Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hohenzollern 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. |
The point I was originally trying to make by using the term "Navalized" was that the USN, and USAAC for that matter, had a bad habit of testing the prototypes, then adding all their gear.
Thus you have Brewster model 239 or model 339 exports. You take a model 239 and add all the "Navalized" gear and you have a F2A naval fighter.
Same with a Widcat. You have a Gruman G-36 export version. Add the "navalized" gear and you have a F4F Wildcat.
The Buffalo prototypes and the export versions didnt have all the extra weight of the gear that made them "Navalized" such as liferafts, flotation gear, instruments, radios, carrier arresting hooks, etc.
As quoted in a interview with Pappy Boyington -
" I remember asking him about the Brewster Buffalo (Then, Now and Always, my favorite aircraft). I had no sooner finished saying the word 'Buffalo', when he slammed his beer can down on the table, and practicaly snarled, "It was a DOG!" (His emphasis). Then he slowly leaned back in his chair and after a moment quietly said, "But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other shit, they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little f*** could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah--sweet little ship; but some engineer went and f***** it up."
The lighter export versions flown by the British at Singapore and by the Netherlands East Indies and the lightweight modified versions flown by the Finns was not the same aircraft flown by the US in the PTO.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hohenzollern 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. |
I was referring to your apparent dismissal of the hard work the Finns put into making the aircraft a worthy air combat fighter.
Im sure the Finnish Nagant is a very nice weapon.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hohenzollern 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. |
Regardless of who you blame or dont blame the fact was the pilots had no combat experience, and were not well trained in air to air tactics.
You call the Bufflao a deathtrap. Seems the Netherlands and Brits made good use of them while they could, and the Finns certainly didnt think of theirs as deathtraps.
I fully agree with the problem of why the word was not passed around about the Zeros manuverability. Even with only two weeks warning pilots could have worked on ways to deny the Zero the use of its manuverability.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hohenzollern 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. |
Your point was irrelevant. No one considered Kamilkaze pilots with 25 hours of stick time fighter pilots. Their job was to point a plane at a ship and fly into it. Nothing more.
And yes they were illtrained. They were not properly prepared and informed about the Zero's capabilities. Agreed it wasnt their fault but the fact remains they were illprepared and illtrained to deal with Zeros.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hohenzollern 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. |
Which half assed enemy? The British and Netherlands pilots, some of who had combat experience in Europe and Battle of Britain? or Claire Chennaults flying Tigers?
The point Im trying to make which you dont seem to be able to understand is that it wasnt all the planes fault. Nobody is knocking the Marines efforts.
Im saying you and others have the attitude that if the pilots had been flying another aircraft such as Wildcats things would have been different. I think the word you used earlier to describe the Buffalo was "deathtrap". Doesnt sound like a impartial opinion to me.
So the US lost 13 out of 20 Buffalo's compared to 4 out of 6 Wildcats?
Not suprising when 75% of the fighters that went up were Bufflaos that they would take the most casulties.
That the Midway fighters lost 17 while shooting down roughly 14 enemy planes is a credit to their adaptability considering they were outnumbered.
There were a number of Battle of Britain vets who flew Spitfires against Zeros from Australia who thought that because they had combat experience and had what they considered the best fighter in the world and a aircraft considerably better than the Buffalo, that they could easily defeat the Zero.
Many of them died the hard way learning the Zero was not a aircraft to taken lightly. It required teamwork and tactics
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hohenzollern Ok ...go ahead and pick this one apart like you normally do and we'll just keep going round and round. |
PIC, PICK, PICK...your turn to pick it apart as you are prone to do as well Mr. Pot (we can assume that I am Mr. Kettle)
History and Warfare 
Re: Best plane of WW2 
Cheers! 
Linear Mode
