how good was th eBuffalo fighter?

[daveh]

The Brewster Buffalo seems to have been poorly regarded by its British and aAerican users yet scored notable victories in the hands of the Finns.Why was there such a disparity in its apparent success?

[Caldric]

Well I think for one thing the Japanese were better pilots then early war Soviet plus the Japanese Zero was one of the best early war fighters and would remain very dangerous until the F4U and F6F's came into the war. The US Navy had some decent success with the F4F which was undoubtly a better plane then the F2, considering what it was fighting, and the P-40 kept them in the air until better models came out. The Soviets were still flying a great deal of Bi-Planes at the time also, however I think in general the early war Soviet pilots were some of the worse in the world. The Germans just completely dominated them and the Finnish pilots had great success also.

Plus the US had the P-40 and F4F replacing the F2 so there was not much reason for keeping them around with. The Navy found the Buffalo to be over-weight and unstable most importantly when facing off with the nimble Japanese Zero that could literally fly circles around it. Finland did not have many choices at the time to chose from either.

The Dutch also (like the Finnish) had limited Success by climbing to high altitude and diving on the zeros. This was fine unless you missed on your pass in which case the Zero is going to rip you apart. Although the pilots of Finland seemed to have fallen in love with the little plane, not to mention no fewer then 15 aces, but then again they were not flying against the Japanese Zero with superb pilots as enemies. Not by any means insulting the Finnish pilots with that statement.

[Juha Hujanen]

One of key factors to Finnish pilots success with Buffalo was superior tactics used by Finnish pilots.Fighter commanders Colonel Richard Lorentz and Lt.Colonel Erik "Eka" Magnusson adopted German "finger-four" formation before war and also introdosed "pendulum-tactic".Meaning hit from above and then disengage.

Russian I-153 biplanes were more manoeuvrable than Brewsters,so Finnish pilots didn't get into turning fights with them.But they faced faster Migs and other modern fighters,they could be engaged in turning fights.
Also Finnish pilots were superbly trained and commanded with capable officers.During 43 Buffalo started to be too obsolete to face new generation Soviet fighters but luckily Me-109s did start to arrive in Finnish service.
Finnish pilots did love their Buffalos and achieved remarkable results with them.

Cheers/Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

daveh,

One explanation is, that the type Finland bought ( F2A-1) was the lightest and most manoeuvreble "Buffalo".
http://www.danford.net/faf.htm

Regards, Juha

[Harri]

Finnish model was never called "Buffalo". It was a British name. Finnish nickname was "Pearl of the sky" [Taivaanhelmi].

The performance of Brewster B-239 (or Brewster F2A-1 or just BW) was much better than that of later models which were clumsy. Finnish pilots had used to fly Fokker D.XXI fighters which were slower, armed with four 7.7 mm MGs and less manoeuverable. You can guess their feeling when they received new fighters which were about 60 km/h faster, better armed (originally 3x 12.7 mm HMGs and one 7.62 mm MG) and much more agile! Its maximum range was also very good: 760 km.

In 1941 Finnish BWs (of Flying Squadron 24, LLv.24) became legendary shooting down 135 Soviet aircraft (= confirmed kills) while only two own planes were lost - both without enemy influence! Finnish BWs still have the best kill/loss ratio of all fighters ever.

Finns also improved planes during the war. For example initially leaking fuel tanks were improved, tail wheel was enlarged, 7.62 mm MG was replaced by fourth 12.7 mm HMG, armour protection was added etc. We also tested more powerful Soviet engines (copies of Wright Cyclone) but these were too unreliable.

Finnish fighter tactics was very advanced already in 1939 like Juha H. mentioned. Finnish pilots were also trained to shoot at short range (less than 100 m) and only those pilots who really could fly were accepted as fighter pilots. Col. "Joppe" Karhunen (Flight Leader and later Squadron Commander of LLv.24(HLe.Lv.24)) tells in one of his numerous books that at the end of 1943 Soviet fighter tactics was changed but by autumn/fall 1944 it was still far behind the Finnish one. Also effecive radio intelligence was one of our key points. At first Chief HQ Radio Battalion and since spring 1944 Air Force Radio Battalion offered special information on enemy formations in the air.

At the beginning of Continuation War Soviet fighters were both very agile I-153 bi-planes and I-16s. Also MiG-1s and soon also MiG-3s were encountered. In turn 1941/1942 Britain sent Hurricane IIs and USA first P-40s to USSR. Also first LaGG-3s and Yak-1s appeared. Brewster could handle all of these. Hurricanes were preferred especially easy to shoot down.

The bigger problems started in 1943 when La-5 and Yak-9 entered in service. The lack of cannon became obvious but Finnish pilots could match Soviets up to the summer 1944 using their all talents and exploit their better training. But without Messerchmitts we would have been in deep s... troubles.

But that's another story.

[varjag]

Buffaloes against any-and everything. And how nice to see Caldric back in the dogfighting with his very good understanding of some of the airborne issues ! I agree with Caldric - that had the standard of the average Russian fighter pilot been on par with that of the elite of IJN they would have had a problem. As it was - the tables were reversed. The standard of the Finnish fighter pilots was very high - the Soviet, though they had their 'talents' too - was far too regimented and used 'the book more than imagination'.
The Finns had something else too - rarely understood in large and powerful nations - that have never fought with their backs against wall. They call it 'sisu'. I doubt any dictionary will correctly translate it - but I'll make a try; No matter - never say die.

[Tim Smith]

I agree that pilot skill has a great deal of influence on this question. The Finnish pilots had more combat experience than the British, Dutch and US pilots that fought the Japanese in 1941-42 (because the experienced Western pilots were all in Europe). The Japanese pilots of that time were certainly more experienced than their Soviet counterparts, most of whom generally didn't survive long enough to learn how to fight effectively.

The US got least out of their Buffalos because they wouldn't compromise on firepower and armour in order to lighten the aircraft, as the British and Dutch did. The Finns learned to accept the Buffalo's lack of speed and developed their tactics accordingly, while Western pilots dismissed the plane as too slow and used that as an excuse to explain their defeats at the hands of the Zeros.

[Harri]

The Japanese pilots of that time were certainly more experienced than their Soviet counterparts, most of whom generally didn't survive long enough to learn how to fight effectively.

I wouldn't be quite sure about that. Soviet pilots had fought against Japanese in the late 1930's and usually were better because they had better planes. Also many Soviet pilots had flown during Spanish Civil War. Finns had to meet many of their best aces in 1939.

The Finns learned to accept the Buffalo's lack of speed and developed their tactics accordingly, while Western pilots dismissed the plane as too slow and used that as an excuse to explain their defeats at the hands of the Zeros.

Brewster was considered fast fighter in Finland in 1941. Actually the top speed was not as important as the ability to outdive enemy. That was the reason Finnish pilots could score much faster Soviet fighters as late as in 1944. Our Curtiss Hawk 75A fighters were even slightly slower than BWs (due to their obsolete worn-out engines) but they were also agile fighters and were used until the end of the Continuation War. During Winter War Fokker D.XXI was an excellent plane in diving and flying at very low level. So were Brewster and Curtiss. They also could take lots of punishment from the enemy. All of these fighters were quite heavy and sturdy machines while Soviet planes were lighter in construction.

[Tim Smith]

Several Soviet pilots came back from Spain with kills and experience, and on their return they recommended that the VVS adopt the pair and finger four formations just as the Condor Legion had done.

Stalin had them killed or imprisoned because he believed that their initiative made them politically unreliable and a danger to the regime. Soviet officers with bright ideas learned to keep them to themselves and not attract the attention of the commissars.

As a result the Red Air Force lost nearly all the lessons it had learnt in Spain. I suspect the same was true of the pilots that fought the Japanese.

[Juha Tompuri]

Tim,

I think you´re right. In the begining of Winter War the Soviet fighters flew at a very tight V-formation, the wingmen following the leader at every manouvre, and (only) shooting (Finnish pilots describing it as "carpet fire") when the leader did.
The level of experience of Soviet pilots varied through the years 1939-1944. At Winter War we were facing experts from Spanish and Japanese front, from 1941 to 1943 the average quality of the enemy wasn´t very high, but 1944 our adversaries were the best SU had.

Regards, Juha

[Caldric]

The Germans talk about Soviet Bombers flying the same route, same altitude, same formation every day during the first year or so of the war. They just decimated their formation that was not allowed to deviate from the set flight plan. Such things as this were a major cause for Soviet poor showing in the air in early stages. Not until 1943 late, did they start to take the sky’s from the Germans.

In contrast US/UK bomber formations were commanded by the lead bomber pilot. They just set the basic flight plan during briefing at command, the group leader could deviate as needed, they did not shoot you for using your experience.


Doctrine wiped the USSR Air Force from the skies. Plus poor training in the beginning. Like many things in the Red Military, on the job training was dangerous. If you keep feeding men into it sooner or later you have a good military. Or you run out of men to feed...

[Korbius]

The good thing that the Finns did to the Brewster Buffalo was that they modified it in a small scale. The weight was reduced by removing excessive equipment on board, for example since the Buffalo was a Navy fighter, it had a life raft and other equipment present for survivability in case of crash landing. The Finns removed also some armor plating in areas where it was viewed too excessive, and in the early in the Continuation War, the armament was also reduced. This in turn made the Brewster more maneuvrable. As a result, the Brewster entered into history as one of the fighters with the best ratio of losses/kills.

[Harri]

The weight was reduced by removing excessive equipment on board, for example since the Buffalo was a Navy fighter, it had a life raft and other equipment present for survivability in case of crash landing.

Some of the equipment were already removed in USA. Also engines were changed to "export models". Finns also added things, like a pair of skiis. New bigger tail wheel also weighted more than the original one.

The Finns removed also some armor plating in areas where it was viewed too excessive, and in the early in the Continuation War, the armament was also reduced.

I don't know if armour plating was removed from any vital places but it was added/altered behind the pilot (IIRC).

Armament was not reduced for sure. Only one "experimental" BW had two 12.7mm HMGs. Armament was increased replacing the sole 7.62mm MG with fourth 12.7mm HMG, like I already said earlier.

This in turn made the Brewster more maneuvrable. As a result, the Brewster entered into history as one of the fighters with the best ratio of losses/kills.

I don't think these modifications Finns made significantly improved the agility of BW. As the was progressed fighters became much faster but also heavier and clumsier too, but higher speed was considered more important factor.

I suggest that Finnish Brewsters are not called "Buffaloes", because they were not.

[Yngwie J.]

I´ll just add a simple point to the discussion.

In 1940 the Japanese pilots was the best trained in world, while the Russians had more of a "learn as you go" attitude towards training.

Best regards,
Yngwie J.

[gabriel pagliarani]

Good the last reply. Probably during 1940 Buffalo was not the worst dogfighter and its own performance was not so far from a Fiat-G50: both planes superseeded but still able to combat. The big difference was in the skilness and training of Navy and Army pilots: Japs in 1942 were all veterans coming from a 10 years war against China. During the Battle of Midway the heroism of the pilots commanded by "Red" Sparks never stopped the incoming raid on the airport and all those braves died in 3 minutes against Zeroes. At that time there was simply no match.