Best plane of WW2

[Ace`]

on second thought I like the lightning

[Anlushac11]

It should be noted that the Brewster Buffalo's flown in the PTO were mostly overweight and underpowered navalized versions flown by green pilots with no combat experience flying against veteran combat experienced Zero pilots. It was a shooting gallery.

The British and IIRC Netherlands versions were the B339 export version wich was much lighter. They had more expereienced pilots, In the Brits case some even having flown in the Battle of Britain. The export versions fared much better but were still outclassed by the Zero.

The Finnish Buffalo's, aka the Finnish "Zero's", were very highly modified from stock.

Everything not related to keeping the airframe airborne was removed.

The original about 900hp engine was pulled and rebuilt 1200hp Wright Cyclones were installed but moved about 4" forward to improve center of gravity.

The rudder area was increased in size to compensate for the increased torque and to give better directional stability.

The wing tanks were removed and fuel tanks installed in the fuselage. This lightenmed the wings and improved roll rate.

Larger ailerons were installed which increased responsiveness and increased roll rate further.

The wimpy 7.62mm (.30cal) guns were removed and 4 x .50cal guns were installed. IIRC all 4 guns were installed in the fuselage to keep the wings light and roll rate high.

The US ring and bead gunsight was removbed and a excellent Revi reflector gunsight was installed.

This modified Finnish Buffalo rolled, turned and climbed like a Zero and was even faster than a Zero and was well armed for the time with 4 x 12.7mm (.50CAL) mg's.

The .50 cal was good in air to air since it had a good muzzle velocity, good rate of fire, and was very capable against the aircraft of the time. Alot of that relates to most Axis aircraft being light and manuverable. Lightweight meant they didnt absorb damage well so a .50 cal would chew up enemy aircraft pretty well. The WW2 Soviet aircraft were built on same principle as the Germans in that they were lightweight and manuverable but were more rugged.

It wasnt til the US encountered MiG-15's over Korea that the .50 cal was finally too light. The MiG-15 was a very rugged strong design that the .50cal couldnt do damage to fast enough. US countered with F-86C with 4 x 20mm cannons.

[Kakoru]

It may not be the best plane but...

I certainly love the Stuka!

Blitzkrieg would never become famous without our beloved Stukas.

[shappenfit]

Originally Posted by Hohenzollern

There was none better than this magnificent machine! They phased it out way way too early! What a dogfighting beast she was!!:lol:

Nonsense, THIS was quite the fighting machine!

[Hohenzollern]

Actually it wasn't a 'navalized' version. It was the original version. IIRC Brewster Aeronautical Corporation was awarded the contract over Grumman to build the Navy's first mono-wing all metal carrier borne fighter aircraft. It wasn't until they had completed a working carrier plane that it was 'de-navalized' for land based service.

So what your saying is the Finns and everyone else took a sub-standard naval fighter ..... modified it heavily, put their best and most seasoned pilots in it ...and had success ....wow whoda thunk that would happen.

And FYI ....Red Parks Marines were not all green boys that climbed into those death traps that fateful day in June of 42 ...some of them were highly skilled aviators who lacked only the genuine combat experience of their Japanese adversaries. And how could they have? They didn't have the luxury of a three to four year Chinese test bed to hone their skills while being shot at. But they were by no means the same lowly caliber of pilot that would be filling Japanese suicide planes in late 44 and 45.

I'm just so so glad that my grandfather ended up in a Scouting squadron back then flying SB2Us and then SBDs. They were about the only American birds that weren't dropping like flies thru the early months of 42. But they sure were doing a lot of 'dropping' of their own.

IMO ....if ya'll want to pinpoint one signifigant aircraft that really made the difference in the war .....it was the Douglas SBD Dauntless.

[Vash2000]

I really like the p-51, its awsome.

[Anlushac11]

Originally Posted by Hohenzollern

Actually it wasn't a 'navalized' version. It was the original version. IIRC Brewster Aeronautical Corporation was awarded the contract over Grumman to build the Navy's first mono-wing all metal carrier borne fighter aircraft. It wasn't until they had completed a working carrier plane that it was 'de-navalized' for land based service.

The Finns bought 44 Brewster model 239's Decemebr 16th 1939. The model 239's were the same as the US Navy's F2A's but with all the naval and carrier equipment removed.

Originally Posted by Hohenzollern

So what your saying is the Finns and everyone else took a sub-standard naval fighter ..... modified it heavily, put their best and most seasoned pilots in it ...and had success ....wow whoda thunk that would happen.

Why do you have a problem with someone taking a second rate fighter and turning it into a success? I applaud the Finns for their ingenuity and resourcefullness. And you cannot deny that the Finnish modified the Buffalo into a suprisingly good airplane.

I dont see this as being all that different than the mods that turned the Allison engined P-51A into the excellent Merlin engined P-51D.

Or when Japan modified the Kawasaki Ki-61-II-KAI-KO into the Ki-100 after their supply of Ha140 engines disappeard in a B-29 raid.

Originally Posted by Hohenzollern

And FYI ....Red Parks Marines were not all green boys that climbed into those death traps that fateful day in June of 42 ...some of them were highly skilled aviators who lacked only the genuine combat experience of their Japanese adversaries.

Im not pointing fingers, Im stating facts. I am saying that while the Buffalo was not as good as it should have been part of blame lies with pilots with no combat experience flying against veteran combat pilots. In other words it wouldnt have made a heck of a lot of difference if those pilots had been flying Wildcats.

And what does Japanese pilot experience in late war have to do with the comabt experience of the US pilots at Midway in 1942? It has nothing to do with it. Your throwing in irrelevant facts to detract from the reality of the US pilots inexperience. If the US had modified their Buffalo's even half as much as the Finns did would it have made a difference? with inexperienced pilots probably not.

Does it mean the US pilots were poorly trained and led? No it means the pilots were going against the best the IJN had to offer and they were cut to ribbons.

If experienced combat pilots had been flying the Buffalos could they have used tactics to counter the Zero? maybe keeping airspeed up to limit Zeros manuverability?, boom and zoom tactics?, Thatch weave? No one knows.

[Hohenzollern]

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

The Finns bought 44 Brewster model 239's Decemebr 16th 1939. The model 239's were the same as the US Navy's F2A's but with all the naval and carrier equipment removed.

Essentially here you are just regurgitating what I said. They bought a de-navalized version of an aircraft that was originally requested as and designed as a naval fighter.

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

Why do you have a problem with someone taking a second rate fighter and turning it into a success? I applaud the Finns for their ingenuity and resourcefullness. And you cannot deny that the Finnish modified the Buffalo into a suprisingly good airplane.

LOL! Sounds like you were insulted there. You made a mountain out of a mole hill with regards to my statement ...but then again ...for the short time I've been on this forum I've seen you do that often enough. I too offer Kudos to the Finns for what they did with an inferior aircraft. IIRC and I should seeing as how I own one ...they also did a fantastic job converting M91/31s over to their higher standards in the M39 Finnish Nagant. I had always heard amazing accounts of feats of incredible accuracy out of this rifle .....but I didn't believe them all until I obtained one myself and won match after match with it.

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

I'm not pointing fingers, Im stating facts. I am saying that while the Buffalo was not as good as it should have been part of blame lies with pilots with no combat experience flying against veteran combat pilots. In other words it wouldnt have made a heck of a lot of difference if those pilots had been flying Wildcats

Well thats fine ...but it appeared that you were bashing US Marines for something that was completely out of their control. I was just coming to the rescue and when you do state facts ....state the complete fact. And I disagree ....I will never blame those brave and valiant Marine pilots for lack of anything. I blame their superiors for allowing it to come to that situation in the first place. And by that I don't mean Midway or the war ..I mean being unprepared 6 months after Pearl to properly defend that vital outpost on the frontier of the Empire. Usual bureacratic foot dragging before the war played a big part in our men being ill-equipped to get the job done early on.

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

And what does Japanese pilot experience in late war have to do with the comabt experience of the US pilots at Midway in 1942? It has nothing to do with it. Your throwing in irrelevant facts to detract from the reality of the US pilots inexperience. If the US had modified their Buffalo's even half as much as the Finns did would it have made a difference? with inexperienced pilots probably not.

Now this paragraph made me laugh. You don't ever seem to read enough into my statements and understand what I mean. I was simply using the low calibre of late war Japanese pilots as a comparision ...a yard stick, if you will, to show the less informed readers that our Marines on Midway were not just a gaggle of ill-trained greenhorns with less than 25 total hours of stick time. So it was far from irrelevent ...it reenforced my point. I like to use references and comparisons in my discussions ...so get used to it.

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

Does it mean the US pilots were poorly trained and led? No it means the pilots were going against the best the IJN had to offer and they were cut to ribbons.

If experienced combat pilots had been flying the Buffalos could they have used tactics to counter the Zero? maybe keeping airspeed up to limit Zeros manuverability?, boom and zoom tactics?, Thatch weave? No one knows.

Which is what I said in my previous post and I'll say it again ....Our boys didn't have the leasurely luxury of three to four years of combat against a half-assed enemy to hone their skills whenever and where ever they chose too. Suppose all of Red Parks Marines were fresh from England after serving with the Eagle Squadrons and they too were finely tuned and combat hardened. They would have given a better account of themselves most assuradly. Could they have won the day with 15 Buffalos and half a dozen Wildcats? Probably not ....but they would have given Nagumo's boys a good scar to remember the occassion.

Ok ...go ahead and pick this one apart like you normally do and we'll just keep going round and round.

[Duffy Bhoy]

hands down spitfire.

[NiteStryker]

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

The P-51 Mustang with the Merlin engine was a jack of all trades, it had good speed, good climb, turned very well, and due to the rear fuselage mounted fuel tank excellent range. It was not the best.

Best fighter I would say would be a toss up between a Spitfire XIV, Tempest II/V, Yak-9, Ki-84 Hayate, and P-51H.

Agreed. Every simulation I try with a spitfire, it cant be f*cked with. I like the p-38 lightning for looks. The P-40 (forget nickname) because if its 50 cal MG.

I think the Japanese Zero was the best.