use the tactics from before in a new plane. Also the Brewsters were the best planes Finland had, so there weren't any wet dreams about Hurricanes, Spitfires etc. what the British pilots flying in a far away (and "forgotten") front might have had. Add in the flexible formations, attack mentality and a cadre of experienced pilots with very good training from the inter war years, you can see how the Finns were more successful with these planes. As a loose reference for what I've written above, I have what I remember reading from the book "Double Fighter Knight" memoirs of Ilmari Juutilainen and other books about the pilots of LeLv 24
It is a bit harsh to call the D XXI an out of date plane- it's first flight was later than the BF 109 and while the emphasis on manoeuvrability over speed was an outdated concept, it worked fine when the enemy fought on your terms. It could be considered a technical match for the I 15 and I 16 for quite a long time, particularly if maintained better.
@@StockNerd mechanic here..... most oil control rings can be flipped IIRC . it was probably ay the bottom..... when it needed to be 1 or 2 positions higher
The Buffalo is an adorable little aircraft, but also a fairly effective one in the right environment. Deep dives into pioneering designs that get left behind like this are greatly informative and entertaining. If you take suggestions, perhaps a look at the B-18.
Would love to hear more about another great Finnish / Dutch fighter, the handsome Fokker D-XXI. The Dutch intended it to be their primary fighter for protecting their East Indies colony.
As Lord Nelson reputedly said, "Men fight, not ships." In a plane context, this applies to some extent to the Buffalo's story. I am reminded also of when German pilots secretly trained in Russia during the 1920s; they flew late model Fokker fighters and bested the Russian pilots in mock dogfights when the Soviets were still flying World War 1 Nieuports, etc. The Russians said to the effect, well, you have the better planes, of course you won--so the German pilots swapped mounts and still outfought them.
@Checkmate I've noted that in a lot of German and Russian chronicles the interwar cooperation would have made a good story by itself. I'd read articles about the Germans (and Russians) improving their technology, tactics, and training using that exchange program. Though admittedly Stalin had a lot of those people involved put in jail or shot for cooperating with the Germans (even though he's the one that ordered it.). Some of their best Air, Ground, and Tank Commanders who had worked closely with the Germans never made it through the purges. These individuals understood German tactics better than anyone and would have been extremely effective in the opening days of the Operation Barbarossa in minimizing Russian losses and maybe even stopping the German's advances in the first months of the war. But we'll never know, except as a what-if scenario for some fiction writer.
I mean... If you never had the time to adjust to the new technology and to develop new tactics it's pretty obvious that you lose. But I'm no expert in the matter, just my impression
Excellent point MisterApol - of course there is a limit to this re: technology but there are other precedents. The general accepted history of the start of the fighter war between the USA and the Japanese always highlights the supremacy of the Zero over the early US fighters like the P40, F4 Wildcat and of course the Buffalo, and indeed this is often borne out, but never forget the success of Chennault's Flying Tigers in P40s and the way US Navy flyers learned how to counter the Zero via the famous 'Thach Weave' tactic. The mention of Nelson is apt when considering his famous signal at Trafalgar to 'engage the enemy more closely'. A good man in the cockpit can (or at least in WW2 could) claw back some pretty impressive technological deficits - the Finns in their Brewsters often proving the point again.
Most Buffaloes in Far East campaign were lost on the ground, or in accidents not in air to air combat. The lack of logistics, air warning and control would have doomed Spitfires, had they been present.
My father served as- an engineer, building airstrips in the Philippines in November and very early December 1941. Their (his unit’s) initial attack occurred on the 9th. The attack put holes in the runway and big holes in their tanker truck with much frustration for the attackers as they did not see the big explosion they were expecting. The tanker was filled with “molasses” which was poured on the runway to harden in the tropical heat to form a smooth, hard surface for aircraft to land upon. One guy survived the attack, but had to be rescued from the muck as he had sheltered under the tanker. There were 2 aircraft at the airstrip that were relocated after the attack. He never told me the aircraft type either in the air or attacking them. I think he said at least one aircraft was lost on the ground, but I am not sure of that. While his unit was not warned of the specific attack, they were aware of the overall attack on the island. Just a short while before the attack, his 2nd LT came to brief them about how to protect themselves in the event of an air attack (lay down and cover your head). When the first bombs fell, they all saw the “butter bar” hightailing it to the woods, never to be seen again. Nobody from his unit that survived the war ever knew what happened to that officer.
@@kmlammto he was shitcanned prolly!! No doubt an old Gunny or first sergeant saw him tuck tail and run and he prolly passed it on up the flagpole!! As it should be…..today’s military would give him a promotion for his “troubles” and prolly reprimand the gunny for “disrespect to an officer”!! Damn liberals have already ruined so many sports and statues and traditions that I and many Americans love, so why tf can’t they leave our military alone? Between the military trying to be PC now and the loss of all of our production capacity, we’d be fucked if we ever have WW3. IMHO America’s ability to produce and manufacture is what kept us in and eventually won the war!! Every plant tooled up to support the war effort but now we’re just a service industry, best we could do now is ask them if they want fries with that before they bomb us!!
@@Legion-xq8eo What did you see in Kenneth Lamm's post that made you go off on that rant? Seems like you made a lot of (probably erroneous) assumptions about what happened in the Philippines.
Found this video very illuminating regarding the Buffalo. Prior - always considered it an under powered and outclassed aircraft. However, using your Finnish example shows that a good infrastructure (training, morale, supplies, experience) goes a long way. Also, the restricting limitations of the procurement - and he negative impact of being the first with innovation. But maybe the Buffalo's reputation finally being restored and taken off the top 10 worst aircraft list!
for a non-native English speaker, he's incredibly adept at all kinds of subtle, clever, and hilarious little comments. rewards paying close attention and not letting your eyes glaze over when he wades into minutia. Great work!
Many USN and USMC pilots liked the early Buffalo variants but were less enamored of the -A3 model. Captain P.R White reported after Midway: "It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots out for combat in an F2A-3 should consider the pilot lost before leaving the ground." (squadron/signals publications, inc #81 'F2A Buffalo in action' p.38) Hardly an endorsement.
@Matt Hooper Yeah, pretty much. The Buffalo had self-sealing fuel tanks and the pilot had an armor plate behind him. The USN version also had an inflatable raft stuffed somewhere near the cockpit. A Japanese pilot whose plane caught fire, or went down in the ocean, was just out of luck. The Finns not only didn't need a raft over snow, they decided them fancy radios were for *rich* air forces and they left that hundred pounds or so out of the plane.
Having family that lived in Malaya at the time, these types of historical videos always appeal to me. I always find it amusing how underestimated the Japanese were at this time, and how every single radial engine Japanese fighter was collectively called a "Zero." I have also read accounts of the Hawker Hurricanes that were rushed to Singapore at the end of 1941/ January 1942. They didn't fair any better than the Buffaloes...
@mandellorian Actually, the account was from a book written by a British pilot who was rushed, along with the rest of his squadron, to Singapore at the end of 1941. The Hurricane squadrons losses were exactly for the same reasons for the Buffalo squadron losses. Lack of early warning, lack of logistics support, abysmal morale and a shambles of a command structure. Mind you, these were MkI Hurricanes, and yes, they could hold their own against the Japanese of equal caliber. So, yes, the Hawker Hurricanes didn't fair any better for the same reasons as why the RAF Buffaloes were thrashed by the IJAAF. Oh, and please don't get me wrong. The Hurricane is my all time favorite fighter of WW2.
Meh no matter the plane any airforce would have been thrashed by the Japanese. A complete lack of anything regarding a decent logistical train combined with a shortage of trained personnel to both fly and maintain the planes meant preordained failure. You could've had Spitfires for all it mattered.
Thanks for sharing. I´ve always had a soft spot for the Brewster model 239 sent to Finland. Being a model enthusiast, I´ve made models of various variants. Thanks again.
Another point - there's always an issue when something is an "Early Adopter" - whether it be the F2A Buffalo, the Army's P-35 fighter, the I-16, the Fiat G-50, or, on the ground, the Soviet BT and T26 tanks, and the Italian tanks - the development cycle, and the fact that the competition is learning from your mistakes, means that the first of a type is almost always outstripped in short order. After the potential adversaries have come up with their own equivalent equipment, you now have to come up with more advanced replacements, while dealing with the infrastructure and overhead of the older equipment. The Soviets were able to manage this, rolling out the KV-1 and T34 by they time they were attacked, but the Italians (and, to a great extent, the Japanese) could not.
I have to admit that the Italians had 3 main handicaps. 1, Just about everything going through the Fiat/Ansaldo consortium 2, Germany, seriously, with friends like that who needs enemas (not a mis type). 3, Development cycle/designs once the war started, they seems to consistently playing catch up, meaning that when a design got to the front, the weapon that it matched in the allies arsenal was being phased out and replaced. They needed to play leapfrog.
@@jon-paulfilkins7820 You're missing Mussolini's delusions of grandeur that his country was capable of doing what he promised, and general unrest within every part of the country (military included).
@@mycatistypingthis5450 Mussolini "I have 8 million bayonets at my disposal" Italian Soldier "so, 4 each? Rather have more ammo for my rifle, and who's idea was this belly pouch!" ;)
Let’s not forget, the t34 in nearly all versions are hot garbage, even for the time. All versions, no matter what. It’s a myth that it was a good tank. Check out lazerpig’s video on them if you want a hilarious, but totally legit take on them
Indeed you have succeeded in changing my opinion of the Buffalo! Pretty impressive, because that opinion was formed by talking with my grandfather, a life-long airplane nut since WWI days. I've held that opinion for about 45 years, and seeing it changed by a ~40 minute video is definitely impressive. I'm looking forward to the video about the Japanese Army's anti-air campaign. I'll put it on my calendar for 2025!
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I don't think 'Sloppy Seconds' is an appropriate chapter title for an educational video my friend. Perhaps it's lost in translation, but it's not something you want your 8 year old kid coming to ask you what it means because a TH-cam history channel decided it was PG rated.
Norman Dixon's "On The Psychology of Military Incompetence" explains in excruciating detail the kind of mentality that plagued the British general staff in Malaya and their failures of leadership. Funnily enough, he cites Percival's obsession with not bothering the civilians while the head of Singapore's Civil Defence placed labor battalions at his disposal.
Yes, someone coined the term the 'Singapore syndrome' a few decades ago to describe the complete failure under Percival and the colonial administrators in Malaya. The lack of leadership, the lack of basic training, the lack of preparation in utilizing the available resources effectively. This went for both the ground forces and the RAF. The Intel on the Japanese forces strength and capabilities was known, the RN had been cracking the Japanese naval codes in Hong Kong for over a decade, monitoring IJN reports from China, but RN kept it to themselves.
I mean I understand why that theatre was in shambles. Britain herself was in a death struggle in Europe and far too preoccupied to do anything but bluff a strong position. Certainly the incompetence of the staff there and their failure to prepare was beyond criminal. But it’s not like they had the undivided attention of the rest of the empire to support them. Had it come down to Britain not being at war with Germany and Italy at the same time, things would’ve likely turned out differently had the theatre received the attention it deserved. Certainly better commanders personnel and equipment would’ve been available. It’s no real surprise then that it was the very much uncommitted Americans that was by far the largest Allied force in that region. I know the Royal Navy were far more weary of the Japanese, instantly turning back HMS Repulse and PoW once it was apparent they had been spotted, fearing immediate air attack. Something that I’ve seen played off instead as British arrogance in popular culture like Battlestations Pacific. Indeed Admiral Cunningham even managed to find and launch an air attack on the Japanese Fleet during the Indian Ocean raid while keeping his own force undetected. Something that’s normally a key advantage in carrier group face offs. The problem was the British fleet had less carriers even fewer aircraft and let alone the fact I can’t imagine a swordfish will survive an A6M any day of the week…
Honestly I think that the Buffalos biggest failing was the fact that it was very quickly surpassed in regards to aviation technology advancing so quickly at that time, and the massive mismanagement of Brewster.
Couldn't agree more. Brewster had so much trouble meeting basic production orders. Working from a factory completely unsuitable for aircraft manufacturing didn't help. It also didn't help that export models did not actually have the R-1820-40's used by US navy models but the export approved R-1820-G105 that delivered less horsepower (1100 vs 1200) and were often reconditioned engines instead of new build which could not have helped with reaching performance as advertised. the 17 339-23 models used for a short time in the RAAF in 1942-43 were basically the overweight 339-D of the Dutch fitted with the by then positively anemic 950 horsepower engine of the Finnish 239 that happened to be to hand when the airframes were manufactured. Their top speed was apparently only 290 miles an hour and took half an hour to reach 20,000 feet. The RAAF used them to defend Fremantle for a short time and given the paucity of fighter aircraft in their inventory at the time to put them where there was just about no threat says a lot about their utility. All information sourced from Squadron/signal publications, inc. No 81 'F2A Buffalo in action'.
Agreed, maybe Brewster should take some responsibility for not following up with the Buffalo's successor. The state of the art Vought F4U Corsair prototype was flying in 1939.
Addendum: the Base Defences in the Malayan Conflict actually adopted a Scorched Earth tactic which got implemented during the opening days of the conflict when some one passed the message that the Enemy had Broken Thru，or something in that order，this got out fast and that saw most resources(including good aircraft) and fuel positions destroyed on the ground even before any final showdown ever took place， some suspect sympathisers at work, but general miscommunication is the larger cause for losing air cover in the crucial opening days, there was no way the Buffaloes could have done anything with everything burnt up by the defenders themselves
Ah, those Finns! Dangerous men, those. They probably stuffed three or four guys in the fuselage with machine guns pointing out the sides just for the fun of it!!
I know someone whose father flew B-339C Buffaloes for the KNIL. The squadron also had two Hurricane I's, but these rapidly suffered airframe warping & wood rot, due to the climate. His father flew both the Buffalo & Hurricane on sorties,, regarding the Hurricane as a death trap because it couldn't out turn the Ki-27 & Ki-43 like the Buffalo could.
I think armament played a huge role in the success of the buffalo, even with upgrades, it still lagged far behind the next generation of fighter in both volume of fire it could lay down in a burst and the gun sights were not as advanced to put what they had on target?
Buffalo's problem was the same as the F4F's they added on a lot of armament, armor, and equipment without a respective increase in engine power. It just hurt the F2A-3 even more the F4s that were loaded down. The as designed ones that went to the Finish were amazingly agile and great aircraft, if limited in speed. It's main flaw in their service was it used a single piece main wing spar, meaning you couldn't just replace a wing if damaged you had to take nearly the whole aircraft apart to replace the spar.
@@Cragified The F4F is one of the better airplanes to come out of the Pacific in WW2, it's reputation is completely undeserved. First off the F4F-3 was the first aircraft in the world, civilian or military, to fly with a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger, the British bought them and loved their high altitude performance so much they task Rolls Royce with developing one for the Merlin engine, later versions of the F4F had the 2 stage 2 speed supercharger replaced with a single stage supercharger because production of them was limited and it was determined that all further production of them were to go to the F4U and F6F that were getting ready to start production. The F4F held the line early in in the Pacific, every one if Joe Foss' 28 kills were in the cockpit of F4F's, Butch O'hare got his MOH flying the F4F. The F4F was the plane that shot down all the hot shot Japanese pilots so when the F4U and F6F came online they were fighting mostly green Japanese pilots fresh from training with as little as 10 hours experience in the planes they were fighting in which is the principle reason they got such high kill ratios. The F4F ended the war with a 5 to 1 kill ratio against the Zero, how people get that it was a poor fighter is beyond me, apparently they never actually looked at the records, they only repeat a narrative that simply isn't true. The Zero was a false God whose reputation is based solely on it shooting down Chinese pilots in obsolete biplanes and it's record against US Navy pilots in the first weeks they flew in combat, however they learned fast and quickly turned the tables on the Zero. Anyone who thinks the F4F was a poor fighter has obviously never looked at it's record, they just repeat the nonsense they hear on TH-cam videos and in the comments section of them.
@@dukecraig2402 It was still pulling it's weight as the FM-2 at the end. Doing things the F6F couldn't do. I just used it as another example of a naval aircraft that got weighed down with extras from it's initial design which limited it's performance some.
tell it to Russian yak and Migs, which at the start of the war HAD maximum 2 - 12,7mm mashineguns and 2 - 7.62mm mashineguns. And still they got their kills! So armament from 3 - 50cal is more than ok to fight with fighters.
@@Cragified The extras aren't what did it, the F4F-3 already had them, it was losing it's 2 stage supercharger for the sake of all of them going to the F4U's and F6F's is what hog tied it but even then that was only at higher altitudes, at lower and medium altitudes it still did very well. No matter what the Navy pilots were flying they learned quickly that the Zero couldn't maneuver at higher speeds, it's controls practically locked up above something like 300 MPH and they were easy to out maneuver, all they had to do was keep from getting in low speed turning fights and the Zero was easy to deal with. When the F4F lost it's 2 stage supercharger it was replaced with a 2 speed single stage supercharger so it still had decent medium altitude performance, the Zero's never had any kind of real performance at altitudes and always had weak engines, they tried to up armor one variant of it with a steel plate behind the pilot and self sealing fuel tanks but it added enough weight that it was just a total dog even at lower altitudes, they only made 400 of that variant and I don't think they were even used in combat that much.
That difference in weights was an eye-opener. I knew the different export models had differences, but nothing that significant for the Finnish model. I don't think you've had a video yet which didn't teach me something, and it's good to be reminded periodically of how ignorant I am and how much more there is to learn.
That weight info is huge. 1100 lbs lighter? Pappy Boyington flew the Buffalo ( not in combat, I don't think) and was quoted as saying essentially that the early version, before the "Engineers went and foxtrotted it all up" with extra equipment like armor, self-sealing fuel tanks and God knows what else, IT WAS A VERY HANDY AND FLICKABLE AIRPLANE FOR ITS DAY.
@@elliotdryden7560 The same thing happened with the F4F-3 to -4 Wildcat change. Pilots understood the need for folding wings to get more on a carrier, understood the extra armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, but were livid about adding two guns. They didn't want the extra weight, didn't need the extra rounds per minute, and lost risk firing time. But the British had wanted the extra guns and the burrocrats lumped all the changes together.
I read somewhere that the Finns were very good at tactics, sometimes for funny reasons. Before the war, they adopted the fighting pair before even the Germans did, as opposed to a three-plane formation which was pretty much international standard for fighter planes. In the case of the Finns, they simply didn't have that many aircraft, so they flew in two-plane formations to save on cost. And it turned out to be a much better tactic. Don't know if this is true, but it could be. Necessity is the mother of intention. :-)
The Germans adopted the fighting pair during WWI at the suggestion of Baron Manfred Freiherr von Richthoffen (bka The Red Baron) "fighter pilots should always fly in pairs to lessen the likelihood of losses because by each fighter pilot having a wingman, they would have the ability to provide cover for one another" and Finland wasn't founded until 1917 by the German Expeditionary Force taking it from the Russians.
@@michaelmckinnon7314 Germans landed in 1918 by the time that the civil war was already about to end in a white army victory. There were no Russians involved and in fact the opposite as the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk between Germany and Russia was the enabling factor for the landing.
As someone who has covered this plane on my channel, I learned a lot about the plane and it’s performance during my research. Another great vid sir! Glad to see this being covered
I love your sense of humour. A lot of these "top ten" and "bottom ten" lists are rubbish in any case; your holistic look at the plane's development actually reflects how quickly technology moved between the early 30s and the outbreak of war, plus numbers count, as does fighting spirit.
I've read a sad but true joke on the Brewster Buffalo: "the British had sent their Buffaloes up against the Japanese Zeroes over Singapore and Burma, and they had been slaughtered like their Great Plains namesakes."
Initially the British Buffalo's faced off against IJAAF Ki-27's and early production Ki-43-I Hayabusa and the Brits were doing pretty well despite being outnumbered It was when the IJN pilots in A6M model 21's arrived that the Buffalo's started taking losses. This is because the Ki-27 and early Ki-43's were armed with only 2 x 7.7mm machine guns. It was when the Zero's arrived armed with 2 x 7.7mm and 2 x 20mm cannons that things changed drastically. It should also be pointed out that the Brits lost 2/3 of their Buffalo's on the first day when the Japanese raided the airfield and destroyed something like 68 Buffalo's sitting on the ground.
I’ve always loved the Buffalo, despite it’s reputation. A modern fighter for it’s time and rather good looking, and superior to the Gladiator or Cr.42 in my opinion which are other planes I’d compare it to. Loved the video.
I've never been a fan but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are very few radial engines planes i love the look of. (F4u and fw 190 get the nod from me)
I’ve been quietly lurking for over a year. It’s time I make a comment. Your insistence on primary sources is incredible. Anyone that’s ever read a book on WW2 is guaranteed to be reading hearsay with a good backup in the bibliography…. I wish more people understood the difference between primary and secondary sources.
Prints: BuAer Me: reads Bauer Also me: why are we talking about farmers? Dyslexia aside loved this video! The more I've learned about the Finnish Airforce, the more I love it. Great video, keep up the great work!
As for the pronunciation of "BuAer", try this: Byū (as in beautiful) and Air (as in aeronautics). The Navy just love their various and sundry abbreviations.
Hey there Military Aviation History, I'm an Aussie and would love to here your thoughts on the Australian fighter project known as the CAC Kangaroo, from what I've heard it had a lot of potential but was let down due to limitations in procuring foreign engines and being delayed. If the project did arrive on schedule how do you think the CAC Kangaroo would have compared to contemporaries?
Finnish Ace Eino Juutilainen was the top non-German ace of WWII with 94 kills. He had 34 kills in the Brewster Buffalo (with 3 triple kills). He shot down 58 more in the German-built Messerschmitt BF-109G. He shot down 2 in a Fokker D.XXI in the early "Winter War". Finnish Ace Hans "Hasse" Wind shot down 75, with 39 kills in the Brewster Buffalo including at least 2 Russian Spitfires and 3 Russian Hurricanes while flying the Buffalo. The 3rd leading Finnish ace, Eino Luukanen had 14.5 of his kills while flying the Buffalo, out of the total of 56 enemy he shot down (he had 39 in a BF-109G; 2 in a Fokker D.XXI). Finnish Ace Nils Katajainan had 17 of his 35 kills in a Buffalo. Finn Ace Lauri Nissenen had 22 out of his 32.5 kills in a Buffalo. Jorma Karhunen had 25.5 of his 35.5 kills in a Buffalo. Emil Vesa had 9.5 victories out of 30.5 victories in the Buffalo. Tapio Jarvi had 11.5 out of 28.5 in the Buffalo. Eero Kinnunen had 19 out of 22 victories flying the Buffalo. Marti Alho had 13.5 out of 15 kills in a Buffalo. Pekka Kokko had 10 out of 13.5. Iikka Torronen had 10.5 out of 11 kills in a Buffalo. Eino Peltola had 7.5 out of 10.5. Viljo Kauppinen had 8.5 out 9.5. Finnish Ace Onni Avikainen had 6 out of 6 victories flying a Buffalo. 432 Finnish Buffaloes shot down 1435.5 enemy planes.
another factor that contributed to creating the (negative) image of the Buffalo was the bad performance it had during the early stages of the Battle of the Midway, in which the VMF-221, led by Major Floyd Parks and made up of a mix of 20 F2A and 6 F4F, was practically annihilated
No combat experience, not much training for many of them, the Thatch Weave hadn't yet debuted in combat, and against some of the best aircraft and pilots in the world. Heartbreaking.
Agreed. This is the most definitive incident that sealed the Buffalo's reputation as a dog of a fighter plane. That said, VMF-221 was made up of green US pilots, going up against the best and most experienced Japanese pilots, who gained considerable combat experience in Manchuria and China. It was akin to putting up a High school JV team against an seasoned college team. And of course, the Zero was flat out a better fighter than the F2a in almost every category save for taking punishment. It took US Navy carrier pilots flying the F4F Wildcat in pairs and employing the Thatch weave that allowed them to meet the agile Zero on equal terms.
Also note that the VMF-221 has been the only user of the F2A-3 variant, which was the most overweight of all Buffalos : self-sealing fuel tanks, extra armor for pilot, but NOT a single extra HP to balance that. As a result, it more or less offered the performance of a french Morane-Saulnier MS 406, minus the turning rate. Poor guys. The Zeroes could practically fly in circles around them...
Then what was the worst WW2 Plane? How about the Renault Caudron C.714? Even Finland could not find any use for them, expect using it as a sample for future aero-engineers so they could study its main party piece: retractable landing gear. V****. S******. P******!
What a professional narrative! Your research for facts is inspiring (specially the finnish part ). The victory rate of the finnish "Buffalo" is still a world record! The sole remaining, unrestored Buffalo is exhibited at the Finnish Air Force Museum (Suomen Ilmavoimamuseo), Tikkakoski, Central Finland. Thank you for the great series you produce.
This video earned a patreon subscription. Key elements that led to my decision: - Vroom noises while playing with a model. Need a 10 hour loop of this. - Elmer Fudd silhouette. No, but seriously, tho - *very* good video digging deep into some history about which I knew nothing. I'm looking very forward to the overview of the Japanese air campaign.
The worst plane of any conflict is such a difficullt thing; one could argue that the Spit Mk V would be the worst plane given that it had to face the new FW-190, another would say that the Bf-109G was the worst given it's combat records vs western allied fighters (and their totalt air superiority) in the late war. It's all about when and where when we discuss these things.
The same thing applies to tanks. Especially when there's a war going on that's pushing people to develop new technologies, you have to ask what timeframe you're talking about. The best plane, ship, or tank in 1939 could be garbage by 1945.
And it usually focuses on fighters and ignores other aircraft. I've always felt that best should be based on the aircraft which best carried out their intended role. A Hurricane was a great fighter but if we measure it by the standards of a medium bomber it looks terrible. The C47 was a brilliant transporter but in a dogfight it sucks. The Buffalo was built to do a job which it never got to perform in quite the way it was planned to perform it. Interwar airframes so often suffer from inaccurate predictions regarding the future of air combat, hell, if you were to tell Boelke that within 30 years fighters would be flying at 500mph and would have cannons & missiles (however basic) he'd have laughed you out the room. No one could forsee just how things would change during that time of tenuous peace.
The factor that so many arm chair generals always overlook with modern weapons platforms, what happens when older stuff is used by highly experienced and skilled combat veterans against green recruits in newer "better" equipment. shocker the green recruits tend to loose pretty badly.
I always laugh whenever people claim that the Buffalo was the worst plane of World War II, then I say something along the lines of “look up the Blackburn Roc and get back to me after you read about that particular dumpster fire.”
If you look at the entire history of Blackburn, I think they must have had nude pictures of somebody? Other than the Buccaneers, everything they made was a dog.
@@dense_and_dull It's not the only one. There's also the Boulton-Paul Defiant. They were designed as bomber destroyers/interceptors during the RAF's "the bomber will always get through" phase. The turrets would allow the fighters to attack from (almost) any angle and more easily concemtrate the fire of multiple fighters on one plane. It's sort of like an air-defense version of the B-17 gunships that were supposed to escort and provide fire support for "regular" B-17 bomber formations.
You're always going to have a tension between 'not great but good enough in its day to be widely used' and 'complete crap so hardly any got built and flown' the former are going to be more well known because people actually had to use them and therefore complain about them, even though objectively they may at one point have been good machines.
Yes, you did change my mind about the Brewster Buffalo. You also did a wonderful job of developing the importance of not under estimating your enemy and implementing effective infrastructure and training to support an effective air force. One would think the Brits would have understood the importance of early warning given the benefits of radar in defeating the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain. Being part Finnish from many generations ago, your insights shared of the resourcefulness of Finland's deployment of the Buffalo contribute to pride in that heritage.
It was a decent design that had the misfortune of being produced by a company that was so badly managed it couldn’t even license-build Corsairs and the Navy eventually seized control of it.
@@Wallyworld30 Goodyear didn’t seem to have any trouble with them. Manufactured 1,997 FG-1Ds and a third of all Corsairs during the war. Produced their own variants, in fact. And an entirely new version.
True, and the Brewster-built Corsairs helped to illustrate a quirk of the US Navy designation system. An F4U-1 was a Corsair built by Vought. An F3A-1 was a Corsair built by Brewster. An FG-1 was a Corsair built by Goodyear. And they were supposed to be identical: Same components, same specifications, and should have had the same maintenance manuals and procedures. But they got unrecognizable designations because they came from different companies.
@@liquidleopard4495 I think one of the main symptoms of Brewster’s mismanagement was that Corsairs they produced were no 💯 identical to those of Vought or Goodyear.
As an Australian that saw the fall of Singapore and the loss of 21 Squadrons buffaloes on the ground through RAAF history. You have shed new light on the why!
Best example of how much of a dog's breakfast the far east supply lines were would be to look at the Australian response, which was to develop the Boomerang out of the Wirraway and the brain of a former Heinkel engineer. So yeah the Buffalo was really let down by it's base of support because we had little to no help from the UK, because of this Australia, NZ and the surrounding islands all began to rely more heavily on American supply lines.
Easier politically to cover up military failures in Intel, personnel (leadership), preparation, tactical and strategic doctrine by blaming equipment. Fewer egos to fight. This backs up what I have heard elsewhere and from my reading on general western views of Asians at the time. Also, blaming it was a short easy answer that is invariably wrong. Although, couldn't legit say we militarily fouled up when trying trying to convince folks we can win this war either though. Yep, I am a Yank and love the country but recognize it will never be perfect and never has. Although Brits were just about as bad in WWII.
Astute comment. I don't even know how many times I've seen equipment blamed for an accident or operational failure, when it's transparently clear that those pointing fingers don't want to make waves by calling out the real offenders. This is certainly true in the US military, though it's likely true elsewhere, too.
yep and put your own citizens in camps based only off of heritage and race. And a unit from that group of people turns out to be your most highly decorated unit of that whole war.
The Finns seem to have wrung top performance out of everything they got their hands on, and flew all sorts of comically obsolescent types to great effect throughout the war. I think it had a lot to do with focus. To the Finns, their war was their entire focus, while to the Sovs it was a sideshow. Same in Malaya - a sideshow to the Brits, but a major focus for the Japanese.
A war of pure necessity (rather than politics/etc) tends to have that effect. Though of course the Finns having a lot of talented soldiers/pilots and good leadership is just as important.
@@finntastique3891 an excellent point, and I've always admired the Finnish pluck. That said, had they been up against well flown Lavochkins, Yaks, MiGs, or Airacobras from day one, I think the Brewsters...as well as the Curtis Hawks and French planes...would have found the going a lot tougher. I only wish that Finnland could have come in on the side of the allies, but I never really think of them as an axis nation. They had The Bear at their door, and I'd have done the same in their shoes.
@@jacobmccandles1767 Thanks for your understanding. Yeah, we really had no other option but to side with one of the devils (the other one was across the eastern border, and he aimed at annihilating our people) - there was no help coming from anywhere else.
An absolutely fantastic video about the Brewster Buffalo! The only thing missing is that the F2A Buffalo did go up against the A6M Zero at Midway. The US Marines squadron using them along with the F4F Wildcats were pretty much decimated. Why? Because of the lack of flight training and gunnery and that old bugaboo, racist bigotry. If those problems had been addressed, the Buffaloes would have had a better chance of some success. Not total success, the A6M Zero was still the better aircraft in June 1942, though if I remember correctly, there was a confirmed kill by a US Marine Buffalo pilot.
Exactly right. Tactics and a lack of training doomed those Marine pilots. I would imagine even if all the Marines were flying the superior F4F-3 the outcome would have been the same - the Navy's fighter first team were flying an inferior aircraft but were far better trained in the type they flew. As a point of reference the Torpedo squadrons were flying the TBD with the exception of the Torpedo Squadron 8 Detachment based on Midway for the upcoming battle - they flew the much superior Grumman TBF-1 but lost all but one aircraft engaging the Japanese fleet. The tactics they employed: low speed and low altitude to drop their very inferior Mark 13 made them extremely vulnerable to the A6M-Zero and anti aircraft fire. I have read that many experienced Naval aviators like the way the F2A flew and it's biggest shortcoming (before the war) was it's weak landing gear. Robert Winston was hired by Brewster to fly the F2A in Finland and and test fly each assembled F2A. Winston was a very good writer and his first book Dive Bomber is a must read but his second book Aces Wild is the definitive account of his exploits with the F2A. His third book is Fighter Squadron and is also a great book about his time getting back into the active Navy flying the Hellcat and leading a fighter squadron in the Pacific.
As much as they were decimated, they took some IJN planes down with them. IJN reported about 25 percent losses in their first strike against Midway. Some of them were AA victims, but Marine fighters definitely scored some kills too.
Captain James L. Neefus was the first Marine pilot credited with the shoot down of a 4 engine Emily sea plane. This was about two months before the main Japanese effort.
Captain William C. Humberd of VMF-221. Shot down a Zero from Akagi in a head on pass, dived away and lived to tell the tale. He was awarded the Navy Cross (bloody deserved it IMO).
Hi Chris, A really informative video, I hope the Buffalo starts to get some love now. This might be a nit pick but 488 squadron based in Singapore was a New Zealand Squadron under RAF command and as such should be noted as 488(NZ) squadron. It contained Geoff Fisken who become the highest scoring Commonwealth Ace of the Pacific theater with 6 kills in the Buffalo and 5 more while flying the P-40 after being evacuated from Singapore. Cheers
Awesome Video, with great insight.. I totally agree with your assesment of the Far East... Nothing would have changed the initial outcome, because they just "Weren't Prepared"...
I chuckled a bit when I saw this video because I'm well aware of how well the Finns did with it. No surprise that it did much better in Finland than the Far East; cold, dense air is always better for most aspects of piston-engined aircraft performance.
@@Wallyworld30 You need to watch more aviation videos! Air DENSITY, which is primarily affected by air temperature, is a HUGE factor in aviation, at least until the jet age. In fact, it is now considered to be one of the deciding factors in the success of the Wright brothers' first day of flying in 1903. I recommend you watch some videos on Greg's Planes and Automobiles channel.
@@richardcall9509 Dude, I already knew all that information. I've been watching Greg's channel for years. My point was they didn't gain a competitive advantage because Soviets also were using piston driven Prop planes. So any boost the Buffalo gained so would the Soviets planes.
I love the content, but can I also say your presentation style has developed so much. I absolutely love each video and they get better and better. This one even had my chuckling in parts ..and they say the Germans have no sense of humour.
This is an excellent and timely review, and the difference between the Finnish and British Specifications and experiences is remarkable. Your work is much appreciated !
When I was a kid I read a story about a pilot at Midway that tried to stop ground crews from putting out a fire of the Buffalo he crash landed after being shot up by Zeroes. He didn't want it to be saved only to be shot down again.
I always thought it was the single most fun plane to use in IL-2 1946. when i first started i was intrigued that it was one of the only aircraft with ammunition counters
Wow! A very skilled and balanced performance. I had often wondered about the differing reputation of the Buffalo in Finnish vis-a-vis its Far Eastern service. You answered all my questions extremely well. In fact, may I have permission to use material from this video for my next book?
Outstanding video! Yes, you have changed my mind about the Buffalo. I can see that it is not completely the airframe, but how it was deployed and the logistics supporting the mission. Yes, I will wait for your video scheduled for 2025! 😀 It will be worth the wait!
I think most people just pronounce it "byuu air". The confusion arises from abbreviating "Aer-onautics". If you think of it as "BuAir" instead, it's easier.
The A6m Zero suffered from many of the same problems as the Buffalo. It's initial design was optimized to meet strict requirements ensuring that it's design was at a dead end at introduction.
From the reading I have done Chenault in China imparted doctrine and training on experienced pilots. They had early warning in China and obscure airfields to fly out of in Burma. They did try to influence British flying but were not well regarded.
Another great video sir. Well reasoned and reasurched. Your channel and Greg's planes and automobiles are my 2 go to for planes of WW2. I dream of a collaboration with your access to German and European sources and Greg's to American and Naca. You both look at the information in different ways and present it in clearly understandable videos.
Very perceptive analysis. It helps to explain the Finn's satisfaction with the type, and meshes perfectly with the story of the loss of Singapore to the Japanese, for just the same reasons.
Very much enjoy your videos. Being a WW2 history buff, I find your info new and refreshing. I very much enjoy seeing a history perspective from a different set of eyes. Keep up the great work your doing.
Thanks for your thoughtful video. The Brewster is a hobby of mine and you did an excellent job explaining it. A few notes to add. Finland's kill count is extremely representative of actual kills because Finland was fighting over its territory and their command mandated wreckage to count a kill. Many Finnish pilots claimed kills outside territorial boundaries that were not verified and thus not credited. When Finland stood up an Air Force for the first time after gaining independence from Russia; they toured Europe and saw widely different practices. Finland adopted the best of the practices they saw which included two-aircraft fighting teams for greater maneuverability (a majority of European nations used teams of three) and were early adopters of radios in every aircraft. Finland also practiced ariel gunnary prewar until all pilots could put 70% of bullets into an ariel target. They also used the "Magnus effect" which was the only time I heard of it but rearward firing bullets fired in one hemsiphere will tend to tumble because of the slipsteam as the bullets spun the same direction as the slipstream. Finnish Brewsters shot down lend-lease Spitfirmes, P-40s, and in one case a P-38 even after Russian training and tactics had improved (which were dismal in the early years). In the first 12-18 months of wartime service, Finnish Buffalos could also out-climb every aircraft they faced which was a favored escape. The very high level of Finnish training and tactics at the start of the war contributed to the Finnish success. Also, wartime shortage were affecting many aspect of an entire world trying to acquire a limited supply of airplanes in the months as the conflict started and spread. Dutch East Indies airplanes flew with second-hand overhauled airliner engines and with heavier airliner radios. Dutch East Indies pilots sampled some RAF airplanes and were astonished about the more powerful engine when they had very similarly rated engines. The lightweight Buffalo was very sensitive to weight as you note but also the older engines on the Dutch airplanes were probably not capable of running to full rated power. Pacific Buffalo tactics were also not tailored to the airplane and the opposition as you state and also alude. I'm glad you are setting the record straight. So many zombie facts start with one expert delivering an opinion without supporting facts and then parroted by everyone else until it is widely accepted, but facturally wrong, knowledge.
It was the same for the F4F. Both aircrafts were designed without self sealing tanks and armor, and a pair of small caliber machine guns, and ended up overloaded. Compared to a Zero favouring range and fire power.
@@chefchaudard3580 : The Zero and Oscar didn’t have self sealing fuel tanks, a massive vulnerability. But one that didn’t matter if the enemy pilots couldn’t hit them. Which most of them couldn’t as they were mostly green pilots fighting from an inferior tactical position (usually, lower altitude).
Greg (Pappy) Boyington commented on the B.B., he said that it "could do a loop in a phone booth". I saw one when I was a kid in Chicago Vocational School. The school had been donated to the city by the navy and they had left a lot of planes they had been using for mechanical instruction lying around. I thought it was a cute little plane kInda reminded me of a chubby teenage girl.
@@deonprins1583 : Yes, the US pilots really didn’t like the F4F-4. Too heavy, slower climb rate, shorter range, and shorter firing time (less ammunition per gun) than the F4F-3.
I do not understand the people who criticize your use of the English language or content . Rarely seen such an in-depth research in the actual archives and the intelligent unbiased conclusions. .which apparently some people have trouble with. You bring insight into these matters that we could never reach on our own. So thank you for putting so much energy into the interest of such a small niche of people . Thanks again Ghislain
Gosh, I remember the Brewster from Fly Aces II, a video game. As I recall, it wasn't great; however, if the flight model was correct, it could be quite squirrely in capable hands.
The Brewster Buffalo was a good airplane for it's time! It was indeed the pilots and maybe the poor training that brought it the bad reputation in the south east. Just look at what Finns managed to get using it.
This is a comprehensive and thoughtful presentation. Thank you, sir! But I have to interject and say that there WERE Hurricanes in Singapore . I've known this for some time; however, in succeeding years, I have since failed to find the book I read that was a memoir written by a veteran of the disastrous air battle. Moreover, very recently, I read one source states that these machines were apparently redirected desert models, which were hampered in speed by a large, tropical air filter. I did not ascertain the number that are said to have arrived in crates on January 13th, 1942 and hurriedly assembled. They had initial successes, but their demise seems to have been inevitable for all the reasons the presenter has detailed.
Of course, the Messerschmitt Bf109 was also a prewar design (2 years older that the Buffalo), but somehow it survived until 1945 (and longer in the Israeli Airforce). Lack of growth potential doomed the Buffalo
Again, excellent content! Kudos, Chris for your work. People like you and Greg with their high technical focus and through researched videos have fully replaced television for me. As someone who grew up in countries with three or four channels at best, I really appreciate your work!
"A poor workman blames his tools" seems appropriate here... Thank you for an excellent and very entertaining on a plane I had written off as a complete joke! It's really nice to be living in a time where we're reexamining parts of history with a more critical eye rather than just accepting the narrative we've always been feed.
Hey Chris would love to see a video on the Curtiss H-75's in French service. It is a plane that is comparable to the Buffalo in many ways and from most accounts, did very well during the invasion of France. Many captured H-75's were given to the Finns.
Seems like a pretty fair assessment. Captain Eric Brown (test pilot extraordinaire), summed the Buffalo up as "My feeling after flying the Buffalo was one of elation tinged with disappointment. It was true anomaly of an aeroplane with delightful maneuverability but poor fighter performance.". So in some ways it was a good aircraft for novice pilots to start in (given that novice pilots had a high rate of accidents which was higher with unforgiving aircraft). I can see how experienced pilots might exploit is maneuverability too. But it was never the right aircraft to put up against the latest breeds of fighters.
I think it should be pointed out that the finnish training regimen for pilots were longer than that of most countries during the second world war, so they were generally speaking better pilots straight out of flight school compared to other freshly examined pilots.
Yes, you have changed my view of this aircraft. I've spent my life studying WWII aircraft but it seems that the focus was primarily on the tool rather than a broader view of how the tool was used. The P39 Aircobra is a another good example of why context matters.
![[Live] ศึกมหึมันส์มวยไทยสังเวียนเดือด เวทีมวยชั่วคราวสวนสยาม | จันทร์ 30 กันยายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pM1k6f7JXUc/mqdefault.jpg)
*Did you know I and MHV are writing a new cool book? You can help fund it here* stukabook.com
Loved the sound effects you made, you think you can do the sound of the A10s gun?
You should talk about the A26 next. Would be very interesting to see a deep dive on a aircraft that saw the end off ww2 all the way up to the veitnam!
Brewster also had many issues in general... and these issues led to issues with their Aircraft particularly in terms of quality control you only need to look at the Brewster variant of the Corsair produced under license as the F3A which were delivered late, and had poor quality wing fittings which caused the wings to fly off under combat conditions...
MHV and I are writing……
Well if your life depends on a plane that "isn't that bad" then it really is that bad.
Here in Finland they are legendary and revered. Biggest ace outside of Germany was Finnish and scored most kills in the Brewster.
nope he didnt. most Illu's wins were in a 109
Clicked to say the Finns seemed to get on with them. Perkele :)
Finland proved Buffalo was a good plane! It was much better without all the extra weight required for carrier operations.
94 kills without ever having been hit by enemy fire, Juutilainen is a legend. :D
prob was good for that area of combat. kinda like how the russians loved the p39 and was great for there low- mid level combat but americans hated it. its easy to compare early war fighters to late war and say they sucked but they held the line in the early years and thats all we needed them too do.
The Finns loved it. Tough, rugged, and reliable in the extreme weather conditions up there. The best plane in the world does you no good if it can't operate in the combat arena's environment.
That moment when your climate actually works better for the aircraft because the cold weather kept the plane's engine cool unlike in the Pacific which made it overheat
And US pilots were trained by the book and it was totally wrong book against Japanese fighters.
The Finns were fighting early war Russian planes right? Not much of a challenge.
@@jeffk464 Early war Finns had only Fokkers that were slower and less agile than Russian fighters.
@@jeffk464 In the winter war the I 16 slightly better than the Finnish fokker d 21. The I 153 was similar in capability to the fokker.
In the continuation war, even early on, the soviets used migs and laggs against Finland. Sure, the polikarpov planes were weaker than the buffalo, but it did encounter equal planes from the get go.
High soviet losses were likely more of a skill issue than an issue of equipment.
Few notes about the Finnish Brewster Buffalo... The Finns did install a reflector sight to it, armored seat rest, and upgraded the original armament of 3 x 50 cal + 1 x 30 cal to 4 x 50 cal. There is also a funny mention by Juutilainen (one of the Finnish aces) about Brewster that the fuselage of the Brewster was very roomy. Roomy enough that it was an unofficial practice to ferry mechanics, spare parts and similar in there. In one instance a pilot was flying while he had 2 other men, a dog and all of their luggage stuffed into the fuselage.
Are there any photos of roomy interior?
Yikes, that reminds me of a video I saw (now forgive me, I vaaaaguely remember this) of I believe German single seat fighters being used the same way. It seems to me they were being deployed into France and had a mechanic stuffed into the fuselage so the planes could be worked on once they landed at their forward air bases... anyway, a whole bunch got jumped and were shot down, so jot only did you lose a pilot and plane but the damn mechanic (who had an utterly horrific death presumably) as well... I seem to remember there being a directive specifically stating this practice was to cease immediately haha you'd have to put a gun to my head as a mechanic to get me into some fighters little "cargo" space, especially to go flying across remotely hostile skies =/
I wonder if the pilot logged the flight as "solo" or just "PIC" (pilot in command)...
Yes , in the finnish aviation some pilot was a Real ace.. with a great score...very good VIDEO and very good post
Yes, that involved the Luftwaffe units in southern France re their post D Day redeployment plans to contest the skies over Normandy. Given the hopeless task of transferring resources by either air or land without aerial superiority, the two options were not that far apart when calculating which was riskier.
I have read that the Finnish kill ratio record is exceptionally reliable, as the pilots' own counts were not taken for face value. As most of the fighting took place over Finnish territory, the basic count was verified on ground by locating the wrecks. Over water, an independent witness, mostly the wingman was the source of any kill report. The pilots on the other hand generally credited the ground crew (mechanics) for their achievements.
There is also something to be said about fighting at low altitudes. Often Finnish pilots could see their target hit the ground.
Where did you read that? I have no faith in it at all.
@@thethirdman225 I have read various Finnish memoirs, most written by Joppe Karhunen, a lead pilot who himself flew Brewster Buffalo. While I don’t recall all the names of his books, I do recall the one “Ujeltavat Potkurit” - Whistling Propellers - that told about the Fighter Squadron 24 getting the Brewster Buffaloes in 1941. They were way better than their previous Fokkers, although not as good as the BF109, which they got for the last few months of Finnish war in 1944. The biggest ace, Ilmari Juutilainen got about half of his kills with the Buffalo and then the other half in the hectic last months flying a BF109. By the way, the war time President Risto Ryti got a Russian/British peace commission pressed prison term for signing the contract with Germany for getting these BF109 planes, officially because he did sign the deal without an approval of the Parliament.
@@InssiAjaton
*_"I have read various Finnish memoirs, most written by Joppe Karhunen, a lead pilot who himself flew Brewster Buffalo. While I don’t recall all the names of his books, I do recall the one “Ujeltavat Potkurit” - Whistling Propellers - that told about the Fighter Squadron 24 getting the Brewster Buffaloes in 1941."_*
I would never trust a source like that at face value when it came to trying to reliably assessing a K/D ratio. Critical thinking is essential here and you need to balance those claims with losses. And that doesn't mean I suddenly believe Soviet figures either. I've never seen any which is actually a bad thing.
My problem is Finnish nationalism. Finland fought a war against an invading army and while they ultimately lost, they acquitted themselves extremely well so they have plenty to be proud of.
But when nationalism is involved, the story can be muddied by all kinds of myth and legend. However, as with most of these things, they rarely stand up to close inspection when detailed audit figures are available. I'm not sure they are for this case.
It sort of reminds me of the claims made for the German army in the Soviet Union before the archives were opened. In the absence of any other information, most people simply didn't question what the Germans - particularly the German generals - claimed.
*_"The biggest ace, Ilmari Juutilainen got about half of his kills with the Buffalo and then the other half in the hectic last months flying a BF109."_*
My understanding is that he spent a lot more time in the Bf-109 and scored most of his victories in it too.
*_"By the way, the war time President Risto Ryti got a Russian/British peace commission pressed prison term for signing the contract with Germany for getting these BF109 planes, officially because he did sign the deal without an approval of the Parliament."_*
I'm not sure what the has to do with the subject but okay.
"Nobody told Britain."
*ignores the Italians snorting biplane wings in the background(
That's alright. No one told the Bismarck either.
@@PaulfromChicago Oh they knew, they just forgot that Britain didn't.
@@PaulfromChicago but the Bismarck can't fly
@@mikepette4422 Not for a lack of trying on the Swordfish's part.
@@PaulfromChicago …damn you, that’s gold!
One thing to keep in mind regarding the Finns' success using the Brewster is the tactics used by the Finns. One part of Finnish tactics were designed to utilize the strengths of their planes, partly Finnish tactics were ahead of their times compared to the ones used by the Great Powers of the time. Check out how the Finns performed during the Winter War with their outdated Fokkers and other old models they had. And the Finnish pilots were highly trained, the core being veterans of the Winter War, turning young recruits into highly skilled fliers. In addition, the Finnish mechanics were skilled indeed, they even managed to solve the excess oil consumption of the engines on the Brewsters, something the Americans were unable to fix. And the Finns had Maj. Magnusson, the commander of LeLv24, a bright tactician and visionary, the brain behind Finnish tactics.
I've read that it was an oil ring that was put on the wrong way on the piston.
The Finnish pilots had way more flexible boundaries in tactics and so the good experiences were spread very fast around and taken into use. Also the mentality after getting upgrades from Former D.XXI to the way superior Brewster was met with the mentality "how can I best use the pros of this plane to hide the cons" and not just rigidly trying to use the tactics from before in a new plane. Also the Brewsters were the best planes Finland had, so there weren't any wet dreams about Hurricanes, Spitfires etc. what the British pilots flying in a far away (and "forgotten") front might have had. Add in the flexible formations, attack mentality and a cadre of experienced pilots with very good training from the inter war years, you can see how the Finns were more successful with these planes. As a loose reference for what I've written above, I have what I remember reading from the book "Double Fighter Knight" memoirs of Ilmari Juutilainen and other books about the pilots of LeLv 24
It is a bit harsh to call the D XXI an out of date plane- it's first flight was later than the BF 109 and while the emphasis on manoeuvrability over speed was an outdated concept, it worked fine when the enemy fought on your terms. It could be considered a technical match for the I 15 and I 16 for quite a long time, particularly if maintained better.
And not to forget their secret weapon, Finnish Vodka.
@@StockNerd mechanic here..... most oil control rings can be flipped IIRC
.
it was probably ay the bottom..... when it needed to be 1 or 2 positions higher
The Buffalo is an adorable little aircraft, but also a fairly effective one in the right environment. Deep dives into pioneering designs that get left behind like this are greatly informative and entertaining. If you take suggestions, perhaps a look at the B-18.
Cheers Robert, the B-18 and also the B-10 deserve attention in my mind :)
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I think the b10 is just ugly ya know?
@@ELIGG15
He chief designer couldn't find his engineering rule and had to use an ugly stick
Would love to hear more about another great Finnish / Dutch fighter, the handsome Fokker D-XXI. The Dutch intended it to be their primary fighter for protecting their East Indies colony.
I think the B10 is adorable. In the same way a pug is adorae
As Lord Nelson reputedly said, "Men fight, not ships." In a plane context, this applies to some extent to the Buffalo's story. I am reminded also of when German pilots secretly trained in Russia during the 1920s; they flew late model Fokker fighters and bested the Russian pilots in mock dogfights when the Soviets were still flying World War 1 Nieuports, etc. The Russians said to the effect, well, you have the better planes, of course you won--so the German pilots swapped mounts and still outfought them.
Sounds like an apocryphal tale.
@Checkmate kinda like Anglo-Russian cooperation....and Wall Street-Bolshevik cooperation....
@Checkmate I've noted that in a lot of German and Russian chronicles the interwar cooperation would have made a good story by itself. I'd read articles about the Germans (and Russians) improving their technology, tactics, and training using that exchange program. Though admittedly Stalin had a lot of those people involved put in jail or shot for cooperating with the Germans (even though he's the one that ordered it.). Some of their best Air, Ground, and Tank Commanders who had worked closely with the Germans never made it through the purges. These individuals understood German tactics better than anyone and would have been extremely effective in the opening days of the Operation Barbarossa in minimizing Russian losses and maybe even stopping the German's advances in the first months of the war. But we'll never know, except as a what-if scenario for some fiction writer.
I mean... If you never had the time to adjust to the new technology and to develop new tactics it's pretty obvious that you lose. But I'm no expert in the matter, just my impression
Excellent point MisterApol - of course there is a limit to this re: technology but there are other precedents. The general accepted history of the start of the fighter war between the USA and the Japanese always highlights the supremacy of the Zero over the early US fighters like the P40, F4 Wildcat and of course the Buffalo, and indeed this is often borne out, but never forget the success of Chennault's Flying Tigers in P40s and the way US Navy flyers learned how to counter the Zero via the famous 'Thach Weave' tactic. The mention of Nelson is apt when considering his famous signal at Trafalgar to 'engage the enemy more closely'. A good man in the cockpit can (or at least in WW2 could) claw back some pretty impressive technological deficits - the Finns in their Brewsters often proving the point again.
Give your weaponry to Finland for tinkering and you will have the best possible version of it in a moment
@@hkg207 sakkijarven polkka starts playing
@@hkg207 The BT-42 meme machine single handedly upgraded the Finnish Armour Museum's outdoors exhibit. Even in death it still serves.
@@hkg207 biggest problem on that was BT chassis was extremely outdated desing and the unreliable german shellfuses didn't help...
@@AssassinAgent only the engines had serious reliability issues, which was addressed with the BT-7M
Same story with the moraine Saulner
Most Buffaloes in Far East campaign were lost on the ground, or in accidents not in air to air combat. The lack of logistics, air warning and control would have doomed Spitfires, had they been present.
My father served as- an engineer, building airstrips in the Philippines in November and very early December 1941. Their (his unit’s) initial attack occurred on the 9th. The attack put holes in the runway and big holes in their tanker truck with much frustration for the attackers as they did not see the big explosion they were expecting. The tanker was filled with “molasses” which was poured on the runway to harden in the tropical heat to form a smooth, hard surface for aircraft to land upon. One guy survived the attack, but had to be rescued from the muck as he had sheltered under the tanker.
There were 2 aircraft at the airstrip that were relocated after the attack. He never told me the aircraft type either in the air or attacking them. I think he said at least one aircraft was lost on the ground, but I am not sure of that.
While his unit was not warned of the specific attack, they were aware of the overall attack on the island. Just a short while before the attack, his 2nd LT came to brief them about how to protect themselves in the event of an air attack (lay down and cover your head). When the first bombs fell, they all saw the “butter bar” hightailing it to the woods, never to be seen again. Nobody from his unit that survived the war ever knew what happened to that officer.
100% correct!
@@kmlammto he was shitcanned prolly!! No doubt an old Gunny or first sergeant saw him tuck tail and run and he prolly passed it on up the flagpole!! As it should be…..today’s military would give him a promotion for his “troubles” and prolly reprimand the gunny for “disrespect to an officer”!! Damn liberals have already ruined so many sports and statues and traditions that I and many Americans love, so why tf can’t they leave our military alone? Between the military trying to be PC now and the loss of all of our production capacity, we’d be fucked if we ever have WW3. IMHO America’s ability to produce and manufacture is what kept us in and eventually won the war!! Every plant tooled up to support the war effort but now we’re just a service industry, best we could do now is ask them if they want fries with that before they bomb us!!
@@Legion-xq8eo What did you see in Kenneth Lamm's post that made you go off on that rant? Seems like you made a lot of (probably erroneous) assumptions about what happened in the Philippines.
Great overview of the Buffalo. Re-takes on all the planes that make the "10 worst" lists would make a good series! Also approve of pocket co-pilot.
Excellent idea! Both the Wildcat and P-40 are too often underrated, for example.
Based on kill ratio... The greatest American built fighter of all time. Thank you Finland.🤔
Finnish pilots said Buffalo was superior compared to Hurricane.
F-15 eagle 101:0 (supposed) KDR has entered the chat
@@topivaltanen4432 Many Finnish pilots thought of the Hu as the worst plane in the theater even :D
@@EneTheGene They sayed easiest plane to shoot down of all planes they faced was Hurricane .
Those figures are incredibly questionable, to the extent that they are simply not believable.
Found this video very illuminating regarding the Buffalo. Prior - always considered it an under powered and outclassed aircraft. However, using your Finnish example shows that a good infrastructure (training, morale, supplies, experience) goes a long way. Also, the restricting limitations of the procurement - and he negative impact of being the first with innovation. But maybe the Buffalo's reputation finally being restored and taken off the top 10 worst aircraft list!
“They had catapulted themselves into this uncharted territory “…. Carrier aviation puns, I love it.
for a non-native English speaker, he's incredibly adept at all kinds of subtle, clever, and hilarious little comments. rewards paying close attention and not letting your eyes glaze over when he wades into minutia. Great work!
40th like
Pappy Boyington said before they added all that weight it could turn in a phone booth. He really liked it.
Many USN and USMC pilots liked the early Buffalo variants but were less enamored of the -A3 model. Captain P.R White reported after Midway:
"It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots out for combat in an F2A-3 should consider the pilot lost before leaving the ground." (squadron/signals publications, inc #81 'F2A Buffalo in action' p.38)
Hardly an endorsement.
@Matt Hooper Cue A6M5 model 52c 'Hei'
@Matt Hooper Yeah, pretty much. The Buffalo had self-sealing fuel tanks and the pilot had an armor plate behind him. The USN version also had an inflatable raft stuffed somewhere near the cockpit. A Japanese pilot whose plane caught fire, or went down in the ocean, was just out of luck.
The Finns not only didn't need a raft over snow, they decided them fancy radios were for *rich* air forces and they left that hundred pounds or so out of the plane.
Having family that lived in Malaya at the time, these types of historical videos always appeal to me. I always find it amusing how underestimated the Japanese were at this time, and how every single radial engine Japanese fighter was collectively called a "Zero."
I have also read accounts of the Hawker Hurricanes that were rushed to Singapore at the end of 1941/ January 1942. They didn't fair any better than the Buffaloes...
@mandellorian Actually, the account was from a book written by a British pilot who was rushed, along with the rest of his squadron, to Singapore at the end of 1941. The Hurricane squadrons losses were exactly for the same reasons for the Buffalo squadron losses. Lack of early warning, lack of logistics support, abysmal morale and a shambles of a command structure. Mind you, these were MkI Hurricanes, and yes, they could hold their own against the Japanese of equal caliber.
So, yes, the Hawker Hurricanes didn't fair any better for the same reasons as why the RAF Buffaloes were thrashed by the IJAAF.
Oh, and please don't get me wrong. The Hurricane is my all time favorite fighter of WW2.
Meh no matter the plane any airforce would have been thrashed by the Japanese.
A complete lack of anything regarding a decent logistical train combined with a shortage of trained personnel to both fly and maintain the planes meant preordained failure.
You could've had Spitfires for all it mattered.
Thanks for sharing. I´ve always had a soft spot for the Brewster model 239 sent to Finland. Being a model enthusiast, I´ve made models of various variants. Thanks again.
Nice, I do like the look of the plane, makes for a good model imo
The only camo that makes the Buffalo scary
@@smigoltime As a kid, I thought the 'Felix the Cat... Carrying a Bomb" used by a US naval squadron as its insignia, was really neat.
Another point - there's always an issue when something is an "Early Adopter" - whether it be the F2A Buffalo, the Army's P-35 fighter, the I-16, the Fiat G-50, or, on the ground, the Soviet BT and T26 tanks, and the Italian tanks - the development cycle, and the fact that the competition is learning from your mistakes, means that the first of a type is almost always outstripped in short order. After the potential adversaries have come up with their own equivalent equipment, you now have to come up with more advanced replacements, while dealing with the infrastructure and overhead of the older equipment. The Soviets were able to manage this, rolling out the KV-1 and T34 by they time they were attacked, but the Italians (and, to a great extent, the Japanese) could not.
I have to admit that the Italians had 3 main handicaps.
1, Just about everything going through the Fiat/Ansaldo consortium
2, Germany, seriously, with friends like that who needs enemas (not a mis type).
3, Development cycle/designs once the war started, they seems to consistently playing catch up, meaning that when a design got to the front, the weapon that it matched in the allies arsenal was being phased out and replaced. They needed to play leapfrog.
@@jon-paulfilkins7820 You're missing Mussolini's delusions of grandeur that his country was capable of doing what he promised, and general unrest within every part of the country (military included).
@@mycatistypingthis5450 Mussolini "I have 8 million bayonets at my disposal"
Italian Soldier "so, 4 each? Rather have more ammo for my rifle, and who's idea was this belly pouch!"
;)
Let’s not forget, the t34 in nearly all versions are hot garbage, even for the time. All versions, no matter what. It’s a myth that it was a good tank. Check out lazerpig’s video on them if you want a hilarious, but totally legit take on them
Indeed you have succeeded in changing my opinion of the Buffalo! Pretty impressive, because that opinion was formed by talking with my grandfather, a life-long airplane nut since WWI days. I've held that opinion for about 45 years, and seeing it changed by a ~40 minute video is definitely impressive.
I'm looking forward to the video about the Japanese Army's anti-air campaign. I'll put it on my calendar for 2025!
Wow, that's quite an endoresement for this video, thanks Dave. I hope to deliver the Japanese campaign somewhat sooner :D
@@MilitaryAviationHistory please do, that would be a fantastic video/series =)
Fantastic!
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I don't think 'Sloppy Seconds' is an appropriate chapter title for an educational video my friend. Perhaps it's lost in translation, but it's not something you want your 8 year old kid coming to ask you what it means because a TH-cam history channel decided it was PG rated.
@@dr.lexwinter8604 I certainly raised an eyebrow at that.
75 years from now Christoph's grandchildren will release a video titled "In defense of the F-35".
Given the performance of Israeli F-35s in real world missions, it's clear you don't know the plane very well.
@Omar Khurshid And win 3 wars against the Arab League! Get conquered and accept it already!
I love the use of Elmer Fudd's silhouette to illustrate Little Gunnery Training. "I'll get yoo, yoo wascally wabbit!"
That explains the inability to hit targets. He missed a certain rabbit and duck for years.
Norman Dixon's "On The Psychology of Military Incompetence" explains in excruciating detail the kind of mentality that plagued the British general staff in Malaya and their failures of leadership. Funnily enough, he cites Percival's obsession with not bothering the civilians while the head of Singapore's Civil Defence placed labor battalions at his disposal.
Yes, someone coined the term the 'Singapore syndrome' a few decades ago to describe the complete failure under Percival and the colonial administrators in Malaya. The lack of leadership, the lack of basic training, the lack of preparation in utilizing the available resources effectively. This went for both the ground forces and the RAF. The Intel on the Japanese forces strength and capabilities was known, the RN had been cracking the Japanese naval codes in Hong Kong for over a decade, monitoring IJN reports from China, but RN kept it to themselves.
@@張博倫-r2j Source for codebreaking?
@@nickdanger3802 The book "The Emperor's Codes".
@@dacramac3487 Thanks
I mean I understand why that theatre was in shambles. Britain herself was in a death struggle in Europe and far too preoccupied to do anything but bluff a strong position. Certainly the incompetence of the staff there and their failure to prepare was beyond criminal. But it’s not like they had the undivided attention of the rest of the empire to support them. Had it come down to Britain not being at war with Germany and Italy at the same time, things would’ve likely turned out differently had the theatre received the attention it deserved. Certainly better commanders personnel and equipment would’ve been available. It’s no real surprise then that it was the very much uncommitted Americans that was by far the largest Allied force in that region. I know the Royal Navy were far more weary of the Japanese, instantly turning back HMS Repulse and PoW once it was apparent they had been spotted, fearing immediate air attack. Something that I’ve seen played off instead as British arrogance in popular culture like Battlestations Pacific. Indeed Admiral Cunningham even managed to find and launch an air attack on the Japanese Fleet during the Indian Ocean raid while keeping his own force undetected. Something that’s normally a key advantage in carrier group face offs. The problem was the British fleet had less carriers even fewer aircraft and let alone the fact I can’t imagine a swordfish will survive an A6M any day of the week…
Honestly I think that the Buffalos biggest failing was the fact that it was very quickly surpassed in regards to aviation technology advancing so quickly at that time, and the massive mismanagement of Brewster.
Couldn't agree more. Brewster had so much trouble meeting basic production orders. Working from a factory completely unsuitable for aircraft manufacturing didn't help. It also didn't help that export models did not actually have the R-1820-40's used by US navy models but the export approved R-1820-G105 that delivered less horsepower (1100 vs 1200) and were often reconditioned engines instead of new build which could not have helped with reaching performance as advertised. the 17 339-23 models used for a short time in the RAAF in 1942-43 were basically the overweight 339-D of the Dutch fitted with the by then positively anemic 950 horsepower engine of the Finnish 239 that happened to be to hand when the airframes were manufactured. Their top speed was apparently only 290 miles an hour and took half an hour to reach 20,000 feet. The RAAF used them to defend Fremantle for a short time and given the paucity of fighter aircraft in their inventory at the time to put them where there was just about no threat says a lot about their utility.
All information sourced from Squadron/signal publications, inc. No 81 'F2A Buffalo in action'.
Agreed, maybe Brewster should take some responsibility for not following up with the Buffalo's successor. The state of the art Vought F4U Corsair prototype was flying in 1939.
@@martentrudeau6948 I wonder if it would been possible to improve a Brewster F2A Buffalo with the equipment required for an by 1940?
Addendum: the Base Defences in the Malayan Conflict actually adopted a Scorched Earth tactic which got implemented during the opening days of the conflict when some one passed the message that the Enemy had Broken Thru，or something in that order，this got out fast and that saw most resources(including good aircraft) and fuel positions destroyed on the ground even before any final showdown ever took place， some suspect sympathisers at work, but general miscommunication is the larger cause for losing air cover in the crucial opening days, there was no way the Buffaloes could have done anything with everything burnt up by the defenders themselves
Ah, those Finns! Dangerous men, those. They probably stuffed three or four guys in the fuselage with machine guns pointing out the sides just for the fun of it!!
I know someone whose father flew B-339C Buffaloes for the KNIL. The squadron also had two Hurricane I's, but these rapidly suffered airframe warping & wood rot, due to the climate. His father flew both the Buffalo & Hurricane on sorties,, regarding the Hurricane as a death trap because it couldn't out turn the Ki-27 & Ki-43 like the Buffalo could.
"Out turn the Ki-27 and Ki-43"
Now that's a phrase you don't hear every day.
@@Ralph-yn3gr I find it extremely unlikely.
I think armament played a huge role in the success of the buffalo, even with upgrades, it still lagged far behind the next generation of fighter in both volume of fire it could lay down in a burst and the gun sights were not as advanced to put what they had on target?
Buffalo's problem was the same as the F4F's they added on a lot of armament, armor, and equipment without a respective increase in engine power. It just hurt the F2A-3 even more the F4s that were loaded down. The as designed ones that went to the Finish were amazingly agile and great aircraft, if limited in speed. It's main flaw in their service was it used a single piece main wing spar, meaning you couldn't just replace a wing if damaged you had to take nearly the whole aircraft apart to replace the spar.
@@Cragified
The F4F is one of the better airplanes to come out of the Pacific in WW2, it's reputation is completely undeserved.
First off the F4F-3 was the first aircraft in the world, civilian or military, to fly with a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger, the British bought them and loved their high altitude performance so much they task Rolls Royce with developing one for the Merlin engine, later versions of the F4F had the 2 stage 2 speed supercharger replaced with a single stage supercharger because production of them was limited and it was determined that all further production of them were to go to the F4U and F6F that were getting ready to start production.
The F4F held the line early in in the Pacific, every one if Joe Foss' 28 kills were in the cockpit of F4F's, Butch O'hare got his MOH flying the F4F.
The F4F was the plane that shot down all the hot shot Japanese pilots so when the F4U and F6F came online they were fighting mostly green Japanese pilots fresh from training with as little as 10 hours experience in the planes they were fighting in which is the principle reason they got such high kill ratios.
The F4F ended the war with a 5 to 1 kill ratio against the Zero, how people get that it was a poor fighter is beyond me, apparently they never actually looked at the records, they only repeat a narrative that simply isn't true.
The Zero was a false God whose reputation is based solely on it shooting down Chinese pilots in obsolete biplanes and it's record against US Navy pilots in the first weeks they flew in combat, however they learned fast and quickly turned the tables on the Zero.
Anyone who thinks the F4F was a poor fighter has obviously never looked at it's record, they just repeat the nonsense they hear on TH-cam videos and in the comments section of them.
@@dukecraig2402 It was still pulling it's weight as the FM-2 at the end. Doing things the F6F couldn't do.
I just used it as another example of a naval aircraft that got weighed down with extras from it's initial design which limited it's performance some.
tell it to Russian yak and Migs, which at the start of the war HAD maximum 2 - 12,7mm mashineguns and 2 - 7.62mm mashineguns. And still they got their kills! So armament from 3 - 50cal is more than ok to fight with fighters.
@@Cragified
The extras aren't what did it, the F4F-3 already had them, it was losing it's 2 stage supercharger for the sake of all of them going to the F4U's and F6F's is what hog tied it but even then that was only at higher altitudes, at lower and medium altitudes it still did very well.
No matter what the Navy pilots were flying they learned quickly that the Zero couldn't maneuver at higher speeds, it's controls practically locked up above something like 300 MPH and they were easy to out maneuver, all they had to do was keep from getting in low speed turning fights and the Zero was easy to deal with.
When the F4F lost it's 2 stage supercharger it was replaced with a 2 speed single stage supercharger so it still had decent medium altitude performance, the Zero's never had any kind of real performance at altitudes and always had weak engines, they tried to up armor one variant of it with a steel plate behind the pilot and self sealing fuel tanks but it added enough weight that it was just a total dog even at lower altitudes, they only made 400 of that variant and I don't think they were even used in combat that much.
That difference in weights was an eye-opener. I knew the different export models had differences, but nothing that significant for the Finnish model.
I don't think you've had a video yet which didn't teach me something, and it's good to be reminded periodically of how ignorant I am and how much more there is to learn.
Every time I research and draft up a video, the deeper I dig, the more I also realise how utterly ignorant I am. We are in the same boat :)
That weight info is huge. 1100 lbs lighter? Pappy Boyington flew the Buffalo ( not in combat, I don't think) and was quoted as saying essentially that the early version, before the "Engineers went and foxtrotted it all up" with extra equipment like armor, self-sealing fuel tanks and God knows what else, IT WAS A VERY HANDY AND FLICKABLE AIRPLANE FOR ITS DAY.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory can you do the bv 141 or the fa 223 i think it was called?
@@elliotdryden7560 The same thing happened with the F4F-3 to -4 Wildcat change. Pilots understood the need for folding wings to get more on a carrier, understood the extra armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, but were livid about adding two guns. They didn't want the extra weight, didn't need the extra rounds per minute, and lost risk firing time. But the British had wanted the extra guns and the burrocrats lumped all the changes together.
Its all about power to weight ratios. If you can give a fighter lots of power, it is likely to do.well
I read somewhere that the Finns were very good at tactics, sometimes for funny reasons. Before the war, they adopted the fighting pair before even the Germans did, as opposed to a three-plane formation which was pretty much international standard for fighter planes. In the case of the Finns, they simply didn't have that many aircraft, so they flew in two-plane formations to save on cost. And it turned out to be a much better tactic. Don't know if this is true, but it could be. Necessity is the mother of intention. :-)
One FAF ace said in interview that against one enemy its difficult,against two more difficult but against 3 or more very easy.
The Germans adopted the fighting pair during WWI at the suggestion of Baron Manfred Freiherr von Richthoffen (bka The Red Baron) "fighter pilots should always fly in pairs to lessen the likelihood of losses because by each fighter pilot having a wingman, they would have the ability to provide cover for one another" and Finland wasn't founded until 1917 by the German Expeditionary Force taking it from the Russians.
@@michaelmckinnon7314 Germans landed in 1918 by the time that the civil war was already about to end in a white army victory. There were no Russians involved and in fact the opposite as the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk between Germany and Russia was the enabling factor for the landing.
As someone who has covered this plane on my channel, I learned a lot about the plane and it’s performance during my research. Another great vid sir! Glad to see this being covered
I love your sense of humour. A lot of these "top ten" and "bottom ten" lists are rubbish in any case; your holistic look at the plane's development actually reflects how quickly technology moved between the early 30s and the outbreak of war, plus numbers count, as does fighting spirit.
I've read a sad but true joke on the Brewster Buffalo: "the British had sent their Buffaloes up against the Japanese Zeroes over Singapore and Burma, and they had been slaughtered like their Great Plains namesakes."
Initially the British Buffalo's faced off against IJAAF Ki-27's and early production Ki-43-I Hayabusa and the Brits were doing pretty well despite being outnumbered
It was when the IJN pilots in A6M model 21's arrived that the Buffalo's started taking losses. This is because the Ki-27 and early Ki-43's were armed with only 2 x 7.7mm machine guns. It was when the Zero's arrived armed with 2 x 7.7mm and 2 x 20mm cannons that things changed drastically.
It should also be pointed out that the Brits lost 2/3 of their Buffalo's on the first day when the Japanese raided the airfield and destroyed something like 68 Buffalo's sitting on the ground.
Brutal
No Allied fighter pilot in 1941 or 1942 could tell the difference between a Zero and an Oscar. Everything was a Zero.
@@timonsolus Sort of like how every German tank was a Tiger.
@@SlavicCelery and every US destroyer was a cruiser
The Finns loved it, called B-239 in their airforce it achieved a 33 to 1 kill ratio
I’ve always loved the Buffalo, despite it’s reputation. A modern fighter for it’s time and rather good looking, and superior to the Gladiator or Cr.42 in my opinion which are other planes I’d compare it to. Loved the video.
I've never been a fan but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are very few radial engines planes i love the look of. (F4u and fw 190 get the nod from me)
I’ve been quietly lurking for over a year. It’s time I make a comment.
Your insistence on primary sources is incredible. Anyone that’s ever read a book on WW2 is guaranteed to be reading hearsay with a good backup in the bibliography…. I wish more people understood the difference between primary and secondary sources.
Prints: BuAer
Me: reads Bauer
Also me: why are we talking about farmers?
Dyslexia aside loved this video! The more I've learned about the Finnish Airforce, the more I love it. Great video, keep up the great work!
Also, “becomes obsolescence”
His English is fantastic, I forgive him all mistakes.
Why did he spell bureau in such a strange way?
At least that's what I was wondering the first few times I saw/heard the word.
@@ddegn BUreau of AERonautics was shortened to BuAer. It was subtle but he mentioned it once or twice.
@@skyemalcolm Thanks. That makes more sense.
As for the pronunciation of "BuAer", try this: Byū (as in beautiful) and Air (as in aeronautics). The Navy just love their various and sundry abbreviations.
Hey there Military Aviation History, I'm an Aussie and would love to here your thoughts on the Australian fighter project known as the CAC Kangaroo, from what I've heard it had a lot of potential but was let down due to limitations in procuring foreign engines and being delayed. If the project did arrive on schedule how do you think the CAC Kangaroo would have compared to contemporaries?
bismarck: has sources saying the f2a buffalo was mediocre and inadequate at best
the finnish aces: oletko varma siitä?
Good Pilot, crappy plane.
Ookkos nää täst nyt saletti, ukko??
That bit about the Finnish version having a lighter engine is a eureka moment. Thanks dude.
Bad? It has the best kill ratio of any aircraft in history 63:1, When the Finns used it
Finnish Ace Eino Juutilainen was the top non-German ace of WWII with 94 kills. He had 34 kills in the Brewster Buffalo (with 3 triple kills). He shot down 58 more in the German-built Messerschmitt BF-109G. He shot down 2 in a Fokker D.XXI in the early "Winter War". Finnish Ace Hans "Hasse" Wind shot down 75, with 39 kills in the Brewster Buffalo including at least 2 Russian Spitfires and 3 Russian Hurricanes while flying the Buffalo. The 3rd leading Finnish ace, Eino Luukanen had 14.5 of his kills while flying the Buffalo, out of the total of 56 enemy he shot down (he had 39 in a BF-109G; 2 in a Fokker D.XXI). Finnish Ace Nils Katajainan had 17 of his 35 kills in a Buffalo. Finn Ace Lauri Nissenen had 22 out of his 32.5 kills in a Buffalo. Jorma Karhunen had 25.5 of his 35.5 kills in a Buffalo. Emil Vesa had 9.5 victories out of 30.5 victories in the Buffalo. Tapio Jarvi had 11.5 out of 28.5 in the Buffalo. Eero Kinnunen had 19 out of 22 victories flying the Buffalo. Marti Alho had 13.5 out of 15 kills in a Buffalo. Pekka Kokko had 10 out of 13.5. Iikka Torronen had 10.5 out of 11 kills in a Buffalo. Eino Peltola had 7.5 out of 10.5. Viljo Kauppinen had 8.5 out 9.5. Finnish Ace Onni Avikainen had 6 out of 6 victories flying a Buffalo. 432 Finnish Buffaloes shot down 1435.5 enemy planes.
The Buffalo is an adorable little aircraft, and it's always hard to argue with anything the Finns like and do well with. :)
I really like the diversity of the videos you are putting out lately!
Cheers TigerTimon!
Buffalos: loathed by pretty much everyone
Finns: *Laughs in Finnish*
Vittu Saatana Perkele. Good content!
another factor that contributed to creating the (negative) image of the Buffalo was the bad performance it had during the early stages of the Battle of the Midway, in which the VMF-221, led by Major Floyd Parks and made up of a mix of 20 F2A and 6 F4F, was practically annihilated
No combat experience, not much training for many of them, the Thatch Weave hadn't yet debuted in combat, and against some of the best aircraft and pilots in the world. Heartbreaking.
Agreed. This is the most definitive incident that sealed the Buffalo's reputation as a dog of a fighter plane. That said, VMF-221 was made up of green US pilots, going up against the best and most experienced Japanese pilots, who gained considerable combat experience in Manchuria and China. It was akin to putting up a High school JV team against an seasoned college team. And of course, the Zero was flat out a better fighter than the F2a in almost every category save for taking punishment. It took US Navy carrier pilots flying the F4F Wildcat in pairs and employing the Thatch weave that allowed them to meet the agile Zero on equal terms.
Also note that the VMF-221 has been the only user of the F2A-3 variant, which was the most overweight of all Buffalos : self-sealing fuel tanks, extra armor for pilot, but NOT a single extra HP to balance that. As a result, it more or less offered the performance of a french Morane-Saulnier MS 406, minus the turning rate. Poor guys. The Zeroes could practically fly in circles around them...
Major Parks was flying a Buffalo when he was killed at Midway.
Then what was the worst WW2 Plane? How about the Renault Caudron C.714? Even Finland could not find any use for them, expect using it as a sample for future aero-engineers so they could study its main party piece: retractable landing gear. V****. S******. P******!
What a professional narrative! Your research for facts is inspiring (specially the finnish part ). The victory rate of the finnish "Buffalo" is still a world record!
The sole remaining, unrestored Buffalo is exhibited at the Finnish Air Force Museum (Suomen Ilmavoimamuseo), Tikkakoski, Central Finland.
Thank you for the great series you produce.
If you think the Brewster Buffalo was bad, try the SB2A-3/4 Buccaneer. Not even deemed fit as a target tug !
It probably wasn't fit to be used as a target.
This video earned a patreon subscription. Key elements that led to my decision:
- Vroom noises while playing with a model. Need a 10 hour loop of this.
- Elmer Fudd silhouette.
No, but seriously, tho - *very* good video digging deep into some history about which I knew nothing. I'm looking very forward to the overview of the Japanese air campaign.
The worst plane of any conflict is such a difficullt thing; one could argue that the Spit Mk V would be the worst plane given that it had to face the new FW-190, another would say that the Bf-109G was the worst given it's combat records vs western allied fighters (and their totalt air superiority) in the late war. It's all about when and where when we discuss these things.
True, but the bar is usually set at the end of any conflict leading to skewed results.
The FW190 was no match for the Mk5 Spitfire.
The same thing applies to tanks. Especially when there's a war going on that's pushing people to develop new technologies, you have to ask what timeframe you're talking about. The best plane, ship, or tank in 1939 could be garbage by 1945.
@@iamgod6464 Silly comment of the year.
And it usually focuses on fighters and ignores other aircraft. I've always felt that best should be based on the aircraft which best carried out their intended role. A Hurricane was a great fighter but if we measure it by the standards of a medium bomber it looks terrible. The C47 was a brilliant transporter but in a dogfight it sucks.
The Buffalo was built to do a job which it never got to perform in quite the way it was planned to perform it. Interwar airframes so often suffer from inaccurate predictions regarding the future of air combat, hell, if you were to tell Boelke that within 30 years fighters would be flying at 500mph and would have cannons & missiles (however basic) he'd have laughed you out the room. No one could forsee just how things would change during that time of tenuous peace.
The factor that so many arm chair generals always overlook with modern weapons platforms, what happens when older stuff is used by highly experienced and skilled combat veterans against green recruits in newer "better" equipment. shocker the green recruits tend to loose pretty badly.
I always laugh whenever people claim that the Buffalo was the worst plane of World War II, then I say something along the lines of “look up the Blackburn Roc and get back to me after you read about that particular dumpster fire.”
Or the Breda 88
If you look at the entire history of Blackburn, I think they must have had nude pictures of somebody? Other than the Buccaneers, everything they made was a dog.
Never heard of the the Roc until now. How the hell was it considered a fighter with all of it's guns in a rear facing turret?
@@dense_and_dull It's not the only one. There's also the Boulton-Paul Defiant. They were designed as bomber destroyers/interceptors during the RAF's "the bomber will always get through" phase. The turrets would allow the fighters to attack from (almost) any angle and more easily concemtrate the fire of multiple fighters on one plane. It's sort of like an air-defense version of the B-17 gunships that were supposed to escort and provide fire support for "regular" B-17 bomber formations.
You're always going to have a tension between 'not great but good enough in its day to be widely used' and 'complete crap so hardly any got built and flown' the former are going to be more well known because people actually had to use them and therefore complain about them, even though objectively they may at one point have been good machines.
Yes, you did change my mind about the Brewster Buffalo. You also did a wonderful job of developing the importance of not under estimating your enemy and implementing effective infrastructure and training to support an effective air force. One would think the Brits would have understood the importance of early warning given the benefits of radar in defeating the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain. Being part Finnish from many generations ago, your insights shared of the resourcefulness of Finland's deployment of the Buffalo contribute to pride in that heritage.
It was a decent design that had the misfortune of being produced by a company that was so badly managed it couldn’t even license-build Corsairs and the Navy eventually seized control of it.
Corsairs were pretty complicated planes TBF.
@@Wallyworld30
Goodyear didn’t seem to have any trouble with them.
Manufactured 1,997 FG-1Ds and a third of all Corsairs during the war.
Produced their own variants, in fact.
And an entirely new version.
I think most of the Brewster corsairs went to England
True, and the Brewster-built Corsairs helped to illustrate a quirk of the US Navy designation system.
An F4U-1 was a Corsair built by Vought.
An F3A-1 was a Corsair built by Brewster.
An FG-1 was a Corsair built by Goodyear.
And they were supposed to be identical: Same components, same specifications, and should have had the same maintenance manuals and procedures. But they got unrecognizable designations because they came from different companies.
@@liquidleopard4495
I think one of the main symptoms of Brewster’s mismanagement was that Corsairs they produced were no 💯 identical to those of Vought or Goodyear.
As an Australian that saw the fall of Singapore and the loss of 21 Squadrons buffaloes on the ground through RAAF history. You have shed new light on the why!
6:45
Wow the CGI and special FX are really impressive!
Best example of how much of a dog's breakfast the far east supply lines were would be to look at the Australian response, which was to develop the Boomerang out of the Wirraway and the brain of a former Heinkel engineer. So yeah the Buffalo was really let down by it's base of support because we had little to no help from the UK, because of this Australia, NZ and the surrounding islands all began to rely more heavily on American supply lines.
Easier politically to cover up military failures in Intel, personnel (leadership), preparation, tactical and strategic doctrine by blaming equipment. Fewer egos to fight. This backs up what I have heard elsewhere and from my reading on general western views of Asians at the time. Also, blaming it was a short easy answer that is invariably wrong. Although, couldn't legit say we militarily fouled up when trying trying to convince folks we can win this war either though. Yep, I am a Yank and love the country but recognize it will never be perfect and never has. Although Brits were just about as bad in WWII.
Astute comment. I don't even know how many times I've seen equipment blamed for an accident or operational failure, when it's transparently clear that those pointing fingers don't want to make waves by calling out the real offenders. This is certainly true in the US military, though it's likely true elsewhere, too.
yep and put your own citizens in camps based only off of heritage and race. And a unit from that group of people turns out to be your most highly decorated unit of that whole war.
So the moral of this story is never underestimate the enemy. Just as we underestimate the Chinese at the present time.
The Finns seem to have wrung top performance out of everything they got their hands on, and flew all sorts of comically obsolescent types to great effect throughout the war. I think it had a lot to do with focus. To the Finns, their war was their entire focus, while to the Sovs it was a sideshow. Same in Malaya - a sideshow to the Brits, but a major focus for the Japanese.
A war of pure necessity (rather than politics/etc) tends to have that effect. Though of course the Finns having a lot of talented soldiers/pilots and good leadership is just as important.
Hmm, I think that's an extremly good point, well said man.
You have a good point there. Our war was definitely our prime focus, because our very existence as a nation and people depended on the outcome of it.
@@finntastique3891 an excellent point, and I've always admired the Finnish pluck. That said, had they been up against well flown Lavochkins, Yaks, MiGs, or Airacobras from day one, I think the Brewsters...as well as the Curtis Hawks and French planes...would have found the going a lot tougher.
I only wish that Finnland could have come in on the side of the allies, but I never really think of them as an axis nation. They had The Bear at their door, and I'd have done the same in their shoes.
@@jacobmccandles1767 Thanks for your understanding. Yeah, we really had no other option but to side with one of the devils (the other one was across the eastern border, and he aimed at annihilating our people) - there was no help coming from anywhere else.
An absolutely fantastic video about the Brewster Buffalo! The only thing missing is that the F2A Buffalo did go up against the A6M Zero at Midway. The US Marines squadron using them along with the F4F Wildcats were pretty much decimated. Why? Because of the lack of flight training and gunnery and that old bugaboo, racist bigotry. If those problems had been addressed, the Buffaloes would have had a better chance of some success. Not total success, the A6M Zero was still the better aircraft in June 1942, though if I remember correctly, there was a confirmed kill by a US Marine Buffalo pilot.
Exactly right. Tactics and a lack of training doomed those Marine pilots. I would imagine even if all the Marines were flying the superior F4F-3 the outcome would have been the same - the Navy's fighter first team were flying an inferior aircraft but were far better trained in the type they flew. As a point of reference the Torpedo squadrons were flying the TBD with the exception of the Torpedo Squadron 8 Detachment based on Midway for the upcoming battle - they flew the much superior Grumman TBF-1 but lost all but one aircraft engaging the Japanese fleet. The tactics they employed: low speed and low altitude to drop their very inferior Mark 13 made them extremely vulnerable to the A6M-Zero and anti aircraft fire. I have read that many experienced Naval aviators like the way the F2A flew and it's biggest shortcoming (before the war) was it's weak landing gear. Robert Winston was hired by Brewster to fly the F2A in Finland and and test fly each assembled F2A. Winston was a very good writer and his first book Dive Bomber is a must read but his second book Aces Wild is the definitive account of his exploits with the F2A. His third book is Fighter Squadron and is also a great book about his time getting back into the active Navy flying the Hellcat and leading a fighter squadron in the Pacific.
As much as they were decimated, they took some IJN planes down with them. IJN reported about 25 percent losses in their first strike against Midway. Some of them were AA victims, but Marine fighters definitely scored some kills too.
Captain James L. Neefus was the first Marine pilot credited with the shoot down of a 4 engine Emily sea plane. This was about two months before the main Japanese effort.
Captain William C. Humberd of VMF-221. Shot down a Zero from Akagi in a head on pass, dived away and lived to tell the tale. He was awarded the Navy Cross (bloody deserved it IMO).
Simple reason is they fly by the book and it was wrong book against Japanes planes.
Hi Chris, A really informative video, I hope the Buffalo starts to get some love now. This might be a nit pick but 488 squadron based in Singapore was a New Zealand Squadron under RAF command and as such should be noted as 488(NZ) squadron. It contained Geoff Fisken who become the highest scoring Commonwealth Ace of the Pacific theater with 6 kills in the Buffalo and 5 more while flying the P-40 after being evacuated from Singapore. Cheers
Yep I think The Waiarapa Wildcat did alright in the Brewster and claimed five fighters in it
*ittu, *aatana, *erkele. Just filling in the gaps..
Great video, never thought I'd would ever find the Brewster Buffalo interesting.
Awesome Video, with great insight..
I totally agree with your assesment of the Far East... Nothing would have changed the initial outcome, because they just "Weren't Prepared"...
I chuckled a bit when I saw this video because I'm well aware of how well the Finns did with it. No surprise that it did much better in Finland than the Far East; cold, dense air is always better for most aspects of piston-engined aircraft performance.
Air Temps had nothing to do with its success.
Tell that to the P38 jockeys
@@Wallyworld30 You need to watch more aviation videos! Air DENSITY, which is primarily affected by air temperature, is a HUGE factor in aviation, at least until the jet age. In fact, it is now considered to be one of the deciding factors in the success of the Wright brothers' first day of flying in 1903. I recommend you watch some videos on Greg's Planes and Automobiles channel.
@@richardcall9509 Dude, I already knew all that information. I've been watching Greg's channel for years. My point was they didn't gain a competitive advantage because Soviets also were using piston driven Prop planes. So any boost the Buffalo gained so would the Soviets planes.
I love the content, but can I also say your presentation style has developed so much. I absolutely love each video and they get better and better. This one even had my chuckling in parts ..and they say the Germans have no sense of humour.
Always as important as your equipment is knowing how to best utilize it.
This is an excellent and timely review, and the difference between the Finnish and British Specifications and experiences is remarkable.
Your work is much appreciated !
When I was a kid I read a story about a pilot at Midway that tried to stop ground crews from putting out a fire of the Buffalo he crash landed after being shot up by Zeroes. He didn't want it to be saved only to be shot down again.
I always thought it was the single most fun plane to use in IL-2 1946. when i first started i was intrigued that it was one of the only aircraft with ammunition counters
I do believe all Bf-109's on that game had ammo counters too 🤔 not to devalue your comment tho!
Wow! A very skilled and balanced performance. I had often wondered about the differing reputation of the Buffalo in Finnish vis-a-vis its Far Eastern service. You answered all my questions extremely well. In fact, may I have permission to use material from this video for my next book?
In defense of the Buffalo, I present to you, most USSR designs of the era.
A FASCINATING, OBJECTIVE analysis! Thanks for the deep dive into this topic! Keep up the great work, Bro! :)
As amazing as all your content is, the "this pain, it will end soon..." bar is what really got my like.
Jeep up.the great work Bismark!!!
You just gained the attention of the Finns in TH-cam.
As always, a highly informative and entertaining video! I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say thank you for your consistently excellent content!
Outstanding video! Yes, you have changed my mind about the Buffalo. I can see that it is not completely the airframe, but how it was deployed and the logistics supporting the mission. Yes, I will wait for your video scheduled for 2025! 😀 It will be worth the wait!
I think most people just pronounce it "byuu air". The confusion arises from abbreviating "Aer-onautics". If you think of it as "BuAir" instead, it's easier.
I just think it's funny that a guy from the Land of Fourteen Syllable Compound Words gets tripped up by BuAer.
The A6m Zero suffered from many of the same problems as the Buffalo. It's initial design was optimized to meet strict requirements ensuring that it's design was at a dead end at introduction.
Check the September issue of Military History for an exceptionally fine treatment of the Finnish Brewsters!
From the reading I have done Chenault in China imparted doctrine and training on experienced pilots. They had early warning in China and obscure airfields to fly out of in Burma. They did try to influence British flying but were not well regarded.
Another great video sir. Well reasoned and reasurched. Your channel and Greg's planes and automobiles are my 2 go to for planes of WW2. I dream of a collaboration with your access to German and European sources and Greg's to American and Naca. You both look at the information in different ways and present it in clearly understandable videos.
Very perceptive analysis. It helps to explain the Finn's satisfaction with the type, and meshes perfectly with the story of the loss of Singapore to the Japanese, for just the same reasons.
I’ve never thought it was the worst plane of ww2. It has the highest proportion of aces of any plane from ww2.
Very much enjoy your videos. Being a WW2 history buff, I find your info new and refreshing. I very much enjoy seeing a history perspective from a different set of eyes. Keep up the great work your doing.
They're quite bad until the Finns got a hold of them, they somehow made it go Super Saiyan.
We did same thing with Messerschmitt 109G-series.
Thanks for your thoughtful video. The Brewster is a hobby of mine and you did an excellent job explaining it. A few notes to add.
Finland's kill count is extremely representative of actual kills because Finland was fighting over its territory and their command mandated wreckage to count a kill. Many Finnish pilots claimed kills outside territorial boundaries that were not verified and thus not credited. When Finland stood up an Air Force for the first time after gaining independence from Russia; they toured Europe and saw widely different practices. Finland adopted the best of the practices they saw which included two-aircraft fighting teams for greater maneuverability (a majority of European nations used teams of three) and were early adopters of radios in every aircraft. Finland also practiced ariel gunnary prewar until all pilots could put 70% of bullets into an ariel target. They also used the "Magnus effect" which was the only time I heard of it but rearward firing bullets fired in one hemsiphere will tend to tumble because of the slipsteam as the bullets spun the same direction as the slipstream. Finnish Brewsters shot down lend-lease Spitfirmes, P-40s, and in one case a P-38 even after Russian training and tactics had improved (which were dismal in the early years). In the first 12-18 months of wartime service, Finnish Buffalos could also out-climb every aircraft they faced which was a favored escape. The very high level of Finnish training and tactics at the start of the war contributed to the Finnish success.
Also, wartime shortage were affecting many aspect of an entire world trying to acquire a limited supply of airplanes in the months as the conflict started and spread. Dutch East Indies airplanes flew with second-hand overhauled airliner engines and with heavier airliner radios. Dutch East Indies pilots sampled some RAF airplanes and were astonished about the more powerful engine when they had very similarly rated engines. The lightweight Buffalo was very sensitive to weight as you note but also the older engines on the Dutch airplanes were probably not capable of running to full rated power. Pacific Buffalo tactics were also not tailored to the airplane and the opposition as you state and also alude.
I'm glad you are setting the record straight. So many zombie facts start with one expert delivering an opinion without supporting facts and then parroted by everyone else until it is widely accepted, but facturally wrong, knowledge.
The B B, used correctly, was formidable. Loaded down with armor, self sealing gas tanks, not so much.
It was the same for the F4F. Both aircrafts were designed without self sealing tanks and armor, and a pair of small caliber machine guns, and ended up overloaded. Compared to a Zero favouring range and fire power.
@@chefchaudard3580 : The Zero and Oscar didn’t have self sealing fuel tanks, a massive vulnerability. But one that didn’t matter if the enemy pilots couldn’t hit them. Which most of them couldn’t as they were mostly green pilots fighting from an inferior tactical position (usually, lower altitude).
Greg (Pappy) Boyington commented on the B.B., he said that it "could do a loop in a phone booth". I saw one when I was a kid in Chicago Vocational School. The school had been donated to the city by the navy and they had left a lot of planes they had been using for mechanical instruction lying around. I thought it was a cute little plane kInda reminded me of a chubby teenage girl.
Weight matters. Just look at the drop in performance from the F4F-3 to the F4F-4.
@@deonprins1583 : Yes, the US pilots really didn’t like the F4F-4. Too heavy, slower climb rate, shorter range, and shorter firing time (less ammunition per gun) than the F4F-3.
I do not understand the people who criticize your use of the English language or content . Rarely seen such an in-depth research in the actual archives and the intelligent unbiased conclusions. .which apparently some people have trouble with.
You bring insight into these matters that we could never reach on our own.
So thank you for putting so much energy into the interest of such a small niche of people .
Thanks again Ghislain
Gosh, I remember the Brewster from Fly Aces II, a video game. As I recall, it wasn't great; however, if the flight model was correct, it could be quite squirrely in capable hands.
The Brewster Buffalo was a good airplane for it's time!
It was indeed the pilots and maybe the poor training that brought it the bad reputation in the south east.
Just look at what Finns managed to get using it.
This is a comprehensive and thoughtful presentation. Thank you, sir! But I have to interject and say that there WERE Hurricanes in Singapore . I've known this for some time; however, in succeeding years, I have since failed to find the book I read that was a memoir written by a veteran of the disastrous air battle. Moreover, very recently, I read one source states that these machines were apparently redirected desert models, which were hampered in speed by a large, tropical air filter. I did not ascertain the number that are said to have arrived in crates on January 13th, 1942 and hurriedly assembled. They had initial successes, but their demise seems to have been inevitable for all the reasons the presenter has detailed.
The Buffalo was a prewar design, and kind of forward thinking when it was introduced. It simply isn't fair to compare it with later models
Of course, the Messerschmitt Bf109 was also a prewar design (2 years older that the Buffalo), but somehow it survived until 1945 (and longer in the Israeli Airforce). Lack of growth potential doomed the Buffalo
Again, excellent content! Kudos, Chris for your work. People like you and Greg with their high technical focus and through researched videos have fully replaced television for me. As someone who grew up in countries with three or four channels at best, I really appreciate your work!
"A poor workman blames his tools" seems appropriate here... Thank you for an excellent and very entertaining on a plane I had written off as a complete joke! It's really nice to be living in a time where we're reexamining parts of history with a more critical eye rather than just accepting the narrative we've always been feed.
I would counter with only an idoit insists a square peg fits in a round hole.
@@clothar23
Tell the engineers who designed the "Mailbox" filter adapter for Apollo 13 that ;)
@@ShadowFalcon Fair enough.
Hey Chris would love to see a video on the Curtiss H-75's in French service. It is a plane that is comparable to the Buffalo in many ways and from most accounts, did very well during the invasion of France. Many captured H-75's were given to the Finns.
Not given - sold.
Seems like a pretty fair assessment. Captain Eric Brown (test pilot extraordinaire), summed the Buffalo up as "My feeling after flying the Buffalo was one of elation tinged with disappointment. It was true anomaly of an aeroplane with delightful maneuverability but poor fighter performance.". So in some ways it was a good aircraft for novice pilots to start in (given that novice pilots had a high rate of accidents which was higher with unforgiving aircraft). I can see how experienced pilots might exploit is maneuverability too. But it was never the right aircraft to put up against the latest breeds of fighters.
I think it should be pointed out that the finnish training regimen for pilots were longer than that of most countries during the second world war, so they were generally speaking better pilots straight out of flight school compared to other freshly examined pilots.
Yes, you have changed my view of this aircraft. I've spent my life studying WWII aircraft but it seems that the focus was primarily on the tool rather than a broader view of how the tool was used. The P39 Aircobra is a another good example of why context matters.