Brewster's Buffalo a match for the Wildcat?

[Double T]

I'm doing some research... I have a 1/35 scale model of the export version Brewster B-339/F2A-2 Buffalo.

In reading a kit review, I came across this comment:

"In 1992, I had the opportunity to speak with the late MGEN Marion Carl, who had flown one of the VMF-221 Wildcats at Midway, during which he scored his first victory. Later a famous ace in the bloody struggle for Guadalcanal, General Carl startled me by saying that -had the Marines at Midway had the understanding of proper tactics against the Japanese that he and others used over Guadalcanal - the outcome might have been far different. He went on to say that the difference between the F2A-3 Buffalo and the F4F-4 Wildcat performance-wise was not so much that if he had flown the F2A-3 at Guadalcanal using proper tactics, he believed he would have scored as he did in the Wildcat.

General Carl's theory is not wrong when one considers that between June 1941 and September 1944, Finnish pilots equipped with 44 F2A-1 Buffalos shot down 496 Soviet aircraft for a combat loss of 19 Buffalos, a victory-loss ratio of 26:1 - better than almost any other fighter flown by any other air force in the war. The Finnish pilots were well-trained and experienced, and flying an airplane 1,400 pounds lighter than that which the inexperienced Marines used at Midway."
--Tom Cleaver

I'm aware the dash-3 was a real-dog due to added weight of armor-plate, self-sealing fuel tanks and added length of airframe. The dash-2 is quite handsome in export specs and appears to have been the best of the bunch.
Was the little Buffalo saddled with a bad-name and reputation unfairly?
Maybe calling it the Brewster Bear-Cub would have helped...
Or not.

Tim

[GregP]

Hi Tim,

There are several flaws in your theory above as I see it.

First, the Wildcat was a much better performer in combat than the Buffalo. It was faster, climbed better, was much more rugged, had a higher dive speed, and a better service ceiling. Naturally, if the Buffalo never got hit, the ruggedness would not come into play. The fact is that almost all U.S. aircraft at Midway got hit, some many times. So ruggedness DID come into play. Advantage Wildcat.

Second, you do not establish a kill ratio with a few isolated airplanes. The kill ratio of the Buffalo would be established by its cumulative win-loss ratio, not by elements of the Finnish Air Force. The Finnish Air Force, while doing VERY well indeed, was fighting against obsolete, ill-trained Soviet pilots who were, by and large, lost and replaced by much better trained pilots flying much better hardware by 1943 or so. How do you think the Germans racked up so many kills on the Russian Front? The bulk of the Finnish kills were before the new planes came into service. I bet they had very few, if any, Buffalo victories against Lavochkin La-5's or Yak-3's.

While it seems like a good premise, the experience of the entire rest of the Buffalo universe shows it for what it is, a geat performance by the Finnish Air Force flying obsolete equipment against less than wonderful opposition.

Personally, I like the Buffalo ... but I would love to have it as a sport plane, not a combat plane. If I were going into combat, give me the Wildcat, preferrably the FM-2 version. Not, it's not a different aircraft ... it is a Wildcat.

There are also those out there who maintain that the FM-2 was a great fighter in its own right and that is was not a Wildcat, but they are doing the same thing you are doing ... taking an individual performance and holding it out as the common experience with the type. It wasn't and isn't. The Wildcat was a good Navy fighter because it was in service, available, and was the best we had until the Hellcat came along. The FM-2 was improved by an additional 150 HP and could be pretty even against a Zero. But the Wildcat needed a good dose of luck, proper tactics and pilot skill to tangle with a Zero and come out on top. A great many didn't.

I have nothing but admiration for Marion Carl and I also met him once or twice. A great guy and a wonderful pilot, a true American Hero. Coincidentally, the Planes of Fame Museum in CHino, CA has a Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket that Marion Carl flew to 83,235 feet and Mach 1.728 in August 1953. Man, would I love to see THAT fly again! Unlikely in the extreme, but it surely would be a wonderful thing.

[Double T]

GregP:
Thank-you for buying into my premise.
I'm always in love with whatever model is on my workbench. In all my years... 'ah never have built a Brewster Buffalo. I'm licking my chops.

It really is more handsome for it's time than I had imagined. This aircraft had a decent range, and with four 50 caliber BMGs--two in the cowl!--the firepower of a Grumman Wildcat. It's landing gear was weak, but the key was inflation-pressure in the tires. I wonder if you had to hand crank the landing-gear up and down like in a Wildcat? Still, the landing gear looked much more stable than the Wildcat arrangement.
More than anything, I am curious as to whether it was simply poor tactics and green, inexperienced pilots trying to dogfight, and turn with more agile Japanese fighters that was the Buffalo's undoing. (I think I can put Greg down for a NAY vote...)

Maybe the Brewster Bullet?
The Brewster Beagle. (Rabbits beware.)
The Brewster Bulldog, or maybe...
the Brewster Buckaroo.

I do think a cool name is worth an extra 10mph... at least in a stiff tailwind.
Tim

[GregP]

Hi Tim,

I think you have hit upon something that many people overlook, and you have a good point.

Early in the war there was a great tendency, if you were flying a fighter of any sort, to dogfight anything you came across no matter what your mount or the enemy's mount. That tactic was shown to be EXACTLY wrong when flying versus the Japanese, whose hardware was VERY maneuverable. Likewise, the Luftwaffe exhibited a very good ratio of wins to losses in early dogfights. Recall that the early WWII Luftwaffe pilots were combat-blooded in Spain and flew against good pilots who were "combat-green."

Many P-40's, Buffalos, Skuas, Blochs, I-16's, PZL-11's, etc. were lost trying to use exactly the wrong tactics against their opponents. In the case of the early Soviets, sometimes NO tactics (sit on the ground and wire Moscow for instructions).Thus, the reputations of the losers were established.

Of course, how do you LEARN the correct tactics without experiencing change? And how does a combat command decide to change unless what they are doing isn't working?

It would not surprise me if the Buffalo was, in fact, a pretty good airplane when employing its strengths against a techncially superior opponent. The P-40 established a pretty decent, if not spectacular, reputation when employing ITS strengths against a technically superior opponent when the Flying Tigers flew it against the zero.

So, you may well have a premise that COULD have been, but wasn't; history has spoken. However, we COULD have won WWII much sooner if the plot on Hitler's life had succeeded. Germany COULD have won if they simply had never attacked the Soviet Union. The Battle of Britain COULD have been lost by England if Germany had kept going, had knocked out the radar, and if the Bf 109 had 150 more miles of range.

None of these things happened, but I suppose the Buffalo COULD have been a great fighter in the anals of aerial combat given a few changes in tactics, numbers deployed, and knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy.

I'd still like one for a sportplane in my own hangar! If nothing else, it would be unique, and it has documented good flying characteristics to boot. I suppose spares WOULD be an issue, but what the hell.

[ickysdad]

The F4F-3 even came pretty close to the Zero in performance while also having armor and self sealing tanks but the -4 model was introduced so it would have folding wings. Now according to Lundstrom the F4F equalled the Zero regardless of wether or not special tatics were used,i.e. the Thach Weave so it seems luck or superior tatics wasn't really the reason the F4F equalled the Zero while even Spitfire V's didn't(however that's another can of worms that one maynot want to open). Now on dogfighting you mentioned the P-40 using the wrong tatics against the Luftwaffe however I'm thinking the Luftwaffe pilots considered the P-40 to be a superior dogfighter to both the '109 & '190 it certainly rolled better then the '109 while being competitive with the '190 in that regards with certain sources saying the P-40 could out-turn both.

[GregP]

The P-40 was the best rolling fighter from America in WWII, maybe from the entire Allies. It turned well, too, and had decent armament.

The failings were that it was not a great climber and was not very good at high altitude. However, if you attacked it or defended it at 12,000 feet, you better watch out.

The same can be said for the P-39. Pretty good, but not at higher altitudes, which was where most of the war in Europe was fought.

In Russia, the war was fought at low atitudes. The Russians attacked ground targets and the Luftwaffe had to come down to engage or simply watch the Soviets pound their ground units from above.