Most under rated Allied aircraft.

[Sardaukar]

And:

In the air combats the following characteristics were found (17):

• The most combats were fighter combats and the Finnish formations always took the initiative. In all cases the flight of about ten fighters was strong enough to fight successfully even against the big enemy formations until additional fighters were sent to the battle.
• The Brewsters used against the Soviet I-153 and I-16 aircraft the energy tactics in which they hit from above and pulled again up to a new attack position. The enemies tried with their agile fighters to get into a nose to nose shooting positions but lost often the systematic defence capability.
• The winner was usually not determined by the performance of the fighter but by the skill of the pilot. The Soviet pilots seemed often to be good flyers but bad shooters and also not capable to fight alone. They still often used their old tight formations of three aircraft. It seemed that they had at least partially abandoned their old training system but were not yet ready for the new one, and in any case had not given training for that.
• The attacks on the escorted bomber formations had been successful. The first attackers hit the escort fighters and shot them down or forced them to break, and then the other fighters could concentrate on the bombers.
• The slow Fokkers tried to avoid fighter combats concentrating on the enemy seaplanes and reconnaissance aircraft. The attacks were usually done from the rear sector and the enemies tried to escape at the low level to eliminate the shooting position from behind and below.
• The Fiats also used the energy tactics in the fighter combats.
• The Curtisses lacked speed but they were agile and used as an evasive maneuver a steep and tight climb turn which often caused the enemy to stall.

[Sardaukar]

And Summer 1944 experiences with Me-109Gs:

The intercept sorties were flown with as many fighters as was available at any certain moment, usually 8 - 20 fighters. The basic idea was that the top section or division attacked on the Soviet escort fighters while the lower division or flight attacked on the bombers. However, often, due to the great numbers of the Soviet escort fighters, all of the Finnish fighters had to commit themselves to the fighter combats. Anyhow, the Finnish principle was always to attack even as a section regardless of the numbers of the enemy. The limited fighter force was not able to repulse the bomb raids, but it caused continuous losses which were eating the enemy pilot cadre. The attacks scattered the Soviet formations and spread the combat over a larger area where the enemy could not get the direct benefit from the big numbers. The duels were solved by the combat skill and shooting accuracy of the individual pilots and the Finns proved to be the winners almost always. There were several occasions in which the Soviet formation turned back after seeing the Finnish fighters in the interception position (22).


When the Soviet offensive was stopped in the middle of July 1944 the enemy activity also in the air operations began to go down. The Soviet fighters started to avoid air combats while the Finnish fighter force was continuously becoming stronger due to the small losses and the deliveries of the additional MT fighters (22).


So it was quite clear that superior tactics, aggressiveness, better flying skills and shooting accuracy were really the deciding factors if planes were about same generation.

[spence]

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Just cause it is a picture of a PB2Y-5 in action.




BTW this is indicative of level bombing the Navy Way (right from the get go though this picture was taken in 1945).




Perhaps its just my eyes but if you look off the bow of the ship, I think I see the plane that dropped the bomb or torp flying rather low. Anybody else see it

Yes the small black thing is positively the PB2Y that attacked just off the bow of the ship. It was bombing, not launching a torpedo. IIRC The plane was shot down on a subsequent attack and the aircraft that took this picture landed in the water and picked up the crew while under fire from the ship which was fairly nearby but dead in the water and sinking. The AAR is in the squadron history for VP-13 (or maybe VPB-13) at VPNavy.com

[Shark7]

@ Sardaukar: From what you have posted, it seems that the B.339 is under-rated based not on its own performance, but due to other factors such as tactics, training (the units in Malaya were not the cream of the crop, those pilots were defending the British Isles), and initiative are what made the difference.

In the opening days of the Pacific War, the Japanese had the edge in tactics, training, and initiative...hence they outperformed the B.339. Plus the Zero and Oscar were just a better aircraft, 1 generation newer.

A good question to ask is how did the B.339 fair against a more equal opponent over Singapore...namely the Nate?

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

@ Sardaukar: From what you have posted, it seems that the B.339 is under-rated based not on its own performance, but due to other factors such as tactics, training (the units in Malaya were not the cream of the crop, those pilots were defending the British Isles), and initiative are what made the difference.

In the opening days of the Pacific War, the Japanese had the edge in tactics, training, and initiative...hence they outperformed the B.339. Plus the Zero and Oscar were just a better aircraft, 1 generation newer.

A good question to ask is how did the B.339 fair against a more equal opponent over Singapore...namely the Nate?

Also have to remember that FAF Brewster was lighter version than those used in Malaya, for example. RAF Brewsters were quite in disadvantage when it came to energy fighting. I think B339 might have done decently well against Nate, but most RAF pilots there were definitely not as well trained as FAF pilots were.

[crsutton]

One variable frequently left out when comparing fighters is acceleration, which is a key factor once a fight gets low or becomes a turning fight. I am pretty sure the brewsters did not have great acceleration, but have to admit don't know how they would compare acceleration wise to the zero or oscar.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Some good info about Finnish fighter tactics and pilots in WW II:

It's all nice and stuff, but keep in mind, that in every area of importance Finnish aviation was practically a non-factor, leaving everything actually worth doing (primarily operations against Murmansk and Leningrad, but also the vast majority of air action over Baltic) to Germans. Also, I'm not sure if any good research on air war over the Finnish front actually exists (I'm mostly interested in air war as related to naval warfare, hence the statement above...), and if therefore anyone actually can say with any authority how successful Finnish Buffalos were.

[Mistmatz]

Maybe not the most underrated, and maybe more so in stock. But the Wirraway is doing a good job as ASW patrol for me.

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

Maybe not the most underrated, and maybe more so in stock. But the Wirraway is doing a good job as ASW patrol for me.

I have been using these too. They have decent range and Australia has a lot of them so you might as well use them. They do need lots of training though.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Some good info about Finnish fighter tactics and pilots in WW II:

It's all nice and stuff, but keep in mind, that in every area of importance Finnish aviation was practically a non-factor, leaving everything actually worth doing (primarily operations against Murmansk and Leningrad, but also the vast majority of air action over Baltic) to Germans. Also, I'm not sure if any good research on air war over the Finnish front actually exists (I'm mostly interested in air war as related to naval warfare, hence the statement above...), and if therefore anyone actually can say with any authority how successful Finnish Buffalos were.

There were quite a few historical studies, like the quoted article, written by ex-CO of the Finnish Air Force. [8D] So I think he does have some insight and access to primary sources.

Quite a lot of stuff here from those who actually flew those battles: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/

Some interesting stuff about tactics in: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2His ... iikka.html (in Finnish, original notes from 1946-47 included in PDF). Writer was in fighter training right after war with fighter aces like Puhakka, Wind and Luukkanen as instructors and lecturers. Those notes are from those lectures and training. Maybe Google translator etc. helps with that.

This would be main interest and most relevant to Brewster:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2His ... cture.html (Cpt. Wind's Lectures on Fighter Tactics, Captain Hans Henrik "Hasse" Wind 30.7.1919-24.7.1995 75 aerial victories, double recipient of the Mannerheim Cross (the highest military award in Finland)

Original document by Hans Wind, Finnish Air Force, 1943.

The birth of this lecture series as told by Brewster/Me 109 ace Väinö Pokela:

"It all started in 24 Fighter Squadron during '42 or '43 if I remember correctly. Someone suggested that one of the squadron pilots go to Kauhava (Air Force Academy) to lecture on tactics, 'how to wage war with Brewsters'. That was because the Americans also started waging war and they had no clue how to go about it. There in the Pacific when they started fighting it was completely pitiful. They had three engagements where Brewsters were used. And in the last one they had 17 Brewsters in one aerial engagement, and if I remember correctly, 13 were shot down. After that all the Brewsters were sent to Florida for their Air Force cadets.

And all of this was the result of them attacking Zeros. They didn't consider at all that the Zero had no armour, was made of wood and was much lighter. But it had an engine of the same size. And they (Americans) started turn-fighting them (Zeros). So, the Brewsters were shot down. They just should have used rocking-chair (vertical) tactics, attack and pull out.

The Finns had already learned that in the Winter War when they attacked the I-15s and I-16s with their Fokkers. You did not turn-fight them. And this lecture, the paper about air combat tactics written by Hasse, started right from this idea."


http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2His ... onWar.html

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
There were quite a few historical studies, like the quoted article, written by ex-CO of the Finnish Air Force. [8D] So I think he does have some insight and access to primary sources.

Sorry, but unless there is a research based on comparing primary sources from both sides - ideally on combat-by-combat basis - we still should consider themselves to be in the dark. I'm not saying that materials from your links necessarily are tall tales (until the summer of 1944 the Finnish front between Leningrad and Murmansk, which defenses the Finnish aviation did not challenge, had the lowest priority for getting planes and pilots, of all active fronts, so achieving major successes against relatively low numbers of mostly obsolete planes is not unimaginable). Just that they might well be (particularly as claim-to-reality ratio often was different even within a unit, so you cannot just divide claims by the same number, to get a real picture).

[FatR]

Returning to topic, I'm not sure if Wellingtons are actually underated by people, but I find them the most excellent ground support planes. They can fly much more often than 4Es and drop as many bombs. A very good combination, as long as you can secure air superiority.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
There were quite a few historical studies, like the quoted article, written by ex-CO of the Finnish Air Force. [8D] So I think he does have some insight and access to primary sources.

Sorry, but unless there is a research based on comparing primary sources from both sides - ideally on combat-by-combat basis - we still should consider themselves to be in the dark. I'm not saying that materials from your links necessarily are tall tales (until the summer of 1944 the Finnish front between Leningrad and Murmansk, which defenses the Finnish aviation did not challenge, had the lowest priority for getting planes and pilots, of all active fronts, so achieving major successes against relatively low numbers of mostly obsolete planes is not unimaginable). Just that they might well be (particularly as claim-to-reality ratio often was different even within a unit, so you cannot just divide claims by the same number, to get a real picture).

LOL, so you are disregarding for example Hans Wind's lectures given in Air Force Academy in 1943 based on his combat experiences? You realize that those lectures were given to new pilots to prepare them to combat vs. Soviets in 1943? Just because it is Finnish primary source? Bit hard for him to have Soviet primary sources during 1943, you know!

How about you giving some Soviet sources before you disregard others...which is very usual "Soviet history method". [:'(] We could also compare Finnish air victories to Soviet losses, but RELIABLE data of them is bit difficult to get from Soviet side.

Note that we are discussing WHY FAF achieved lot of victories WITH Brewster vs. Soviet Union and primary tactical source for that is obviously the pilots who flew those combat missions with those planes. Would be bit strange for example Hans Wind to lie to FAF AF Academy pilot trainees, knowing he'd most likely have to fly combat missions with them later...and he was preparing them for air combat.

It doesn't matter if for example Hans Wind overclaimed. Everyone did that, including Soviet pilots. It still doesn't take away that they shoot down quite a lot of Soviet planes. Top aces themselves gave the reasons why they were able to do that, and the reasons are in those articles.

Hasse Wind's lecture is primary source and is scanned and digitized now. It was used in fighter pilot training in FAF for decades.

Captain H. Wind's Lectures on Fighter Tactics were written in 1943 to be used in training of new pilots. Afterwards, the lecture series was used in the Finnish Air Force for several decades. The lectures have been transferred into digital format in as original and accurate a form as possible - the way they were written in 1943. The author, Hans Wind, was the second highest scoring Finnish pilot of World War II and our highest scoring Brewster ace.

To our knowledge Wind's lectures have never been available in public before, and this is the first time it is fully translated to English.

The Finnish Air Force and the Chief of Readiness, Colonel Jarmo Lindberg - who kindly presented the original document to the Commander of the Finnish Air Force and to the Chief of Operations, making sure that we can transfer the material into digital format and publish it. "According to the security policy of the Finnish Defence Forces, any material declared secret will become public after 25 years, unless the period is specifically extended. Applying this rule, and in the opinion of the Commander of the Air Force this material can be published."

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/kuvat/ ... -win02.jpg

If you missed it, for example: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/fintac-7.htm

4) Air Warfare Manual, Nr 185/III/6 c secr/17.12.37

6) Order of 2 Wing, Nr 13, Office II 349/II/3b 27.2.40

8) Olavi Seeve: Air War between Finland and the Soviet Union 1939 - 1940, Air Force Staff, Nr 90/III/Helsinki 17.1.1941

10) 2 Wing document 472/II/ 4 a secr 9.5.1941

12) 2 Wing document 385/II/ 3 d 4.3.1940

17) Air Staff document 31/ III L/ 2c 4.1.1942

18) Air Staff document 1406/III L/ c secr 1.9.1941

19) Air Staff document 1817/ III L/ 4c secr 29.9.1941

20) Air Staff document 2176/ III L/ 4c secr 26.10.1941

21) Air Staff document 46/ III L/ 4c secr 4.1.1942

22) 3 Wing operations 22.6.1941 - 4.9.1944

23) 1 Wing document 410/ II/ 5 10.7.42

24) 2 Wing operations, Air Staff document T 19280

25) Air Staff document 2855/III/ 2c secr 27.7.1942

26) Air Staff document 1377/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 5.4.1943

27) Air Staff document 1811/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 3.5.1943

28) Air Staff document 2313/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 5.6.1943

29) Air Staff document 3160/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 1.9.1943

30) Air Staff document 3369/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 27.9.1943

31) Air Staff document 1646/ Ye.3/ 3b secr 12.5.1844

Those are all Primary Sources, FAF official documents about issues described in articles and you could study them or order copied from Finnish National War Archives. Rest are top air commanders' and top pilots writings about same issues.

Like:

2) Richard Lorentz: Strikes in the Air, summary

3) G. Magnusson: Comment about Lorentz`s summary, 3.9.1953

7) Eino A. Rahka: Flight Commander`s Memories, Helsinki 28.10.1980

9) Jorma Sarvanto: As a fighter pilot over Karelia, Vammala, 1941

11) Ilmari Juutilainen: Double Fighter Knight, Apali Oy, Tampere, 1996

13) Kyösti Karhila: Diary Nr 1, 10.12.39 - 1.5.40

15) Eino A. Rahka: 35 Training Squadrons Program, summary

So if you want primary sources, there you have some.

[Sardaukar]

BTW, if someone is interested about discussion between Finnish and Russian aviation hobbyists about accuracy of air victory claims in Winter War, here is a good 12 page discussion with lot of sources:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9&t=151577

It's not really my cup of tea, but very interesting.

[AW1Steve]

The B-32 Dominator. Although it was developed as an "ace in the hole" in the event that the vastly more complicated B-29 program failed, it was an excellent heavy bomber. It's unfairly compared with the B-29, but really should be judged against the B-17 and B-24s, which it was a vast improvement of, and should have been used to replace (at least in the Pacific, where it's extreme long range would have made it very , very usefull). Had not the A-bombs been deployed, it would have most likely replaced a lot of the B-17's coming over with the 8th AF for the invasion of Japan.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
LOL, so you are disregarding for example Hans Wind's lectures given in Air Force Academy in 1943 based on his combat experiences?

This doesn't even mean he actually was correct in his assessments (see: certain Japanese aces, inluding Saburo Sakae, vocally disliking planes less maneurable than Zero, say Shiden, even though it should have been obvious that Zero was entirely inadequate by late-war). To assessment of Finnish airforce efficiency they are entirely irrelevant. We can only use them as an explanation for it, or lack thereof, once it is established. And the only way to do so is to take archive documents, or data from them, if already published, for both sides and compare. Lundstrom's First Team is a great topical example of this sole correct way of both describing air war and drawing any sort of overarching conclusions about how it went.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
How about you giving some Soviet sources before you disregard others...which is very usual "Soviet history method".

"First do it yourself!" is not a viable counterargument. Particularly when it is used to advocate anti-reason, like measuring effectiveness by one side's own claims (it is deeply ironic, in the light of this, that you accuse me of using "Soviet history method"). Besides, do you even realize that primary sources relevant to this case are massive numbers of unit reports, which can't be provided through a convenient link even if they were scanned (they aren't and aren't going to be in foreseeable future, due to the sheer volume of the surviving Soviet documents). We can only hope someone someday will be interested in the topic enough to dig through them.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
[:'(] We could also compare Finnish air victories to Soviet losses, but RELIABLE data of them is bit difficult to get from Soviet side.

Not particularly difficult for about 20 years now. It's just I can count people who care to actually dig into archives to get it on my fingers, unfortunately. And they are covering more interesting theaters. So, as I said above, I don't actually know of an adequate work on the topic (I might be missing something, of course). In Finnish-related episodes that got into focus due to involvement of VVS KBF (which actions are currently researched by Miroslav Morozov), like the destruction of Svir' hydroelectric power plant dam, or the sinking of Niobe, the Finnish aviation simply failed to show up. The lead cause of losses of Soviet naval aircraft to Finnish fighers in 1943-44, seems to be treating these fighters as nonexistent and sending torpedo bombers on free hunt alone or in pairs (which was ineffective anyway, despite very occasional intercepts...).

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Note that we are discussing WHY FAF achieved lot of victories WITH Brewster vs. Soviet Union and primary tactical source for that is obviously the pilots who flew those combat missions with those planes.

While we should first ask IF they did ("everyone overclaimed" is bad escape clause, because everyone also overclaimed differently, with a strong tendency towards bigger overclaims when things were going south in reality). Do you realize that your position is not different from taking various Japanese claims at face value and then starting to search for reasons why Japanese were apparently able to fight Allies in the air until 1945?

[Sardaukar]

FatR, you have not stated ANY source why those claims and tactical insights would not be correct.

Maybe you should check that http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=151577  where some Russian aviation enthusiasts with access to archives discussed about Winter War losses/claims with similar Finnish aviation enthusiastics. Then come back after you have some Russian sources and are familiar with them. [8D] It is really a good and civil discussion there, even though it is limited to Winter War time.

You have right now only your OPINION to back you up, I have stated long list of OFFICIAL SOURCES. Guess which ones' weight bit more. [8D]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Not necessarily an undeserved bad rap. It was not a great plane. The Finns has a lighter version but basically their great advantage came with a core of veteran pilots fighting against Soviet pilots that were woefully unprepared and under trained flying obsolete pre-war fighters. (sort of a death cocktail [;)]) Even the Finns admitted that once they came up against better Soviet fighters, (Yaks, P40s and Migs) the playing field got very level. It was not the plane in this case but the pilots.

Anywhere else and the Brewster got hammered by better planes.

In general, unless one or more (usually more than one) variables are seriously out of wack, one will not see a terribly disjointed kill ratio (above an exchange of 2:1 or 3:1) This is because there are simply so many factors that influence the ratios, both internal (such as plane or pilot) and external (geographical/doctrinal, battlefield, attitudes of leaders/men, organization etc)

This of course is why kill ratios can be made to support just about any argument, either in favor of one side over another, or to discount the achievements of another etc. One can pick and choose on some variables and call it the key point. For a plane to be a key factor of itself requires a level of superiority not often seen. At one point even the venerable Cr-42 held it's own against modern Hurricanes as did the Ki-27 vs the P40. The Hurricane has one of the most diverse kill ratio histories of any plane.....from winning in Greece against the 109 to competetiveness against the 109 in the BoB.....to being disadvantaged over North Africa and getting an ass kicking in Burma (5:1 vs Ki-43 in favor of the Japanese) to the JG-26 staffel spanking during the first half of 41 (35:0 exchange in favor of the German squadron)

In the case of the USSR, I would agree that the pilots had issues but not always or simply because of lack of training. There was also the post-Purge fear factor that inhibited many VVS pilots and officers from deviating in the slightest, from orders (preferably written for use as evidence should Beria come acalling) The opinions on the Brewster machine are mixed with some sources deriding the plane as bad from inception whilest others call the original design solid but one soon degraded as the weight increased for armor and self sealers. A key problem appears to have been Quality control issues. Brewster IIRC, was the only US aircraft firm to go OUT of business during the boom years of WWII.

I believe the 339 original design was decent, it's stats compared with the early F4F and it did initially beat out the latter as the USN's new fighter. I don't consider it underrated in the end though because it's issues were legion and well documented. That the Finns did so well with it i think is more attributible to their fighting spirit and tactics against an enemy that had been recently emfeebled by it's own government and was conditioned to expect minimal resistance as were the ground troops. The claimed ratio i would discount, even during Barbarossa the Luftwaffe only achieved about a 5:1 overall ratio (though at various times against fighters, it was suggested that the local ratio was as high as 10:1)

On topic, i'd nominate the Ki-43 as a good candidant. This plane gets little respect, as does the H75A, the former because well.....it's Japanese and lightly armed, the latter because its considered "obsolecent." In fairness, another reason the Falcon gets little cred is because few know that during the SRA campaign this plane did well, but often was mis-ID'd as a "Zero" and thus the A6M got all the glory, especially at home. Another factor was that the 43 (particularily the improved Ki-43-II) did it's best fighting post early 42 in Burma, which was primarily a Commonwealth Theater until later in the war. For the H75A/P-36/Mohawk.....this is a good example for a truism....."Obsolecent doesn't mean useless."

[crsutton]

I like this interview with a former Japanese pilot. He talks about the Oscar I and II. Not a big fan. I realize that this in only one pilot but he seems to be fair in his evaluation.

http://youtu.be/u-eBmnpCO18

[jakla1027]

How about the Blenhiem Mk. IV? I have been using them to great effect in the ground attack role in India & Burma. I got air superiority in the skys in that region with my Hurricanes & P-40E's so the few squadrons of Blenhiem Mk. IV's i have thier are free to bomb at will.