Worst aircraft of WW2?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by CurzonDax

Believe it or not many aircraft sites are blocked including the PBS 100 Years of Flight documentary site. Also I am teaching western expansion and I wanted to know what the settlers carried in thier wagons. Several sites even in this subject were blocked.

:{)

Incredible!!!

[CurzonDax]

Welcome to modern teaching.

:{)

[Guns!Guns!Guns!]

Anyone yet consider the BoultonPaul Defiant amongst the lousiest ideas ever? I mean this thing was supposed to be a FIGHTER. I can just hear the prospective aircrews now, "Right, I'm supposed to let him get on my six, then my gunner is supposed to splash him withthese little peashooters, without popping my own tail off, all the while he is shooting me with large caliber weapons....RIGHT! Now why didn't I think of that!"

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Guns!Guns!Guns!

Anyone yet consider the BoultonPaul Defiant amongst the lousiest ideas ever? I mean this thing was supposed to be a FIGHTER. I can just hear the prospective aircrews now, "Right, I'm supposed to let him get on my six, then my gunner is supposed to splash him withthese little peashooters, without popping my own tail off, all the while he is shooting me with large caliber weapons....RIGHT! Now why didn't I think of that!"

Nope...

Welcome!

[loomaluftwaffe]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

Jesus Villamor, the first filipino ace flew a P-26, does that make them great too?

see, i do pay attention in the other threads

the P-26 is just strange, CurzonDax said that he had balls of steel thats why he can fly the plane right? so u fly the p-26 with ur balls


jk i suck

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Believe it or not this site is blocked by the Army at the airfield I work at.

[Twitch]

I vote for the Brewster Buffalo as worst. I can't get over Saburo Sakai's view of how bad this plane was. A close 2nd is the Me 110 as a day fighter. During Battle of Britain they, as bomber escorts, needed 109s to escort them! The fact that Allied pilots called them "meat on the table" for easy kills means something too. Only at night were they able to perform.

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually the F2A got a worse rap than it deserved. In the battles where it did poorly (Midway and Singapore) the pilots who flew her were poorly trained and had no combat experience. Remember at Midway there were F4Fs mauled a well. The caliber of the Marine pilots were not as good as the pilots found aboard the US Carriers at Midway, in addition the Navy pilots had some combat experience (Coral Sea) and developed tactics. The Finns as we know did very well with the "Sky Pearl" and was even planning on building their own version. Finnish pilots kept their combat situations at low level and basically mauled the Russians. Some Finn pilots even preferred the Buffalo over the ME-109!!!

The Finns with their Buffalos had the highest kill/ loss rate of the war!!!

[FLYBOYJ]

I happen to be looking at this site last night, it took me a while to find it again...

"The Brewster F2A Buffalo, a minor combatant in World War II, has a very checkered reputation. The story of the Buffalo is indeed a story of contradictions. On the one hand, it was derided as a death trap by the US Marines and, on the other, so beloved by the Finns that they attempted to continue the development of the Buffalo. Purpose-designed as a carrier-based fighter, the Buffalo only flew into action off dirt and grass. Built by the Allies, it saw most of its action by an ally of Germany. In the US and Britain, it has been considered one of the worst fighters of World War II, but in Finnish hands, continued to outperform more modern Soviet aircraft. Truly contradictions! What, then, was the true character of the Buffalo?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Buffalo was designed in response to the US Navy's call for a replacement for the F3F Biplane in 1935. The prototype first flew in late 1937, contemporaneous with other monoplane fighters like the Hawker Hurricane, Curtiss Hawk, Fiat G.50, Supermarine Spitfire, and Messerscmitt Bf 109. Like these aircraft it had its share of design flaws, but in the isolationist United States, there was no particular impetus for rapidly improving the design. When war seemed imminent in Europe, the US Government allowed Brewster to turn production to foreign markets - which the Brewster management pursued vigorously to the detriment of the Buffalo's development. The Buffalo performed adequately in foreign hands at least early in the war, but, like most aircraft of its generation, was clearly inferior to later designs. When the United States did come closer to a war footing, the inadequate production facilities, the slow delivery of aircraft, and rather short-sighted new specifications laid on the Buffalo would eventually lead to its doom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early History
In late 1939, Finland was suddenly attacked by the Soviet Union, and, desperate for modern aircraft, sought the Brewster aircraft. The Navy had ordered fifty-four aircraft in 1938, but by late 1939 only 11 had actually been delivered. The remaining 43 Buffalos on the production line were allowed to go to Finland. The Finns loved their Buffaloes, and named it the Taivaan Helmi (Sky Pearl). Finnish engineers introduced some minor design modifications that helped as well. Too late to defend Finnish skies against the Soviet invasion during the Winter War of 1939-40, the forty or so Finnish Buffaloes were wildly successful in the early stages of the 'Continuation War' against the Soviets. They never completely lost favor with Finnish pilots, even though they were later supplanted by German Bf 109 variants. Finland was so impressed with the qualities of the Buffalo it attempted to develop its own variant, the Humu (Distant Storm). The Buffalo remained in Finnish service after the armistice with the Soviets, helping to drive the last German pockets from northern Finland, and as a trainer up to 1948. In all, the Finns, while claiming a phenomenal 496 kills, lost only 19 Buffaloes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Buffalo in Finland
The Buffalo also served with the RAF, the RAAF, the USAAF and the ML-KNIL (the Dutch Air Force in Indonesia), all primarily in Southeast Asia. The Commonwealth and Dutch Buffalos saw a great deal of action in Indonesia and acquitted themselves well against overwhelming odds, the Dutch pilots reportedly achieving a 2:1 kill ratio before surrendering. These Buffalos were all variants that were heavier and slower than the Finnish Buffalos, due to increased armor and fuel. The last surviving Dutch Buffalos ended up in Australia, and, for a brief period, with the USAAF in Australia as base hacks. The Commonwealth air forces had about 150 Buffalos in Southeast Asia and the Dutch had another 72.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffaloes in Southeast Asia
The only Buffalos in service with the US Navy at the time of Pearl Harbor were the 'Fighting Chiefs' VF-2 on the USS Lexington. They did not see combat before being replaced by Grumman F4's in January of 1942. However, two Marine Corps squadrons remained equipped with the F2A-3 Buffalo. This was by far the heaviest and most sluggish variant, since new USN specifications called for increased armor, fuel, ammunition, and emergency supplies designed to allow the Buffalo to spell the Dauntless as a long-range scout. VMF-221 was on Midway with mixed flights of Wildcats and Buffalos when the Japanese attacked. 13 Buffalos were lost intercepting the Japanese bombers, prompting one official to comment "It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots out for combat in an F2A-3 should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground." The remaining Buffaloes in US service were quickly withdrawn from front-line service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalos in the Pacific
Why did the Buffalo have such a bad reputation? Certainly in the hands of the Finns it had the best kill ratio of any fighter in World War II. Even in Dutch and British hands, it was at least competitive against the Imperial Japanese Army fighters. Why were American losses so high?
The first reason is pilot skill. The Finns were largely combat experienced veterans able to make the most out of their aircraft. Even the Dutch pilots flying the Buffalo were reasonably well trained and familiar with the Buffalo by the time combat arrived. The Commonwealth and American aircrews, on the other hand, were largely inexperienced and inadequately trained. Most of the trained Commonwealth pilots were needed on other fronts, and the Americans were only beginning to mobilize and train for combat after Pearl Harbor. The Marine pilots on Midway were certainly inexperienced; at least a third still hadn't had operational training on the Buffalo while the Zero pilots who shot them down were all combat-hardened veterans.

The second reason is technical. A 950-hp engine with a weight around 5,000 lb. powered the Finnish Buffalos. Low altitude performance was excellent, especially after Finnish engineers tinkered with the engine. The RAF and RAAF Buffalos had a 1,100 hp engine (often rebuilt commercial engines which were, in fact, derated to below 1,000 hp) powering a variant over a thousand pounds heavier! Furthermore, these refurbished engines did not have pressurized fuel lines which severely affected performance above 18,000 feet. The Marine Buffalos at Midway were the heaviest variant of all over 6500 lb., loaded up with a maximum speed of only 321 mph and a very sluggish climb.

The third reason for the Buffalos successes and failures was tactical. The Finnish Buffalos were primarily used at low altitude against Russian aircraft that were technologically equivalent. By the time the Soviets were throwing more advanced aircraft at the Finns, skilled pilots were needed against the Germans, and the Finns continued to benefit from a definite skill advantage. The Dutch and Commonwealth Buffalos were, at least initially, pitted against Imperial Japanese Army fighters not dramatically superior. Later, however, the Buffalo ran up against the phenomenal Imperial Japanese Navy A6M Zero, which would have outclassed any fighter the allies could have sent up against it anyway. The Buffalos at Midway were originally planned to escort a low-level attack on Japanese fleet. Split into two flights, the Marine Buffalos were disadvantaged by altitude, numbers, experience, and strategy as well as technology; the outcome was never in doubt.

As can be seen by its history, the much-maligned Brewster Buffalo really deserves to be reevaluated. It certainly deserves a place in the history books, not only for it being the first American carrier-based monoplane fighter, but also for its stalwart service in Finnish hands, and its heroic actions against impossible odds in Southeast Asia. It should not be relegated to a footnote as "the worst fighter of world war two!"

[plan_D]

Excellent write-up, a much better defence of the Buffalo than I did of the Airacobra. I would like to add that a plane that shot down seven Spitfire Vs, in a dogfight, cannot be considered World War IIs worst fighter.

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks D - a Buffalo shot down 7 Spits?!?!?

[evangilder]

Nice work, Joe! I actually kind of liked the buffalo before I knoew much about it. It always made me think of the fatter big brother of the Gee Bee racer.

[loomaluftwaffe]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Thanks D - a Buffalo shot down 7 Spits?!?!?

wth?
so probably a finnish guy flew that, and how many buffaloes were against how many spits?

[CurzonDax]

Excellent write up on a very much maligned and relatively ignored aircraft. Also even the immortal Spitfire can have a bad day.

:{)

[Gnomey]

Yes it can, good write up FBJ.